Saudi Arabia, a world leader in executions, weighs ending capital punishment for drug crimes

Source: Washington Post (27 August 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/saudi-arabia-executions-mbs/2020/08/26/b6488bb4-e314-11ea-82d8-5e55d47e90ca_story.html

Saudi Arabia is considering ending the use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, a change that could spare the lives of dozens of prisoners in the kingdom every year, according to a Saudi official and human rights groups that monitor capital punishment in the country.

The initiative appeared aimed at countering outrage over the kingdom’s human rights record, including its mass executions. The consequences of removing drug offenses from the list of capital crimes could be significant: Nearly 40 percent of the roughly 800 executions carried out in Saudi Arabia over the past five years were for offenses such as narcotics trafficking, according to Reprieve, a human rights group that tracks the use of the death penalty in the kingdom.

A Saudi official said that the kingdom was in the process of revising penalties for drug-related crimes and that a decision to “abolish” capital punishment for drug offenses was “expected very soon.” The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal government discussions.

Executions have long been at the heart of global criticism of Saudi Arabia, highlighting an opaque justice system that puts large numbers of people to death every year, generally by beheading. Until recently, many executions were carried out in public squares.

In the last few years, Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy, has lagged behind only Iran and China in annual executions, according to data published by the Death Penalty Information Center.

Human rights advocates said they would welcome any reduction in executions but said the government had yet to produce evidence of a policy change. The government, for instance, has not issued a revised law or informed death row inmates that sentences would be commuted.

So far this year, executions appear to have fallen dramatically: Since January, at least 16 people have been put to death, compared with 140 in the same period in 2019 and 88 in 2018, according to tallies by the European Saudi Organization for Human Rights, or ESOHR. The group and other organizations said it was unclear whether the decrease was due to the coronavirus pandemic or part of a government-imposed moratorium.

“We hope. Always, we are praying,” said Zeinab Abo al-Kheir, whose brother, Hussein Abo al-Kheir, a Jordanian national, was convicted in 2015 of drug-trafficking charges and could be executed at any time, according to Reprieve, which has advocated on his behalf.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto ruler, spoke of abolishing the death penalty for some crimes two years ago. In an interview with Time magazine, Mohammed said there were a “few areas” where it would be possible to reduce death sentences to life in prison, without specifying what crimes would be affected.

Saudi authorities do not appear to be contemplating ending capital punishment for murder and several other crimes for which penalties are prescribed by Islamic law. But drug offenses and other nonviolent crimes generally belong to a category of offenses known as “tazir,” in which punishments are left to the discretion of a judge.

Judges rely on a 1987 ruling by religious scholars that prescribes the death penalty for people who bring drugs into the country, as well as a 2005 law that calls for capital punishment in drug-trafficking cases, according to a 2018 report by Human Rights Watch on drug-related executions.

Hussein Abo al-Kheir, the death row inmate, was arrested after crossing the border from Jordan into Saudi Arabia in May 2014 and was charged with possessing narcotics after the authorities said they found a large quantity of amphetamines in the car, according to a summary of his case by ESOHR.

He confessed after he was tortured for nearly two weeks, the group said. He later recanted, but a court found him guilty of drug trafficking and sentenced him to death, largely based on his confession, according to ESOHR. His sister, Zeinab, who lives in Canada, said Hussein has eight children and had been working as a driver for a Saudi family at the time of his arrest.

Saudi Arabia’s leaders have searched for ways to repair the country’s global image since Saudi government agents killed and dismembered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul in October 2018. The kingdom has also faced criticism for twice in recent years carrying out mass executions of people convicted of “terrorism” charges, many in trials that were criticized as unfair by human rights groups.

In one of the mass executions, in April 2019, 37 people were put to death, including at least two who were minors at the time of their alleged crimes.

“Certainly, the authorities have been looking for ways they can implement reforms on some of the issues they find embarrassing, and which have given Saudi Arabia a really bad reputation,” said Adam Coogle, a researcher at Human Rights Watch who follows Saudi Arabia, referring to changes that have granted women more rights and abolished punishments like flogging.

Whatever the motivations, though, “these are important steps forward. If they follow through with this, there are a lot of people who won’t die,” he said.

Saudi Arabia’s advisory Shura Council has over the past year discussed ending the death penalty for the category of crimes left to a judge’s discretion, according to local media reports. And in April, the government announced that minors would no longer be put to death for such crimes.

