With crown prince Mohammed bin Salman at the helm, 2018 was a deeply violent and barbaric year for Saudi Arabia, under his de facto leadership.
Photo:
Deera Square is a public space located in front of the Religious Police building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in which public executions (usually by beheading) take place. It is sometimes known as Justice Square and colloquially called Chop Chop Square. After Friday prayers, police and other officials clear the area to make way for the execution to take place. After the beheading of the condemned, the head is stitched to the body which is wrapped up and taken away for the final rites.
This year execution rates of 149 executions, shows an increase from the previous year of three executions, indicating that death penalty trends are soaring and there is no reversal of this trend in sight.
The execution rates between 2015-2018 are amongst the highest recorded in the Kingdom since the 1990s and coincide with the ascension of king Salman to the throne, upon which executions averaged 151.5 during his reign, peaking at 2015 with 157 executions.
Such alarming statistics indicate that Saudi Arabia is experiencing one if its darkest periods of repression, under the watch of the current king and his son, the crown prince. There are also concerns that the actual execution rate is higher, as ESOHR has found that Saudi Arabia does not officially report all of the executions that it implements.
New trends in the death penalty have also emerged in 2018. Worryingly, this year has witnessed an unprecedented expansion in scope of the use of politically motivated death sentences and death penalty recommendations .
In recent years political death sentences have been disproportionately used against Eastern province activists, using trumped up violent charges despite peaceful dissent, and this discriminatory trend has continued on in 2018. However, this year there has been a widening in scope in use of the death penalty, as the authorities continue to employ it as a political tool of terror, even in the absence of trumped up violent charges. Consequently, new segments of civil society have now been targeted via the death penalty, including female human rights defenders and peaceful clerics, preachers and critics within the kingdom.
This was compounded by a 2018 UN report published by the (now former) Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism and Human Rights, Ben Emmerson, who highlighted serious concerns regarding ‘Use of the death penalty following manifestly unfair trials’, as well as the issuing of death sentences against vulnerable individuals such as those with psycho-social disabilities, minors and those who ‘had been convicted of political offences not involving the use of violence’.
Whilst public relations companies went to great lengths to hail Bin Salman as the mastermind behind ‘Vision 2030’, a plan which was marketed as a blueprint for reform and prosperity in Saudi Arabia, it has since transpired that these glittery reforms were superficial and a mere distraction strategy from the deep repression being employed against civil society.
In this regard, Mohammed bin Salman has gone to great lengths to rally support for his ‘modernisation’ plans, using the death penalty issue as a flag to show ‘reforms’. During an international public relations tour in April 2018, in a televised interview with TIME, Mohammed bin Salman said the following when asked about whether there would be an end to executions:
“We’ve tried to minimize (the death penalty). There are a few areas we can change (or lower the sentence) from execution to life imprisonment. So we are working for two years through the government and also the Saudi parliament to build new laws in that area. And we believe it will take one year, maybe a little bit more, to have it finished. Yeah, of course it’s an initiative. But we will not get it 100 percent, but to reduce it big time”.
However, this statement is not reflected in the death penalty statistics of 2018. Execution rates have sky rocketed in the last four years do not indicate any attempts to ‘minimise’ or ‘reduce’, with 2018 showing an increase in executions from the previous year.
Furthermore, if such an intention to reduce the death penalty was genuine, it has not been officially reported and neither has a corresponding immediate moratorium on existing death sentence cases been imposed until the new laws are in place. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the crown prince’s claims.
This recent recourse to the death penalty, goes against global trends towards abolition of the capital punishment, and questions Saudi Arabia’s commitment to human rights principles, namely the right to life, which is a non-derogable and fundamental human right:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life”. (ICCPR, Article 6)
These concerning 2018 execution rates and trends reflect the wider abysmal state of the human landscape in Saudi Arabia, a year which witnessed a crackdown on women’s rights defenders who were later tortured in detention, as well as the murder of extra territorial murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, whom Saudi Arabia acknowledged on October 19, 2018, was killed in its Istanbul consulate by its own agents sent from Saudi Arabia.
