Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 901-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Elina Steinerte ◽  
Rebecca M. M. Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Assault And Battery ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Case No. [2006] UKHL 26. At <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldjudgmt.htm>.House of Lords, June 14, 2006.The House of Lords handed down judgment in Jones v. Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on June 14, 2006. The case concerns an action in damages brought by Jones and three other applicants, all UK citizens, falsely accused of involvement in bombings in Riyadh in 2001 and 2002. The four allege that they were repeatedly tortured while in prison in Saudi Arabia and that they suffered severe psychological and physical harm as a result. Seeking aggravated and exemplary damages from Saudi Arabia's Ministry of the Interior and the Saudi officials allegedly responsible, the applicants filed claims of, inter alia, torture, assault and battery, trespass to the person, and unlawful imprisonment. In the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, Saudi Arabia claimed immunity on its own behalf and on that of its officials. The Court of Appeal agreed with the former but denied the latter; all the involved parties appealed the decision. The House of Lords agreed with Saudi Arabia by upholding state immunity in civil proceedings brought against a state and its officials in a different country for alleged torture.

The First Pinochet Case: Immunity of a Former Head of State

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 207-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
Hazel Fox
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Sovereign Power ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Head Of State ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Reversal Of Fortune

The case of Pinochet has aroused enormous interest, both political and legal. The spectacle of the General, whose regime sent so many to their deaths, himself under arrest and standing trial has stirred the hopes of the oppressed. His reversal of fortune, loss of liberty with a policeman, on the door, has been heralded by organisations for the protection of human rights as one small step on the long road to justice. For lawyers generally, the House of Lords' majority decision of 1998 that General Pinochet enjoyed no immunity signalled a shift from a State-centred order of things.1 It suggested that the process of restriction of State immunity, so effectively begun with the removal of commercial transactions from its protection, might now extend some way into the field of criminal proceedings. And it further posed the intriguing question whether an act categorised as within the exercise of sovereign power, so as to relieve the individual official of liability in civil proceedings, may at the same time, as well as subsequent to his retirement, attract parallel personal criminal liability.

THE TORTURE EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL SUIT

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-19
Author(s):  
Surabhi Ranganathan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
Civil Suit ◽  
Jus Cogens

THE European Court of Human Rights' (ECtHR) judgment in Jones and others v U.K. (2014) 59 E.H.R.R. 1 is the latest word on a long-running debate about whether public international law excludes foreign State immunities before domestic courts in civil proceedings relating to the violation of jus cogens norms, particularly the prohibition against torture. The case joined applications by Mr. Jones and Messrs. Mitchell, Sampson and Walker, all British (or dual) nationals, alleging that the UK's grant of immunity to Saudi Arabia (in Mr. Jones's case) and to Saudi Arabian public officials (in both cases) amounted to a disproportionate interference with their right of access to court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECtHR decided, by six votes to one, that the House of Lords' judgment in Jones vMinistry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabyia AS Saudiya (the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) [2006] UKHL 26; [2007] 1 A.C. 270) (“Jones [HL]”) was correct in finding that public international law did not recognise a “torture” exception to the general rule of State immunity in civil proceedings and, consequently, did not infringe Article 6 of the ECHR.

Pediatrics’ Total Parenteral Nutrition: Initiative and implementation of standardized formulation in Saudi Arabia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 492-496
Author(s):  
Yousef Ahmed Alomi ◽  
Hussam Saad Almalki ◽  
Aisha Omar Fallatah ◽  
Awatif Faraj Alshammari ◽  
Nesreen Al-Shubbar
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Drug Related Problems ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Parental Nutrition ◽  
Management Project ◽  
Improve Patient ◽  
New System

The national total parental nutrition program with an emphasis on pediatrics started before several ago at Ministry of health hospitals In Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The program covered several regions and consisted from the foundation of Intravenous Admixture and preparation of pediatric parenteral nutrition to administration and follow up of patients outcomes. In addition to the prior system, the new initiative project with the standardized formulation of pediatric’s parenteral nutrition is the complementary project of the parental nutrition for pediatrics. The project initiated to prevent drug-related problems of parental nutrition, improve patient clinical outcome and reduce the unnecessary economic burden on the healthcare system. It is the new system in the Middle East and Gulf counties in additional to Saudi Arabia. The initiatives are the systemic implementation of standardized pediatrics formulation using management project tools of starting new idea until finding in the ground.