“Basically, they stopped executing people for nonviolent offenses in February,” said James Suzano, the director of legal affairs for ESOHR. It was impossible to know whether the moratorium was deliberate or a consequence of the pandemic, which had slowed the work of state institutions, but there was “a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Saudi Arabia taking this idea seriously,” Suzano said, referring to a partial execution ban.

But, he added, “we have not seen any implementing legislation.”

An article in July in the Times of London quoted unnamed sources as saying a law on ending the death penalty for nonviolent tazir crimes had not yet been finalized.

A spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to questions about whether the country’s policy on the death penalty had changed.

Abdullah Alaoudh, a visiting assistant professor at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs and a critic of the Saudi government, said the kingdom’s approach to revising the death penalty, if confirmed, reminds him of a quote from Malcolm X: “If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and then pull it out six inches, there’s no progress, is there?”

The Saudi efforts were “better than the whole knife,” said Alaoudh, whose father, Salman al-Awda, a popular Saudi cleric, is imprisoned and facing the death penalty in the kingdom after criticizing the monarchy.

“I think it is good that they are thinking this way,” he said, adding that it was not just Saudi executions that needed to be scrutinized, but “the whole criminal procedure system.”

Cabinet to mull scrapping death penalty for drug offences

Source: The Malaysian Reserve (27 August 2020)

https://themalaysianreserve.com/2020/08/14/cabinet-to-mull-scrapping-death-penalty-for-drug-offences/

THE Cabinet will review options to abolish capital punishment for drug trafficking offences, de facto Law Minister Datuk Takiyuddin Hassan said.

Following the final report by the special committee to review alternative sentences to the mandatory death penalty, which was submitted to the government on July 17, the minister said discussions will be held before a decision is made on the matter.

“The final report contains recommendations on alternative punishments for 11 offences that carry the mandatory death sentence, offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Act 234), and 21 offences that carry the discretionary death sentence,” he told the August house yesterday.

He was responding to Ramkarpal Singh (Pakatan Harapan [PH]-Bukit Gelugor) who asked the prime minister whether the government would abolish the death sentence for drug trafficking.

Takiyuddin added that the committee had also made recommendations for long-term improvements to the country’s justice system.

“The report is expected to be presented at a Cabinet meeting for consideration and approval.

“The findings are expected to answer the debate on whether the government will propose amending the punishment for drug trafficking to a minimum jail sentence so that punishments will be given based on the facts of each case,” he said.

According to the law minister, as of Aug 11, a total 918 prisoners have been sentenced to death under Section 39B of which 472 are Malaysians and 446 are non-citizens.

Under section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act, those in possession of 15g or more heroin and morphine; 1,000g or more opium (raw or prepared); 200g or more cannabis; and 40g or more cocaine will receive the mandatory death sentence.

Last year, a special committee was established to carry out the Compensation Penalty Study on Mandatory Death Penalty within four months from Sept 20, 2019, to Jan 31, 2020.

“The special committee submitted the study on July 17 instead of January as they needed more time.

“Regardless, it is the government’s intention for the changes to be implemented as soon as possible. Malaysia continues to engage in smart partnerships with countries that use their laws to curb drug abuse in addition to other measures used to address drug trafficking,” Takiyuddin said.

He emphasised that the government also takes international conventions into consideration.

“My predecessor has initiated this matter, for the national interest. We have conducted the study and I will evaluate as best as possible which stems from the previous government’s intent to make sure that justice is served.

“I give my assurance that we will fully consider the recommendations that have been set out by the committee,” he added.

The special committee members comprise former Federal Court judges, former Attorney General’s Chambers officers, former Prisons Department senior officers, the Bar Council, Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, academics, criminologists and civil society organisations.

Philippines death penalty: A fight to stop the return of capital punishment

Source: BBC News (16 August 2020)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-53762570

Capital punishment opponents expect a steep battle to prevent President Rodrigo Duterte from reimposing the death penalty, as he renews calls for the law as part of a "drug war" that has already killed thousands of Filipinos.

Few were surprised when Mr Duterte last month pushed, once again, to reintroduce the death penalty for drug offenders.

Since coming to power in 2016 he has waged a brutal crackdown on suspected drug users and dealers, issuing police with shoot-to-kill orders while encouraging citizens to kill drug users too.

Officially the police say they shoot only in self-defence and data shows more than 8,000 people have been killed in anti-drug operations. The nation's human rights commission estimates a toll as high as 27,000.

The piling bodies have been documented by photojournalists whose images of dead suspects face-down in pools of blood after a police raid, or strewn on streets in suspected vigilante murders, have shocked the world.

"The death penalty would give the state another weapon in its ongoing war against drugs," said Carlos Conde, Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch.