Trends in the Death penalty
➧ Use of the Death Penalty Against Female Activists
In August 2018, during her first trial, the Saudi public prosecution called for the death penalty sentence against female human rights defender, Israa Al-Ghomgham, a well known Arab spring female human rights defender from Qatif. This appears to be a dangerous precedent, as it will be the first time that the death penalty sentence has been demanded against a women human rights defenders.
Israa was detained in December 2016 during a raid on her home without a warrant, and was held in arbitrary detention for 32 months without access to a lawyer. Israa hearing was held at the notorious Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) in Riyadh and her trial proceedings so far have been grossly unfair.
During her first court session, Israa was denied a lawyer, and during both her second and third hearing, Israa was not transported to the courtroom and remained absent. Israa’s trial is still ongoing, and the final outcome of the trial still has not been concluded. Israa is being trialed en masse, and all the trumped up charges leveled against Israa part of her charge list her are non-violent in nature, yet the prosecution is still pursuing the death penalty for her, using dubious domestic counter terror laws.
All this comes despite UN experts naming her in a statement issued in October in which they stated:
‘Referring to Ms. Al-Ghomgham’s trial in the Specialised Criminal Court, the experts condemned the conflation of human rights activities with terrorism. “Measures aimed at countering terrorism should never be used to suppress or curtail human rights work.’
There are also concerns for the women human rights defenders (WHRD’s) arrested during the crackdown on women’s rights activists in May 2018.
The 2018 crackdown on WHRD’s included: LoujainHathloul, Aziza al-Yousef and Iman al-Nafjan, Nouf bin abdulaziz, Mayaa Al-Zahraini, Samar Badawi and Naseema Al-Sadah amongst others.
It is believed these WHRD’s will now face national security cases in the SCC, and it is feared that the outcome of Israa’s trial may well act as a precedent for their cases when they will eventually come to trial.
Worryingly, pro-government newspaper Okaz, published an article followed the initial first wave of arrests of Loujain, Aziza and Iman, indicated that the trial of these WHRD’s may well lead to taa’zir(discretionary) death penalties.
➧ Widening of the scope of politically motivated death sentences
In previous years, the death penalty has been used as a tool of terror disproportionately against Eastern province activists, seeking to equate their peaceful activism with terrorism, as they did with Sheikh Nimr in 2016.
This trend has continued on into 2018, particularly with the ongoing high-profile mass trial of human rights defender Israa Al-Ghomgham. This was also concurred in Ben Emmerson’s UN report, where he highlights that since his visit in 2017 ‘several more individuals have been sentence to death and face imminent execution for their involvement in pro-democracy demonstrations in the east of the country in 2011 and 2012’.
In 2018, a new pattern related to politically motivated death sentences has emerged. In recent years, the Saudi authorities went to great lengths to use trumped up violent against peaceful activists. This is exemplified with the case of non-violent social justice activist Sheikh Al-Nimr, who is famously quoted as saying ‘the roar of the word, not the roar of bullets’.
During Sheikh Nimr’s trial, the authorities went to great lengths to frame him as violent, levelling fabricated, trumped up violent charges against him. Following a grossly unfair trial and after a long campaign to equate and blur his non-violent activism with terrorism, the Saudi government executed Sheikh Nimr as part of a mass execution of 47 other individuals which included protestors and minors.
However, a more recent development during 2018, is that Saudi Arabia’s Public Prosecution, which reports directly to King Salman, has intensified its horrific demands for the death penalty against an increasing spectrum of government critics, shamelessly demanding the death penalty on the basis on peaceful charges. Consequently, new segments of civil society have now been targeted via death penalty, including female human rights defenders and peaceful clerics, preachers and critics from all regions of the kingdom, but the difference is that now the authorities instead have no hesitation in shamelessly using solely peaceful charges to justify death sentences. For example, in the case of Israa Al-Ghomgham, all the trumped up charges levelled against as part of her charge list her are non-violent in nature, yet the prosecution is still pursuing the death penalty for her.
