Saudi Arabia: Visits & Communications

Saudi Arabia: Death Sentences of Three Migrant Workers

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 3 males

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Saudi Arabia has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal sent on 13 April 2005

Three Sri Lankan migrant workers – Mr. Edirisinghe Jayasooriyage Victor Corea, Mr. Ranjith de Silva and Mr. Sanath Pushpakumara – who were all reportedly sentenced to death on charges of possession of illegal firearms and attempted robbery by the Saudi Arabian High Court. They were involved in a robbery and arrested by the Riyadh police on 10 March 2004. Reports indicate that they are all currently detained at Al Nayad Prison, in Riyadh.

It is our understanding that an appeal for mercy is now pending before His Excellency, the King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, and that if this appeal fails the accused would be liable to imminent execution.

According to the reports which we have received the three men were sentenced to death after trials that appear to have fallen short of international fair trial standards. It is reported that they did not have any legal representation during their trials, although a translator was provided. The translation of proceedings is no substitute for adequate legal representation as required by international standards. In addition, it is alleged that after their trial, the three men were asked to sign a document in Arabic, stating their acceptance of the death sentence which only Mr. Silva reportedly refused to sign.

If these allegations are correct there would be grounds for serious concern. We would therefore be grateful if your Excellency’s Government could provide us with information indicating whether or not the defendants in this case were given the right to formal representation by a lawyer, and providing details of any such access. In addition, we would appreciate knowing if the proceedings were open to observers including representatives of the Government of Sri Lanka. Finally, we would like to receive information as to the nature of any right to an effective appeal which was applied in this case.

Saudi Arabia: Death Sentence of Majda Mustapha Mahir

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female

Character of reply: Cooperative but incomplete response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur appreciates the response of the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding the commutation of the death sentence.  However, the SR regrets the lack of information provided regarding the alleged violations of Majda Mustapha Mahir’s due process rights.

Urgent appeal sent on 27 May 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

Ms. Majda Mustapha Mahir, a 40-year-old Moroccan woman who is reportedly at risk of imminent execution in Saudi Arabia, where she was sentenced to death for the murder of her husband seven years ago.

According to the information received, she arrived in Riyadh in 1997 with her husband, the Saudi prince Farid Ibn Abdullah ibn Mishari al Saud. Soon after, he was found dead inside their house and she was arrested. Initially, and after verifying its authenticity, the Saudi Police reportedly accepted her version of the facts and her statement that the death was accidental. However, following alleged pressure by the prince’s family, Ms. Mahir was arrested again and transferred to the Milaz prison, where she has allegedly spent the last seven years in solitary confinement.

Concern has been expressed that Ms. Mahir was sentenced to death by an Islamic Court after a trial that fell short of international fair trial standards. She was reportedly not given a public hearing and did not have access to legal representation. Her parents weren’t allowed to visit her and she was prevented from being contacted by the Moroccan consulate. Besides, she was reportedly given no possibility of appeal.

It is our understanding that Ms. Mahir’s only remaining option is to seek a pardon from the victim’s family following the payment of “blood money” or to file an appeal for mercy with the King of Saudi Arabia, King Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, who also has the power to commute her death sentence. In the event that these two options would fail, she would be liable to imminent execution.

If these allegations are correct there would be grounds for serious concern. We would therefore be grateful if your Excellency’s Government could provide us with information indicating whether or not the defendant in this case was given the right to formal representation by a lawyer, and providing details of any such access. In addition, we would appreciate knowing if the proceedings were open to observers including representatives of the Government of Morocco. Finally, we would like to receive information as to the nature of any right to an effective appeal which was applied in this case.

Response of the Government of Saudi Arabia dated 30 August 2005

In this connection, the Permanent Mission wishes to inform the distinguished Special Rapporteur that the said woman was sentenced to death under the terms of legal judgment No. 67/12 handed down by the General Court of Riyadh on 8/12/1419 A.H. (3 June 1998), with the proviso that execution of the sentence was to be deferred until the minor heirs of H.H. Prince Farid attained the age of majority, at which time they would be asked, together with the other heirs, whether they wished to avail themselves of their right to demand enforcement of the sentence against the defendant. This judgment was ratified by the Court of Cassation and the Standing Committee of the Supreme Council of the Judiciary. Royal Orders Nos. 4/B/19621 of 20/10/1422 A.H. (4 January 2002) and 10884 of 28/2/1425 A.H. (18 April 2004) subsequently called for conciliatory endeavours to be made with a view to persuading the murdered Prince’s heirs to pardon the convicted woman. The Second of these Royal Orders (No. 10884) further emphasized the need to await the minor’s attainment of majority, when this matter could once again be raised with them.

This case was also accorded special attention by H.H. the Governor of the Riyadh Region, who assigned a person to endeavour to conciliate the heirs of the murdered Prince, through their legal representative, and to urge them to engage in a meritorious act of pardon. By the Grace of God, these endeavours were crowned with success insofar as the legal representative agreed to renounce the death penalty, without compensation, as a gesture pleasing to Almighty God. H.H. the Governor of the Riyadh Region ordered the rapid completion of the renunciation attestation procedures and legal judgment No. 144/12 of 12/5/1426 A.H. (19 June 2005) confirmed that the convicted woman was no longer liable to the death penalty by virtue of the fact that some of the heirs had renounced their right to demand it. Moreover, H.H. the Governnor of the Riyadh Region personally undertook to pay the share of the legal blood money due to the heirs who had not renounced it in if, on attainment of the age of majority, they decided to claim their right thereto. An account of the outcome of the case was submitted to the Royal Court.