Mr Duterte was restrained, at first, by the upper house of parliament. But last year's mid-term elections saw his allies win control of the senate and many fear the law could now be passed.

Twenty-three bills have been filed across both houses to reinstate the death penalty for drug crimes, including possession and sales. Committee deliberations began last week.
Nuanced views

Mr Conde says he would like to be proved wrong but senses the law "is as good as passed". He points to the swift recent passing of the controversial anti-terrorism law, and the speed at which ABS-CBN, a broadcaster critical of the president, was forced off air.

The move would be a breach of international human rights law.

But this is unlikely to faze Mr Duterte, who frequently expresses his disdain for human rights checks. Last year the Philippines left the International Criminal Court as it was probing accusations of crimes linked to his drugs campaign.

Surveys by the Social Weather Stations, a pollster, have shown the war on drugs remains popular among Filipinos despite experts saying the signature policy has failed to curb drug use or supply. A majority are also in favour of reinstating capital punishment.

But a closer look at the results shows an alternative picture, says Maria Socorro Diokno, secretary-general of the Free Legal Assistance Group, a network of human rights lawyers.

When presented with alternatives to capital punishment for crimes linked to illegal drugs, for instance, most favoured other options.

"They begin to think that death is not always the answer," said Ms Diokno.

Ms Diokno, who leads her group's anti-death penalty task force, has been braced for a battle with Mr Duterte ever since he vowed to bring back the death penalty as part of his election campaign.

She knows that minds can be changed because she was part of the movement that succeeded last time.

The death penalty has been abolished twice before - first in 1987 and then again in 2006 after being reinstated in 1993.

The last push for abolition was led by the Catholic church, which holds considerable influence over Filipinos in the largely Catholic country while Mr Duterte is an open critic.

Last week the Clergy of the Archdiocese of Manila condemned the "lack of independence and imprudence" of some lawmakers in supporting the president on the issue.

"We see such acts as betrayal of the people's interests and an implicit support to the creeping authoritarian tendencies exuded by this administration," it said.
Mistaken convictions

In his annual address to the nation last month Mr Duterte claimed reinstating the death penalty by lethal injection would "deter criminality".

But there is little evidence to prove that the death penalty can be a deterrent. Instead research has shown the punishment frequently affects the most disadvantaged.

In the Philippines alone the Supreme Court said in 2004 that 71.77% of death penalty verdicts handed by lower courts were wrong.

By imposing the death penalty for drug offences, the Philippines would also be moving away from what Harm Reduction International has identified as a downward global trend in using the penalty for such crimes.

It says 35 countries and territories retain capital punishment for drug offenders but only a few carry out executions regularly. Five of the eight "high application states" are in South East Asia.

Raymund Narag, an assistant professor of criminology at Southern Illinois University, knows firsthand the problems of a flawed criminal justice system.

He spent nearly seven years jailed in the Philippines as a pre-trial detainee before he was acquitted of a campus murder that took place at his university when he was 20.

The death penalty was still intact at the time and prosecutors had sought it for the 10 men charged.

Worse than his overcrowded cell and frequent prison riots, he says, was the "agony of waiting" for hearings.

"It was traumatic thinking that you can be put to death for a crime you did not commit," said Dr Narag, speaking from the US.

Now 46, he was one of five men eventually acquitted, while the others were sentenced to life imprisonment.

The experience has shaped his career. He now researches prolonged trial detention in the Philippines, while advocating for criminal justice reform.

Dr Narag says that if he hadn't managed to track down a key witness, an overseas worker, to return home and testify, proving he wasn't at the crime scene, he may have been convicted.

Through his advocacy he wants Filipinos to know the consequences of mistaken convictions, which could become mistaken executions if the law changes, in an already struggling justice system.

The scope of and timeline for the eventual death penalty bill put to vote in parliament is uncertain, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Some have argued the bill should not be a priority.

Gloria Lai, Asia director of the International Drug Policy Consortium, says the death penalty has not solved the drug-related problems of any country.

"It is the poor and vulnerable who bear the harsh punishment of criminal justice systems in grossly unjust ways," she says.

‘Do Not Execute’ campaign rocks Iran judiciary

Source: Asia Times (7 August 2020)

https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/do-not-execute-campaign-rocks-iran-judiciary/

November 2019 marked one of the gloomiest junctures of the 21st century for Iranians, when in a timespan of less than two weeks, angry protests by large groups of people against the overnight spike in the price of fuel triggered a violent response by the government and some 230 people were killed, according to the official statistics, while a report by Reuters put the number of casualties at 1,500.