Consequently, in September 2017, the Saudi authorities undertook a crackdown on dissent, in which several clerics were arbitrarily detained and later taken to trial.
In September 2018, the public prosecution called for the execution of Sheikh Salman Al-Odah, a popular cleric, during his first court hearing at the SCC. Al-Odah was arrested in connection with his refusal to support Mohammed Bin Salman’s policies towards Qatar and posted a tweet calling for reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Qatar just before his arrest in September 2017.
Sheikh Al-Odah’s trial was initiated secret and closed, and even he himself was not informed of the commencement of the trial. The was charged under counter terror laws and some of his 37 charges include: ‘Seeking to spread sedition’ and ‘incitement against the rulers’. In addition, Al-Odah has suffered severe health problems during the course of his detention. The final outcome of his secret trial, which has been marred by due process concerns, has yet to be determined, with the next hearing postponed until February 2019.
In the same week of September 2018, two other clerics were also targeted in a similar fashion during trials at the SCC.
The Saudi public prosecution also recommended the death penalty against prominent cleric Awad Al-Qarni who arrested in September 2017, as well as public figure and scholar Ali Al-Omari, who was also a director for a channel called ‘Al-Shabab’ and featured in several popular TV shows. Likewise, sources report that demands for the execution of the distinguished Islamic scholar Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, were made by the public prosecution during his trial which began October 2018. Al-Maliki is charged in relation to his religious beliefs that conflict with that of the official extremist religious institution. He is known for his non-sectarian, moderate and inclusive Islamic teachings.
➧ Mass death penalty trials
In recent years, mass death penalty cases became commonplace, as exemplified by the trial of 32 individuals referred to in Saudi media as ‘Iranian spy ring’ trial, in which 32 individuals were put on trial, and resulted in 12 of them receiving a death sentence. Unfortunately, this trend of ‘en masse’ death penalty trials has continued on into 2018.
In August 2018, a mass trial was held at the SCC against six Eastern Province Arab spring activists: Israa Al-Ghomgham, Khalid Al-Ghanem, Sayid Musa Al-Hashim (Israa’s husband), Ali Al-Awayshir, Ahmed Al-Matrod and Mujtaba Al-Muzayin.
During the first court session of this trial, the Saudi prosecutors demanded the death penalty for all individuals apart from Al-Muzayin. This mass trial is ongoing and the final outcome and sentencing is expected in 2019.
2018 Statistics on Death Penalty
➧ 2018 Execution Rates
At 149 executions in 2018, execution rates exceed the previous year figures, and overall the statistics indicate a soaring of execution rates in the last three years. Whilst 2018 rates are not highest of recent years, there has been no dramatic reduction in the Saudi authorities use of the death penalty since 2015. To the contrary, executions rates between 2015-2018 have been at the highest since 1992.
➧ Execution statistics breakdown by nationality
Out of 149 individuals executed, 74 of those where Saudi citizens, whilst the remainder of those executed were foreign nationals, with the exception of one stateless person (Bidoon).
2018 Executions statistics for 2018 show that 50% of those executed were foreign nationals. 22% of those executed were Pakistani nationals, making them the foreign demographic group with the highest execution rates (33 Pakistani nationals were executed in total). All other foreign nationals executed were of Middle Eastern, Asian or African nationalities, with the exception of one stateless individual (Bidoon).
In 2018, 59 individuals were executed for drugs related offences, 79 for murder related offences and 11 for other offences such as armed robbery and adultery. International law stipulates that the death penalty can only be implemented by retentionist states for the ‘Most serious of crimes’, which has been interpreted as being intentional killing. Drugs related crimes do not fall under the category of most serious crimes.
➧ Execution of Women
Two women were executed this year. One was an Ethiopian woman, whilst, another Indonesian woman, Tuti Tursilawati. The latter execution was not being officially announced by the Saudi government.
