I object to both the Saudi Criminal “Justice” system, AND the manner of executions, such as beheadings. Give a humane injection if it is deemed necessary, and only after public scrutiny and review.
8888888888
Saudi Arabia Criminal Justice System
photius.com
Sources: The Library of Congress Country Studies; CIA World Factbook
<< Back to Saudi Arabia National Security
The judicial system is founded upon the sharia, particularly the Hanbali school of Sunni Islam, in accordance with a ruling by King Abd al Aziz in 1926. The Hanbali system of jurisprudence, which rejected analogy as a source of law and gave prominence to the traditions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, was regarded as especially rigid by most Muslim jurists. If there is no guidance in Hanbali texts, however, Saudi jurists could refer to other schools or exercise their own reasoning.
Two categories of crime are delineated in the sharia: those that are carefully defined and those that are implicit in the requirements and prohibitions of the sharia. For the first category, there are specific penalties; for the second, punishment can be prescribed by a judge (qadi) of a sharia court. A third category of crime has developed through the years as a result of various governmental decrees that specified codes of behavior and regulations considered necessary to maintain public order and security. The first two categories are tried in sharia courts. The third, dealing with corporate law, taxation, oil and gas, and immigration, is handled administratively by government officials (see The Legal System , ch. 4).
The sharia carefully defines crimes--such as homicide, personal injury, adultery, fornication, theft, and highway robbery--and prescribes a penalty (hadd) for each. Various degrees of culpability for homicide and bodily injury are recognized depending on intent, the kind of weapon used, and the circumstances under which the crime occurred. Homicide is considered a crime against a person rather than a crime against society in which the state administers justice of its own volition. Under the sharia, the victim or the victim's family has the right to demand punishment, to grant clemency, or to demand blood money (diya)--a set payment as recompense for the crime.
An act of self-defense is recognized as a right nullifying criminality. Retaliation is permitted to the male next of kin of the victim by killing the criminal in the case of a homicide or exacting the same bodily injury that was inflicted on the victim. Acceptance of diya is, however, considered preferable under the sharia. In cases involving death or grievous injury, the accused is usually held incommunicado. Imprisonment before trial can last weeks or even several months. The right of bail or habeas corpus is not recognized, although persons accused of crimes are sometimes released on the recognizance of a patron or employer. The accused is normally held not more than three days before being formally charged, but it is common for detainees to be held for long periods if the investigation is incomplete.
At trials for minor offenses, qadis hear complaints and then cross-examine plaintiffs, defendants, and any witnesses. The judge assigns great significance to a defendant's sworn testimony, although the testimony of two women is required to equal that of one man. In the absence of two witnesses, oral confessions before a judge are almost always required for conviction. Trials are held without jurors and are generally closed. They are normally held without counsel, although lawyers can advise the accused before the trial. Attorneys may also be allowed to act at interpreters for those unfamiliar with Arabic. Consular access is not usually permitted during the trials of foreign nationals. After determining guilt or innocence, a sentence, if appropriate, is imposed by the judge. In certain criminal cases, punishment can be referred to a local governor or shaykh for sentencing upon the advice of a local Muslim jurist or the ulama.
Appeals against judges' decisions are automatically reviewed by the Ministry of Justice or in more serious cases by a court of appeal. There were two sharia courts of appeal, one sitting in Riyadh and the other in Mecca. Appeals are heard by panels of three judges except for sentences of death or amputation, which can only be adjudicated by a panel of five judges. Decisions of the appellate courts are final except for sentences of death and amputation. Cases of capital punishment are automatically referred to the king for final review.
Data as of December 1992
888888888888
Background to Saudi Arabia's Judicial Process:
hrw.org
In Saudi Arabia, criminal cases are heard in the general sharia (Islamic law) court, before one judge or a panel of three judges. The Court of Cassation then automatically reviews all criminal sentences exceeding ten days imprisonment or over forty lashes. The last stage of judicial review is the Supreme Judicial Council (also known as the Higher Council of the Judiciary), an eleven-member body that reviews judgments handed down in cases involving major offenses.
In the wake of the recent reports that the defendants were secretly tried and sentenced, there is confusion about which stages of Saudi Arabia's judicial process have been concluded and which proceedings remain available for the defendants.
Attorney Salah Hejailan told Human Rights Watch on April 29 that a lower court and the Court of Cassation had indeed "ratified" the handwritten confessions of the defendants. Because the confessions were accepted as evidence by the courts, there were no "trial" proceeding as such, and the sentences made public in the press were those initially recommended by the public prosecutor, Hejailan added. He noted that the defendants have since retracted their confessions.
Lawyer Ahmed Tuwaijeri told Human Rights Watch on April 29 that in the Saudi judicial system a sentence is not considered a judgment until it is approved-by the Royal Court in cases of capital punishment, and by the Supreme Judicial Council in other major cases. He stressed that "no final judgment has been taken by the Supreme Judicial Council or the Royal Court" against the defendants.
Tuwaijeri also stated, however, that he and Hejailan "have not been part of any court [proceeding] regarding these cases." But he said that the lawyers now have access to their clients in prison every Sunday and Tuesday, and "are still in the process of interviewing them." He noted, "we are having a lot of cooperation from public prosecutors and the Supreme Judicial Council." He said that the lawyers would be providing their first defense memorandum to the
Supreme Judicial Council "in a few weeks."
Hejailan previously issued a statement to the press indicating that he and Tuwaijeri "met extensively" on April 22 with the head of the Supreme Judicial Council, Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, and "we have agreed with the Supreme Judicial Council to submit our written and verbal advocacy in the very near future, and we will be given all reasonable opportunities to review and defend our clients' position." Citing the meeting on April 22, Hejailan was quoted in the Guardian on April 28 as saying: "I have been told very, very clearly that we will be given the opportunity to present our defense."
The British government emphasized to Human Rights Watch on April 26 that there was "an ongoing judicial process" for the defendants, without confirming or denying that secret proceedings had taken place at lower levels. The recent comments of the lawyers suggest that the next step in the process is Supreme Judicial Council review, which will include presentations by the defense.
Televised Confessions:
The "confessions" of six of the suspects were shown on Saudi television last year. On February 4, 2001, Alexander Mitchell of Britain, William Sampson of Canada, and Raaf Schyvens of Belgium were shown on a videotape claiming responsibility for two car bombings in Riyadh in November 2000 that killed British citizen Christopher Rodway, and injured his wife and others.
On August 13, 2001, three British citizens-James Cottle, James Lee, and Les Walker similarly "confessed" to involvement in three bombings between December 2000 and March 2001. They stated that they had "received orders" to carry out attacks in Riyadh on January 10 and March 15, 2001, and in Khobar in the Eastern Province on December 15, 2000. As with the earlier "confessions," they did not say who had ordered the bombings and gave no indication of motive.
In addition to not being allowed to write or to talk to his family, since his arrest James Cottle has also been unable to speak freely and privately to British consular officials, and have substantive private conversations with them, raising deep concern about his treatment in detention and the circumstances under which he made the videotaped "confession." Cottle has received periodic visits from British consular officials since June 2001, but the conversations are closely monitored by English-speaking Saudi guards. At least one visit was abruptly terminated when Cottle started to speak on a subject not to the liking of authorities. The Canadian government confirmed that the consular visits of Cottle's codefendant William Sampson took place under similar restrictions. A spokeswoman for the DFA said that Canadian officials visited Sampson on March 30, 2002 but that "t was not possible to discuss anything substantive."
|