The protests, which first erupted in oil-rich Khuzestan province and quickly mushroomed across the country, were initially an expression of outrage over the 300% rise in the price of gasoline, in a country gripped by international sanctions and deep-seated economic disparities.

However, they soon evolved into a venue for disgruntled Iranians to voice their dismay at an array of other challenges facing them, including the dearth of civil liberties, entrenched corruption in government institutions, state unaccountability, unbridled hyperinflation and spiraling inequities.

The government of President Hassan Rouhani, in a rush to quell the revolt and restore calm, shut down Internet connectivity for a total of 10 harrowing days, allegedly to prevent the “rioters” from organizing on social media, and armed forces opted for violent clampdowns, the details of which have been elaborately documented by advocacy organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and by global media.

The United Nations reported one month after the national fury subsided that at least 7,000 people had been arrested at the height of the tensions.

The protests and the ensuing response unmasked the social rifts in a highly divided Iran and testified to a new level of confrontation between the government and the people.

Although there were extremists who exploited the civil movement to sow mayhem and destruction in some cities, including by damaging public property, the government’s botched handling of the episode and its resort to harsh measures to stifle dissent laid bare the deficiency of transparent procedures for the expression of grievances by the public, bringing to the fore the letdowns of the state’s relationship with civil society.

Now, many observers of Iran contend that four decades after the 1979 revolution, almost no protest movement has cropped up in the country that the authorities have not attributed to foreign “enemies,” and while the leadership asserts it recognizes peaceful dissent, there have been few instances of such campaigns that were not crushed with the disproportionate use of force.

‘Do Not Execute’

On February 21 this year, it was announced that three protesters of the November 2019 uprising, Amirhossein Moradi, 26, Saeed Tamjidi, 28, and Mohammad Rajabi, 26, had been sentenced to death on charges of “taking part in destruction and burning, aimed at countering the Islamic Republic system.” The spokesman to Iran’s judiciary also accused them of “armed robbery, kidnapping and harassment of the public.”

On July 10, one of the defendants’ lawyers revealed that the Supreme Court of Iran had upheld the verdict for the three young men, giving rise to speculations that they would be executed shortly.

The announcement was inflammatory enough to stir up massive protest activity, this time online, with people confined to their homes in the taxing days of the Covid-19 pandemic finding Twitter an appropriate platform to voice their communal rage at the ruling.

Regardless of what the three young men had perpetrated, the course of their legal proceedings, which involved their lawyers not having access to their files and a trial that many activists claimed was not fair, spawned a gigantic sympathy movement on Twitter with people posting tweets carrying the hashtag “Do Not Execute” in Persian.

Launched on July 14, the Twitter storm soon ended up trending internationally, and over the course of five days, more than 11 million tweets were posted decrying the confirmed death sentence for Moradi, Tamjidi and Rajabi.

The explosive online thrust was not merely an objection to the execution of the three men, about whose background and role in the November events few details are available; rather, it was a denunciation of the frequent use of capital punishment in Iran, which had cast its dark shadow this time over the doomed fate of three men in their 20s.

Iranians from all walks of life – artists, actors and actresses, journalists, university professors, politicians, lawyers, athletes, teachers, students and activists – as well as members of the Iranian diaspora weighed in on the online campaign and exhibited exceptional unity at a time when they continue to have polarizing differences on a number of issues, including the future of the country’s contentious nuclear program.

In a rare decision that was perceptibly a reaction to the wave of online protest, Iran’s judiciary announced on July 19 that it had suspended the planned executions, and as said by Babak Paknia, the lawyer of Amirhossein Moradi, the Supreme Court accepted the lawyers’ request for a retrial, reviving hopes that the verdict could be overturned.

The judiciary’s announcement represented the acknowledgement of a civil demand that was expressed in the most peaceful, refined manner by millions of Iranians at home and abroad. It was an endorsement of the conviction that even a fractured society like Iran can emerge successful in delivering shared objectives in difficult times.

Implications for the future

Iran is a country where the highest number of executions in the Middle East takes place. After China, Iran recorded the most executions in 2019. According to Amnesty International, 251 people were condemned to death in Iran last year, slightly down from 253 people in 2018.

Things have significantly improved since the turn of the century. The World Coalition against the Death Penalty reported that at least 317 people were executed in 2007, and in 2008, as many as 346 executions were documented.

Although the majority of those executed are criminals involved in drug trafficking or individuals who have committed rape and murder, there are still people who wind up on death row for political activism or opposition to the government.