In this regard, several media outlets including‘ABC News’ and ‘Diplomacy’, published articles on the Saudi execution of an Indonesian women maid worker in March 2018, who was executed without informing the concerned Indonesian diplomatic authorities. The execution was carried out despite the Indonesian president’s request to lessen the punishment after obtaining information about the lack of fair trial conditions, such as the insufficient access to legal aid. The unfair nature of this case, also highlights that foreign nationals are also particularly vulnerable to a deprivation of due process.
➧ The execution of minors
Execution announcements are published following implementation of an execution order via portal spa.gov. This official publication does not mention the ages of those executed, but based on official reports there were no minors executed in 2018. However, ESOHR cannot confirm, there were no minors executed in 2018, especially with the existence of precedents for Saudi Arabia in the execution of minors, and the presence of minors currently on death row awaiting execution.
➧ Issues related to reporting of executions: Misreporting
The official source of executions in Saudi Arabia is via the portal spa.gov. which announces the execution once it has been implemented. However, according to ESOHR’s monitoring, the government has concealed one executions that take place and failed to officially announce the implementation, as in the case of the Indonesian woman executed in October 2018. This is very alarming, as it means that official statistics from the Saudi government may be heavily under reporting execution rates in a way which is grossly misleading and inaccurate.
The execution rates reported by ESOHR have been solely based on official execution reports from the spa.gov portal, with the exception of the execution of the Indonesian woman, who execution was reported in foreign media. This raises questions as to how many other executions cases have gone unreported by the Saudi authorities.
➧ Individuals at risk of execution
As well as monitoring execution rates, ESOHR also monitors those at risk of execution. Currently, 58 individuals stand at risk of execution, at different legal stages,8 of whomwere minors at the time of the ‘crime’, including: Ali Al-Nimr, Dawood Al-Marhoon, Abdullah Al-Zaher, Abdul Kareem Al-Hawaj, Mujtaba Al-Suwaiket, Said al-Skafi, Salman al-Quraish, and Abdullah Al-Sarih.
In particular, in November 2018, the case files of 12 men convicted of spying for Iran and spreading the Shia faith, including that of Abbas Al-Hassan, was transferred to the Presidency of the State Security (PSS) by Royal Decree.
All these men have exhausted all legal remedies and such administrative file transfers represents a strong indication that their files are being prepared for an imminent execution. This comes despite seven United Nations rapporteurs issuing a statement in May 2018, calling upon Saudi Arabia to halt executions that threaten the lives of Abbas Hassan and others individuals accused of espionage for Iran in Saudi Arabia.
Areas of concern surrounding the death penalty
➧ Detention and the use of torture
Recent examples on violations of torture, cruel and inhumane treatment undertaken during detention are well documented. Such violations are usually done during interrogation to elicit information and torture-based confessions.
Scholar, Salman Al-Odah, who may be sentenced to death, was subjected to 24 hour long durations of interrogation, derived of sleep, had his feet shackled and was placed in solitary confinement. He was also denied medical care for dangerously high blood pressure to the point where he had to be hospitalized.
Ali Al-Awaishir, who is facing a death penalty recommendation, as part of the mass trial alongside Israa Al-Ghomgham, was verbally psychologically tortured by insults such as being called names such as ‘dog’, ‘donkey’ and ‘animal’. Al- Awaishirwas threatened during his interrogation by an investigator who said:
“If you do not confess, we will bring your children and torture and whip you in front of them, then burn you until death. Then we will issue a report to say that you died of a heart attack”.
Al-Awaishir was also physically tortured by being asked to raised his handcuffed hands above his head and stand for long periods of time until he became unconscious. He was also subjected to whipping.
Using evidence such as torture based confessions to sentence individuals to death, renders such death sentence invalid and unlawful. ESOHR has documented multiple examples of torture based confessions being used and accepted by Judges at the SCC, despite complaints made by defendants that they have been tortured into given those confessions. Such complaints are routinely ignored by judges. This was the case for child protestor Ali al-Nimr, who was sentenced to death in 2014.