Adult’s Total Parenteral Nutrition: Initiative and Implementation of Standardized Formulation in Saudi Arabia

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-487
Author(s):  
Yousef Ahmed Alomi ◽  
Hussam Saad Almalki ◽  
Aisha Omar Fallatah ◽  
Awatif Faraj Alshammari ◽  
Nahedh Rashed Alotaibi
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Pharmacy Practice ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Parental Nutrition ◽  
International Regulations ◽  
One Year ◽  
New Formulation ◽  
New System

The general administration of pharmaceutical care started potential pharmacy practice program. The program is part of accreditation professional’s process of national and international regulations. The adult’s parenteral nutrition was one of the critical programs. The most healthcare professionals are not familiar with the new system. The new initiatives system adult’s standardized concentration formulation of total parental nutrition as complementary to the previous one. The new formulation consisted of all parental nutrition requirements based on national and international standards. The new system can be converted as computerized physician orders. The new initiatives may implement as project management model over one year or less than that’s. The new system prevents nutrition-related problems, and medication errors, and improve clinical outcomes of the adults’ population in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Filipino Guest Workers, Gender Segregation, and the Changing Social/Labor-Scape in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 503-512
Author(s):  
Simeon S. Magliveras
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Migrant Workers ◽  
Major Part ◽  
Gender Segregation ◽  
Guest Workers ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Gcc Countries ◽  
Overseas Filipino Workers ◽  
Dress Codes ◽  
Social Labor

Filipinos are a major part of the workforce in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with a population of almost one million. This article investigates the effects of gender segregation on Filipino workers and how they navigate their lives through systems imposed on them. In particular, it examines the Kafala system (administrative sponsoring system) used for recruiting migrant workers for GCC countries. This article suggests that contrary beliefs about gender segregation and dress codes, Filipinas found it empowering. However, this article also concludes that gender segregation and dress codes also lead to isolation and loneliness. In addition, it is concluded that the fate and contentment of the overseas Filipino workers are directly dependent on who sponsors them.

Critical Analysis of Patient and Family Rights in JCI Accreditation and Cbahi Standards for Hospitals

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 324
Author(s):  
Zuber Mujeeb Shaikh
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Joint Commission ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia ◽  
Accreditation Standards ◽  
Joint Commission International ◽  
Central Board

Patient and Family Rights (PFR) is a common chapter available in the Joint Commission International (JCI) Accreditation[i] (fifth edition) and Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions (CBAHI) Standards for hospitals (second edition)[ii]. JCI Accreditation is a USA based international healthcare accrediting organization, whereas CBAHI is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based national health care accrediting organization. However, both these standards are accredited by Ireland based International Society for Quality in Health Care (ISQua), which is the only accrediting organization who “accredit the accreditors' in the world. In Patient and Family Rights (PFR) chapter of JCI Accreditation for hospitals, there are nineteen (19) standards and seventy-seven (77) measurable elements (ME) whereas in CBAHI Accreditation there are thirty one (31) standards, ninety nine (99) sub-standards and fifty (50) evidence(s) of compliance (EC). The scoring mechanism is totally different in both these accrediting organizations. The researcher has identified thirty two (32) common parameters from JCI Accreditation and CBAHI standards, intent statement, measurable elements, sub-standard and evidence of compliance. On the basis of these identified common parameters, the researcher has compared the Patient and Family Rights chapter in JCI Accreditation and CBAHI Standards. Methods: This is a comparison study (normative comparison) in which the researcher has critically analyzed and compared the Patient and Family Rights (PFR) standards of JCI (Joint Commission International) Accreditation of USA (United States of America) and CBAHI (Central Board for Accreditation of Healthcare Institutions) of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Data Collection: Primary data are collected from the JCI Accreditation Standards for hospitals, fifth edition, 2013 and CBAHI Standards for hospitals of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, second edition, 2011. Secondary data are collected from relevant published journals, articles, research papers, academic literature and web portals. Objectives of the Study: The aim of this study is to analyze critically Patient and Family Rights (PFR) Standards in JCI Accreditation and CBAHI Standards to point out the best in among both these standards. Conclusion: This critical analysis of Patient and Family Rights (PFR) Standards in JCI Accreditation and CBAHI Standards for hospitals clearly show that the PFR Standards in CBAHI Standards are very comprehensive than the JCI Accreditation standards.

Basic pharmacy research knowledge in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2020 ◽  
pp. 1216-1225
Author(s):  
Yousef Alomi ◽  
Ammar Alabdullatif ◽  
Abdulsalam Alharbi ◽  
Ali Altebainawi
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document