The global momentum to abolish the death penalty might not soon head into Iran, as the country strictly enforces sharia laws, which prescribe capital punishment for major offenses. However, to expect Iran’s judicial processes to be reformed so that the country’s blemished image can be brushed up and gaps between the government and the public are bridged is not a tall order.

Lengthy prison terms or execution decrees for citizens who have differences of opinion with the Islamic Republic leadership or are charged with vague crimes such as acting against national security, espionage for foreign governments or disturbing the public opinion that in many cases remain legally unsubstantiated serve no good cause, rather than portraying Iran as an ultra-conservative nation-state with an intolerant Islamist government.

This is neither helpful to the global standing of Iran nor conducive to praise for the religion it officially promotes.

Saudi Arabia, also a conservative Middle East kingdom, has in recent years reformed and revised many of its judicial processes, and is treading on the path of imparting a more nuanced impression of itself.

It should not be difficult for Iran to replicate Saudi Arabia’s reforms in its local context and come up with improvements in its definitions of crime and transgression, join international pacts such as the United Nations Convention against Torture, to which it is not currently a party, and particularly restructure its approach to what it calls “security crimes,” which is a thinly veiled rewording of “political crimes,” and embrace more moderation and clemency in legal judgments.

A melting pot of subcultures, ethnic groups, religious minorities and lingual communities, blessed with a young, dynamic and educated population, Iran enjoys all the features of a thriving society. Judicial reforms in pursuit of making contemporary Iran a more inclusive, pluralist and tolerant entity are the prerequisite to ensuring this society can unleash all its potentials.

Of course, a new engagement with the international community is the seminal and urgent need of Iran in the realm of foreign policy, about which much has been said in the media and academia.

US says man gunned down in Pakistani court was American

Source: WTOP News (31 July 2020)

https://wtop.com/asia/2020/07/us-says-man-gunned-down-in-pakistani-court-was-american/

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A man gunned down this week in a Pakistani courtroom while standing trial on a charge of blasphemy was a U.S. citizen, according to a U.S. State Department statement.

Tahir Naseem was “lured to Pakistan” from his home in Illinois and entrapped by the country’s blasphemy laws, which international rights groups have sought to have repealed, the statement issued late Thursday said. It did not elaborate on the circumstances in which Naseem came to be in the South Asian country.

Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law calls for the death penalty for anyone found guilty of insulting Islam but in Pakistan the mere allegation of blasphemy can cause mobs to riot and vigilantes to commit murder.

“We are shocked, saddened, and outraged that American citizen Tahir Naseem was killed yesterday inside a Pakistani courtroom,” the State Department statement read.

Pakistani officials said Naseem was charged with blasphemy after he declared himself a prophet. Police in northwest Peshawar province originally identified him as Tahir Shameem Ahmed, but later corrected themselves.

There was no immediate comment from Pakistani authorities and the assailant, identified as Khalid Khan, was arrested. It wasn’t clear how he entered the courtroom and managed to get past security with a weapon. Naseem died before he could be transported to a hospital.

“We urge Pakistan to immediately reform its often abused blasphemy laws and its court system, which allow such abuses to occur, and to ensure that the suspect is prosecuted to the full extent of the law,” said the statement issued by Cale Brown, the State Department’s principal deputy spokesperson.

Although Pakistani authorities have yet to carry out a death sentence for blasphemy, there are scores of accused on death row. Most are Muslims and many belong to the Ahmadyya sect of Islam, reviled by mainstream Muslims as heretics.

Besides the State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Freedom condemned the killing.

“Pakistan’s blasphemy laws are indefensible to begin with, but it is outrageous beyond belief that the Pakistani government was incapable of keeping an individual from being murdered within a court of law for his faith, and a U.S. citizen, nonetheless,” Commissioner Johnnie Moore said in a statement.

“Pakistan must protect religious minorities, including individuals accused of blasphemy, in order to prevent such unimaginable tragedies,” Moore said in the statement.

The Commission declared Pakistan a “country of particular concern” in its 2020 report released last month because of its treatment of minorities.

Religious minorities in Pakistan are increasingly under attack even as Prime Minister Imran Khan preaches a “tolerant” Pakistan. Observers warn of even tougher times ahead as Khan vacillates between trying to forge a pluralistic nation and his conservative Islamic beliefs.

A Punjab governor was killed by his own guard in 2011 after he defended a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, who was accused of blasphemy. She was acquitted after spending eight years on death row in a case that drew international media attention. Faced with death threats from Islamic extremists upon her release, she flew to Canada to join her daughters last year.