In death penalty cases, individuals can be subjected to multiple violations of due process during various legal stages, including: detention, pre-trial, in-trial and post-trial. Thus, any death penalty, where due process and a fair trial have not been strictly observed can be considered unlawful. In many of the cases documented by, death penalties were issued after grossly unfair trials and violate international law on imposition of the death penalty.
➧ Withholding the bodies after execution
In 2018, the international community was overcome with horror, after learning that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, on what appears to be an order from the highest Saudi authorities. Jamal’s body was never recovered, with some reports claiming it was dissolved in acid. In fact, the Saudi authorities have used the barbaric practice of hiding detaining the bodies of individuals who have been executed or are victims extrajudicial killings.
Since January 2016, it has systematically engaged in this practise, concealing the whereabouts of the corpses and denying the families the right to perform burial rites. To date, ESOHR has documented a total of 32 bodies which have remained hidden and have not been returned to their families.
Saudi Arabia has carried out the death penalty against people who exercised peaceful freedom of expression, reflecting its willingness to disregard dissenters’ right to life whenever it wants. On January 2, 2016, the Saudi government carried out a mass execution of 47 people, including social justice activist Sheikh Nimr Al-Nimr, as well as child minors Mustafa Abker, Meshaal Al-Faraj, and Abdul Aziz Al-Ghamdi, child demonstrator Ali Al-Ribh, protrstor Mohammed Al-Shuyukh, Mohammed Al-Suweimel who had non-violent charges, along with the mentally handicapped Abdul Aziz Al-Taweeli.
Public execution in Saudi Arabia. Warning: Graphic Content
Not only did the Saudi government carry out these unjust sentences and ignore all international criticism and accountability, it also completed a series of violations and crimes by detaining some of the bodies. Following these the executions, some families issued statements demanding the handover of the bodies of their loved ones for burial according to their wishes or directives. Some families also submitted various claims to the official authorities.
In July 2017, the Saudi government carried out another death penalty against victims sentenced to death after a trial that largely lacked the most basic conditions for fair trials. Its victims were Yousef Al-Mushaykhes, Amjad Al-Moaibad, Zaher Al-Basri, and Mahdi Al-Sayegh.
The charges against them included the exercise of freedom of expression and demonstration, along with other charges including use of violence without any concrete evidence other than confessions under torture and coercion. None of the charges were classified as serious crimes. After the families learned of the executions through the media, they published a statement calling for “the bodies to be turned over.”
Between 2011 and 2018, the government, in the context of its use of excessive violence and arbitrary measures, has violated the right to life and killed at least 83 people in Qatif alone in a variety of ways, including torture and arbitrary executions, street assassinations, incineration, raids, and prison killings. Victims of extrajudicial killing whose bodies have not yet been returned to families include the child Waleed Al-Orayedh.
After the mass execution in January 2016, Saudi Arabia has clearly renewed its practice of holding on to the bodies of victims of excessive violence and summary or arbitrary killing. With the case of journalist Jamal Khashoggi– whom Saudi Arabia acknowledged on October 19, 2018, was killed in its Istanbul consulate by its own agents who came from Saudi Arabia and has yet to offer any official indications so far about the fate of his body.
The Apparatus Saudi Arabia uses to Justify Executions
In order to add formality to the façade, Saudi Arabia needs to justify political executions, it uses various apparatus to give apparent justification and legitimization to judicial outcomes, including: Extremist Religious interpretations, Specialised Criminal court, Domestic Laws (Cybercrimes law, Counter-terrorism laws and discretionary taa’zir sentences) and media smear campaigns.
➧ Religious Extremism: Wahabbism as the state religion
Religion is employed in a is distorted, radical and extremist manner by the Saudi government, who adopt the ultra-conservative religious interpretation of Wahabbism. The Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, asserted that he will destroy extremism, return to mainstream Islam, and undertake steps such as receiving a delegation of American evangelical Christians. However, there were no signs that the end of extremism would encompass a cessation of its use against human rights defenders.
➧ Counter Terror Court: Specialized Criminal Court (SCC)
The SCC was enacted in 2008, and was initially set up by the Saudi government as a counter terrorism court to try individuals accused of terrorism, but has been increasingly used to trial various political detainees, such as human rights defenders, protesters, children and journalists.