The allegations concerning the situation of the convicted person Majda are unfounded since a representative of her country’s Embasssy was permitted to visit her and this visit was documented. Furthermore, at her request, she was transferred from Riyadh Women’s Prison to Jiddah Women’s Prison in order to be closer to her family, thereby making it easier for them to visit her without undergoing the hardship of travel.”

Saudi Arabia: Death Sentence of Mrs. Samira

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 female

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Saudi Arabia has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal sent on 23 August 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences

Urgent appeal sent concerning Mrs. S (reportedly known as Mrs. Samira) a married woman with children, who is reportedly at risk of imminent execution.

According to the information received, she was arrested in 1999 in connection with the murder of a man who had allegedly threatened to tell her husband that she had sexual intercourse with him when they were teenagers if she did not have sex with him. She denies having killed him. Concern has been expressed that Mrs. Samira was convicted and sentenced to death by a Shari’a Court after a trial that fell short of international fair trial standards. She was reportedly not given a public hearing and did not have access to legal representation.

It is our understanding that Mrs. Samira’s only remaining option is to obtain a pardon from the victim’s family following the payment of “blood money”. We have been informed that the Crown Prince has intervened on her behalf with the family of the victim who has requested a few days to consider their decision. In the event that this option fails, she would be liable to imminent execution.

In view of the urgency of the matter and of the irreversibility of the punishment, we would appreciate a response from your Excellency’s Government to safeguard the rights of the above-mentioned person, in accordance with Saudi Arabia’s relevant obligations under international law.

It is our responsibility under the mandates provided to us by the Commission on Human Rights and reinforced by the appropriate resolutions of the General Assembly, to seek to clarify all cases brought to our attention. Since we are expected to report on these cases to the Commission, we would be grateful for your cooperation and your observations on the following matters:

1.         Are the facts alleged in the above summary of the case accurate?

2.         Was the accused represented by counsel, and if so under what circumstances?

3.         Was the hearing at which she was condemned held in public?

4.         What possibilities of appeal were available to Mrs. Samira after her conviction and what was the outcome of any appeal lodged?

Saudi Arabia: Death Sentence of Juvenile Offender Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani

Violation alleged: Non-respect of international standards relating to the imposition of capital punishment

Subject(s) of appeal: 1 male (minor; juvenile offender)

Character of reply: No response

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

The Special Rapporteur regrets that the Government of Saudi Arabia has failed to cooperate with the mandate he has been given by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

Urgent appeal sent on 10 November 2005

I hereby would like to bring to your Excellency’s attention the situation of Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani, a fourteen-year-old Egyptian national, resident of Dammam. He was reportedly sentenced to death in July 2005 by a Dammam Court for the April 2004 murder of his three-year-old neighbour Wala' `Adil `Abd al-Badi`, also an Egyptian national. According to the information I have received, the victim’s family has thus far refused to accept the payment of  “blood money” (diya), therefore leaving Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani’s case to go before the Saudi Court of Appeals and the High Judicial Council, and ultimately to King Abdullah for final review. Ahmad reportedly remains on death row at the Dammam Dair al-Mulahitha al-Ijtima`iyya, a juvenile detention facility, where he has been detained since he was arrested and where he has spent three months in solitary confinement.

The principal purpose of the present note is to raise one particular point of concern in relation to this case, namely, the age of Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani at the time of the commission of the crime. Indeed, although he was thirteen years old at the time of the murder, I am concerned that the court tried and sentenced Ahmad as an adult, reportedly based on the court’s assessment of the coarseness of his voice and the appearance of pubic hair.

The execution of Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani would be incompatible with your Government’s international obligation under the Convention of the Rights of the Child which prohibits capital punishment for offenses committed by individuals under 18 at the time of the crime. This would also contradict the commitment given in your Government’s report on 2 November 2004 to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child according to which “a juvenile is defined under the Detention Regulation and the Juvenile Homes’ Regulation of A.H. 1395 (1975) as every human being below the age of 18,” and “[t]he “Islamic Shari`a in force in the Kingdom never imposes capital punishment on persons who have not attained their majority, regardless of whether the offence they committed was a qisas offence [for which the penalty is retaliation], a hadd offence [for which the prescribed penalty is mandatory] or a ta`zir offence [for which the penalty is left to the judge’s discretion]” (CRC/C/136/Add.1, para. 33 and 68)

I am aware that the last confirmed execution of a juvenile offender in Saudi Arabia dates back to 1992. However, I have been informed that at least four other persons -namely Mrs. S. from Khamis Mushayyit, Sadiq A. in Qatif, Mr. A. in Jazan, and an unnamed person in Jeddah reportedly convicted of murdering his rapists- are under a death sentence for crimes committed when they were below eighteen years old.

In view of the irreversibility of the sentence, I respectfully ask his Excellency King Abdullah to commute Ahmad `Abd al-Murdi Mahmud al-Dukkani’s death sentence to a punishment consistent with his age and culpability. I would also be grateful if the Government of Saudi Arabia could provide me with detailed information relating to individuals who have been sentenced to death for crimes committed when they were less than eighteen years of age, even if such sentences have not been confirmed.

Finally, I wish to indicate that my request for a visit dated 11 May 2005 is still valid and I would be very grateful if it were possible to set specific dates for the mission as soon as possible. I again emphasize that in the absence of any indication of a possible timing for the visit, I will have no option but to report to the CHR that my request to visit has been unsuccessful.