b. Pre-trial detention should not be the general rule: it should only be used in criminal proceedings as a last resort, and for the shortest possible time period, when required to meet the needs of justice or of the investigation of the alleged offence or in order to protect society or the victim5; c. Conditions of confinement in a police cell on 25-26 September 2016 constituted inhuman and degrading treatment6; d. Deprivation of liberty is arbitrary when detention, including pre-trial detention, is based on criminal offences that are vaguely or ambiguously defined – in this case, Al-Drees faced an extended period of pre-trial detention on the basis of three such charges7; e. The right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law is an absolute right, which can never been derogated from, restricted or limited – the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the prosecution and guarantees that guilt cannot be found unless proved beyond reasonable doubt8; the rules of evidence and conduct of the trial should ensure that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution throughout the trial. The ongoing trial has effectively placed the burden on Al-Drees to show that the tweets were neither insulting to, nor critical of, the Emir; f. The principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) of criminal offences means that, in order to be termed a criminal offence, the specific type of behaviour to be punished needs to be strictly classified in law as an offence and the definition of all criminal offences must be precise and free of ambiguity. Definitions of criminal offences that are vague, ambiguous and imprecise contravene international human rights law and the general conditions prescribed by international law.9 The central charges brought against AlDrees act as a broad and unpredictable suppression of free speech and, by their wording, pose a significant obstacle to any Defendant being able to successfully mount a defence. 5 Article 9 (3) of the ICCPR; Principle 36 (2) of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; and Rule 6 (1) of the United Nations Standards Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules); Human Rights Committee, Views of 5 November 1999, Aage v. Norway, Communication No 631/1995, para. 6.3; and Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 8, Right to liberty and security of persons (Article 9), para 3. 6 Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Article 7 (Prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), para. 6; Committee against Torture Reports A/54/44, paras. 121 and 146; A/53/44, para. 135; and A/55/44, para. 182; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment 29 July 1988, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Series C No. 4, para. 156 and Judgment of 12 November 1997, Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Series C No. 35, paras. 90-91. 7 See: UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Fact Sheet No. 26: Working Group on Arbitrary Detention; and UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.1, para. 129. 8 Human Rights Committee, Views of 24 July 2006, Francisco Juan Larrañaga v. The Philippines, Communication No. 1421/2005, para. 7.4. 9 UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, UN Document E/CN.4/1998/39/Add.1, para. 129. See also, Human Rights Committee: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Portugal (Macau), CCPR/C/79/Add.115, 4 November 1999, para. 12; Algeria, CCPR/C/79/Add.95, 18 August 1998, para. 11; Egypt, CCPR/C/79/ Add.23, 9 August 1993, para. 8; Peru, CCPR/C/79/Add.67, 25 July 1996, para. 12; Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, CCPR/CO/72/PRK, 27 August 2001, para. 14; Belgium, CCPR/CO/81/BEL, 12 August 2004, para. 24; Iceland, CCPR/CO/83/ISL, 25 April 2005, para. 10; Estonia, CCPR/CO/77/EST, 15 April 2003, para. 8; and Canada, CCPR/C/CAN/CO/5, 20 April 2006, para. 12. See also: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment of 30 May 1999, Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru, Series C, No. 52, para. 121; and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1983-1984, p.85, para. 7, and the Second report on the situation of human rights in Peru, doc. cit. 76, para. 80. 9