The irreversible nature of the death penalty means that it can only implemented only if strict procedural safeguards have been strictly observed, and this extreme ‘penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court’[1]. Human rights case law also clarifies that any death sentence arising from an unfair trial is void and unlawful.
ESOHR has documented multiple trials held at the SCC which fell grossly short of international standards of due process and a fair trial. In addition to unfair trials, they also have no codified jurisdiction, which makes it difficult for defendants or acting lawyers to obtain an adequate defence.
The lack of jurisdiction has enabled the Saudi government, in more than 10 years since its inception, to expand the types of victims it punishes, without victims being able to object on the basis of their trial. In general, the court has become a holocaust for all those who the government wants to punish, and an apparatus used to intimidate civil society.
The judicial system itself as well as the courts being used to put individuals on trial are non-independent in nature and heavily controlled by the state. Furthermore, the entire infrastructure of the judicial system, is undermined by a recent royal decree which ordains that the public prosecution should directly report to King Salman for the purpose of ‘observing justice and protecting society’. However, such a decree will undermine the independence of the public prosecution.
➧ Domestic Laws: Cyber crime laws, Counter terrorism laws& Discretionary sentencing(Taa’zir)
The establishment of a set of domestic laws has overridden and taken precedent over many of the international conventions to which Saudi Arabia is a state party to, such as the convention against Torture. Thus, domestic laws are used as apparatus to allows the practice of repression in the name of law.
In 2007, local Cybercrime laws were enacted, which give the authorities the right to punish any those who deals with electronic devices, storage media or social access networks by imprisonment of up to 6 years and a fine of up to 500,000 riyals.
The Terrorism Crimes and its Financing System (Also known as the counter terror law) also established in 2014 and later revised in 2017. This laws broad formulation allows for a wide range of criminalization, where even criticism of the king or the crown prince can be considered a terrorist act.
ESOHR, in cooperation with others organisations, produced legal analysis of the two versions of the two sets of counter terrorism laws. Legal expert Michael Newton concluded that the law “removes the little remaining respect for human rights and fails to comply with legal standards.”
This is concurred by the former UN Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights in the context of counterterrorism, Ben Emmerson, who said that the counter terrorism in Saudi Arabia is used against activists and others.
Discretionary sentences (taa’zir) also result in biased sentencing. ESOHR noted that two sets of punishments were handed down for the same charges. ESOHR also noted that the same charges that were brought against other prisoners led to them receiving death sentences and others were sentenced to a variable number of years. This is called taa’zir. This means that the judge uses his own discretion in the judgment sets a punishment as he sees fit. This allows huge scope for bias and politicization to influence sentencing.
This comes despite the fact that Islamic schools of thought do not see in any case that Ta’zirshould result in the death penalty, but Saudi Arabia does not mirror the opinion of the majority Islamic jurists, and opts for a rare and narrow interpretation of taa’zir.
➧ Media smear campaigns
In Saudi Arabia the media is heavily regulated and there is no independent media within the kingdom, and journalist who offer critical opinions are regularly imprisoned.
Pro-government media represent a form of ideological state apparatus which are used to influence public opinion thorough the use of smear campaigns which smear the reputation of activists, may have sectarian undertones and publish false claims, attempting to swerve public opinion into believing a death penalty is warranted.
Such smear campaigns have been documented in several cases, most notably the aggressive smear campaign against Sheikh NimrBaqir Al-Nimr, in which the defamatory campaign against him was so intense, it was published in both national and transnational media networks linked to Saudi Arabia. Such smear campaign violates an individual’s right to the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the media as a repressive mechanism, seeks to influence and dominate the public sphere by marketing these death sentences as the application of God’s divine law (according to Shariah law), leaving no room for civil society to refute such a death sentence.
Outlook for 2019
Whilst ESOHR acknowledge the importance responses following sheikh Nimr execution by UN High commissioner’s office, such as the statements of condemnation following Sheikh Nimr’s execution in 2016, it should be noted that this reactive response came after the execution and what is required now is a more preventative strategy, proactive response by the international community.
