The European Saudi Organization for Human Rights participated in a symposium within the framework of the fourth regional conference on the death penalty in Amman in a speech entitled: The scope of the death penalty in legal frameworks.
The legal director of ESOHR, Taha Alhajji, pointed out that Saudi Arabia is one of the countries in the world that applies the death penalty the most. Unfortunately, since this conference is being held in Jordan, there will be no participation of any party from Saudi Arabia, official or opposition.
He recalled the previous participation in Berlin and the glimmer of hope that was looming on the horizon after Saudi Arabia stopped carrying out executions in drug-related cases. He was disappointed, after the end of the conference, by Saudi Arabia's return to executions after a hiatus of more than two years and ten months.
Alhajji explained that Saudi Arabia carries out executions on a large scale. Since January 2015, when King Salman and his son took power until today, Saudi Arabia has carried out more than 1,080 executions.
The speech indicated that Saudi Arabia says that it relies on Islamic law in issuing death sentences. Despite promises of legislative reforms, Saudi Arabia has not issued a penal code to this day. Therefore, judges retain wide powers in determining what behaviour constitutes a crime and the type of punishment, and death sentences are issued according to the three categories: Qisas, Hadd and Ta'zir.
- Qisas: The punishment for qisas includes crimes of bodily harm and causing death, including premeditated murder and manslaughter. If a defendant is sentenced to qisas, the victim's family can request the death penalty or accept monetary compensation known as blood money, or they can waive their right.
- Hudud: Fixed and mandatory punishment, and is seen as the right of God, and it is considered one of the most severe crimes, and there are legal, procedural and evidentiary requirements that must be adhered to for the judge to issue his ruling.
- Ta’zir: It applies to crimes that are considered lawsuits against the state or society, and it is discretionary, meaning that it is either legislated by the state or determined by the judge if it is not mentioned in Sharia or laws
Alhajji pointed out that the justice system in Saudi Arabia includes several defects, which make any death sentence an arbitrary killing, regardless of the type of crime, as there is a lack of transparency in the official handling of cases, which does not allow for an accurate follow-up of justice in the trial stages. Despite this, the documented cases confirm that the detainees were subjected to numerous violations, including torture and ill-treatment at various stages. For example, depriving them of the right to adequate self-defence, in addition to the lack of independence of the judiciary and the fact that all agencies are directly linked to the king.
Alhajji considered that it is impossible to rely on any ruling issued by this justice system, especially in the absence of transparent and fair laws and the broad powers of judges.
The intervention focused on promotional issues, therefore not stipulated in Islamic law, on which Saudi Arabia says it is based. Alhajji explained that in one of the interviews, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said in March 2022 that it had been eliminated and that the death penalty “has become limited to cases in which one kills another person.”
According to the follow-up of ESOHR, the death penalty was widely carried out based on Ta'azir rulings during the past years, which constituted almost half of the sentences executed, and these rulings are mostly applied to charges that are not considered among the most serious in international law, and which should be limited to Intentional homicides.
The intervention enumerated the charges for which Saudi Arabia is punishable:
- Drugs:
The Saudi government's abuse of drugs has proven that there is no basis or validity for any promises of change and human rights reforms and that there is a use of mechanisms that must work to protect human rights, most notably the official body for human rights. In January 2021, the commission said in a statement on Twitter that Saudi Arabia had stopped executions for drug offences and that this aims to give individuals who do not face more serious crimes a second chance.
Saudi Arabia thus admitted that it applies death sentences to crimes that are not the most serious. Unfortunately, after almost two years, in November 2022, Saudi Arabia suddenly returned to executing death sentences for drug crimes, without any justification. In March 2023, it carried out a death sentence on drug charges against Jordanian Hussein Abu al-Khair. Hussein's family was waiting for his retrial or release, after years of torture and violations, and after Saudi promises and confirmation of international opinions and messages that he was arbitrarily detained and that his trial was unfair. Saudi Arabia executed Abu al-Khair, and his family is currently being denied the right to a burial. Abu al-Khair and his case is an example of the violations that foreign workers are subjected to, especially those accused of drug cases.
- Anti-Terrorism Law:
Saudi Arabia makes extensive use of the anti-terrorism law. Ta’zir death sentences are issued after trials before the Specialized Criminal Court. International experts confirmed the use of this law to systematically stifle everyone who expresses his opinion. In addition to the fact that its articles allow a series of violations, starting with enforced disappearance and investigation for months without the right to communicate with the outside world, in addition to the use of broad charges. For example, among the most prominent charges levelled against individuals who were executed during the past years after trials under the Terrorism Law: seeking to destabilize the national fabric and national cohesion.
Alhajji explained that in 2018, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism concluded, after an official visit to Saudi Arabia, that counter-terrorism measures are being misused to stifle political opposition, suppress dissent, and silence calls for reform by peaceful critics and that there is an almost complete lack of transparency regarding domestic trials on terrorism charges.
The intervention confirmed that, according to the monitoring of ESOHR, at least 64 people are facing the death penalty. Examination of the official charges against the detainees, and examination of verdicts in cases in which judgments have been issued confirms the use of the terrorism charge, the Anti-Terrorism Law, and the Specialized Criminal Court in an arbitrarly.
For example, the Public Prosecution requested the death penalty against Sheikh Hassan al-Maliki. Among the charges al-Maliki faces are not believing in the validity of religious hadiths, authoring several books, and describing the Council of Senior Scholars as extremist.
Also, the Public Prosecution is calling for the death penalty against Sheikh Salman al-Awda, among his charges of calling for change, joining religious gatherings, and inciting public opinion. It also executed Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr because of his public stances opposing those of the government.
In addition, Alhajji indicated that there are currently at least 8 minors facing execution, none of whom have been charged with murder, and among the charges they have faced is participation in demonstrations.
While there are other charges brought against young men, as a result of which they were sentenced to death, among the charges he faces, according to the lawsuit, on which he was sentenced to death by discretion: insulting the royal family.
Alhajji concluded that Saudi Arabia repeatedly before the Human Rights Council and in its responses to the various United Nations mechanisms that it uses the death penalty for the most serious crimes only. Tracking executions confirms that this is not true, but rather clearly shows that this punishment was used in a retaliatory manner, on charges that are not considered the most serious, and after unfair trials.