In this regard, in 2018, some positive progress has been made, following various statements calling on Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of children, those accused of spying and even individually named in their statements Ms Israa Al-Ghomgham and in another statement Abbas Al-Hassan.
The UN issued a statement decrying Saudi Arabia’s persistent use of counter terror laws to prosecute activists and named reformer Salman Al-Odah. ESOHR supports these important advocacy efforts by the UN in this regard.
With execution rates showing no sign of decline, and misreporting by the Saudi government, the outlook for 2019 is very bleak. Stronger international condemnation is required to apply pressure on Saudi Arabia to reverse this shameful record of death, that has earned Saudi Arabia it’s reputation as an ultra repressive state.
Source: esohr.org, January 16, 2019. ESOHR is a nonprofit organization establishment created by a group of activists aiming to strengthen the commitment to human rights principles in Saudi Arabia.
Human Rights in Saudi Arabia ... nothing to hide
HRC (Human Rights Commission) asserts truth by denouncing falsehood spread by organizations with efficient report
Excerpts from this lengthy propaganda article:
- Organizations hostile to the Kingdom are still hoping to “demonize the Kingdom” by intensifying claims of “human rights violations” and spreading a bunch of lies, as they believe that the strategy of “the engineer of Nazi propaganda” Joseph Goebbels — “Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth” — might make their futile attempts a success.
- All the reforms achieved by the Kingdom, whether concerning the performance of its organizations or its laws and regulations during the past two years, are clearly evident to all.
- The international rights organizations are continuing their lies and false accusations against the Kingdom.
- In its statement, the Ministry of Media said that recent reports published by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are baseless and untrue.
- The Kingdom’s regulations forbid torture of all kinds.
WARNING: HIGHLY DISTURBING VIDEO and AUDIO
Laila Bint Abdul Muttalib Basim, a Burmese woman who resided in KSA, was executed by sword
in January 2015 after being pushed down by four police officers. She was convicted of the sexual
abuse and murder of her seven-year-old step-daughter. The video shows how it took three
blows to complete the execution, while the woman screamed “I did not kill. I did not kill.”
- Among the most critical requirements, is explaining to defendants that they have the full right to hire a lawyer or appoint a representative. If they cannot pay all the expenses, then the Ministry of Justice will bear these expenses. Translators can be provided for non-Arabic speaking defendants.
- The charges leveled by the Public Prosecution against the defendant should conform to the concepts mentioned in the human rights agreements to which the Kingdom has become a signatory.
- The Kingdom has made tremendous accomplishments in the domain of “human rights.” 😄
- The Kingdom has succeeded in translating its keenness to introduce human rights into its laws and regulations in a process of updating and developing legislations which has continued for many years.
- The setting up of an independent commission for human rights is one of the manifestations of the Kingdom’s implementation of the principles of human rights mentioned in the Basic System of Governance. 😄
- The Kingdom’s leadership is working diligently toward issuing legislation and regulations aimed at protecting human rights, consolidating and inculcating them, as well as achieving justice and equality for all.
- This will be conducive to spreading the culture of human rights due to the belief in the lofty principles and values guaranteed by the Islamic Shariah. At the same time, they will protect legitimate rights and freedoms. 😄😄😄
- The efforts of the Saudi Human Rights Commission (HRC) are continuing. Most of the time, the HRC is working silently away from the limelight and publicity of the media, as it respects the privacy of those for whose sake it is working diligently at all levels.
➤
Click here to read the full original article
Source:
saudigazette.com.sa, Norah Mohammed AlHaqbani, January 28, 2019
⚑ | Report an error, an omission, a typo; suggest a story or a new angle to an existing story; submit a piece, a comment; recommend a resource; contact the webmaster, contact us:
deathpenaltynews@gmail.com.
Opposed to Capital Punishment? Help us keep this blog up and running! DONATE!
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted." -- Oscar Wilde
