Feb. 12
INDIA:
Court to hear Laila Khan murder case on Wednesday
On Wednesday, the court is likely to hear arguments on the draft charges
submitted in the Laila Khan Murder case. The charges were submitted against
prime accused Pervez Tak for the brutal murder of starlet Laila Khan and 5 of
her family members in February 2011.
In the 984-page chargesheet filed before the Esplanade Court on October 3, the
Crime Branch booked both Tak and an absconding accomplice Shakir Hussain, under
sections 302 (murder), 363 (punishment for kidnapping), 364 (kidnapping or
abducting in order to murder), 397 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause
death or grievous hurt), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence),
and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment
under section 302 is the death penalty.
Laila, her mother Saleena, siblings Azmina, Imran and Zara, and another
relative, Reshma Khan, went missing from Mumbai in February 2011, after which
her father filed a missing complaint with the Oshiwara police. The recovery of
two MUVs belonging to Laila from Jammu & Kashmir triggered speculation that she
could be in that state. Another theory that did the rounds said she was in
Dubai with her 'husband', Sonu. However Tak, a road contractor from Kishtwar in
J&K and the 3rd husband of Laila's mother, emerged as the prime suspect in the
case after the seizure of the 2 MUVs. Tak allegedly told interrogators that he
killed Laila and her 5 family members at her farmhouse in Igatpuri on February
8, 2011. The crime branch recovered the 6 skeletons from a pit in the farmhouse
in July last year.
(source: The Times of India)
*************************
President's office yet to take call on ex-judges' plea to commute death penalty
of 13 convicts; Convicts 'erroneously' sentenced, says letter sent to President
in July 2012.
With President Pranab Mukherjee clearing the way for execution of 2 convicts in
terror cases in less than three months' time, a group of 14 former judges from
high courts and the Supreme Court expects him to take a call soon on its demand
to commute the death sentence of 13 convicts "erroneously" awarded capital
punishment.
Having sent the letter in July 2012, highlighting the apex court's admission
about "wrong judgment" in 7 different cases, the group, which includes 5 former
HC chief justices, is yet to get any official response from the President's
office.
The letter, which was endorsed by Pune-based former Supreme Court judge P B
Sawant and former Bombay High Court judge B G Kolse-Patil among others, stated
that the execution of convicts "wrongly sentenced to death" would severely
undermine the credibility of the criminal justice system and the authority of
the state to carry out such punishments in future.
The letter mentioned reported admission by the Supreme Court on "three
different occasions" that seven decisions awarding death sentences were
rendered "per incuriam (in ignorance) and contrary to the binding dictum of
rarest of rare propounded in the constitution bench judgment in Bachan Singh
vs. State of Punjab (1980)".
"None of these cases involve crimes against the State. Further, the concerns
raised in this appeal have nothing to do with the larger debate about the
desirability of retaining the death penalty. Rather, they pertain to the
administration of death penalty in a conscientious, fair and just manner," the
letter read.
Speaking to The Indian Express, both Sawant and Kolse-Patil said they had not
received any official response from the President's office to their letter till
date.
"The issue we had raised through our letter is directly related to our
Constitution since it involves awarding capital punishment on the basis of
erroneous judgments, as accepted by the apex court," Kolse-Patil said,
demanding that death penalty should be abolished on the lines of other
countries.
The signatories
A P Shah (former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court); B A Khan (former Chief
Justice, Jammu and Kashmir High Court); Bilal Nazki (former Chief Justice,
Orissa High Court); P K Misra (former Chief Justice, Patna High Court); S N
Bhargava (former Chief Justice, Sikkim High Court); B H Marlapalle (former
Judge, Bombay High Court); Hosbet Suresh (former Judge, Bombay High Court);
Prabha Sridevan (former Judge, Madras High Court); K P Sivasubramaniam (former
Judge, Madras High Court); Ranvir Sahai Verma (former Judge, Rajasthan High
Court); P C Jain (former Judge, Rajasthan High Court); and Panachand Jain
(former Judge, Rajasthan High Court).
(source: Indian Express)
*****************
Blood money paid, 17 Indians on death row return from UAE
It has come as a great relief for the families of 17 Indians who were facing
death penalty awarded by a UAE court. They have returned after the settlement
of the case. They were convicted and awarded death penalty on March 28, 2010
for the murder of a Pakistani national Misri Khan in a bootlegging case in
2009.
They were released after paying 6 crore rupees as blood money. This settlement
could be achieved after more than three years of flip-flops in the handling of
the case by our government.
According to media reports these jubilant youth were almost in tears when they
touched down at New Delhi. All of them are in their early 30s.
16 youths belong to Punjab and one of them belongs to Haryana.
(source: Daily Bhaskar)
*******************
Afzal Guru's Hanging Sparks Death Penalty Debate
The hanging of Afzal Guru, who was convicted for the 2001 attack on the Indian
parliament, has raised many unpalatable questions.
Was it vengeance or justice? Was it a surrender to "the collective conscience
of the nation" or a failure to honor the human rights of a man who was punished
for dissent, despite the insistence by many that he was not involved in the
crimes for which he was accused?
In the bigger picture, Guru's hanging has also sparked debate about the use of
the death penalty to satisfy public anger, while ignoring the root causes of
anger and dissent.
On February 9, the uncertainty surrounding Guru's fate ended with the sudden
announcement that he had been executed by hanging in New Delhi's high-security
Tihar Jail. For almost 7 years, a mercy petition filed by Guru's wife had been
pending. However, Indian President Pranab Mukherjee finally rejected the
petition on February 3.
According to Amnesty International, Guru's hanging represents India's 2nd
execution in the past 3 months. Ajmal Kasab, the main accused in the 26/11
terrorist attacks in Mumbai, was hanged last November.
Some analysts believe that the government aims to send a strong message of zero
tolerance for terrorism. But is death really a deterrent to terrorism? And more
specifically, will Guru's execution deter dissent in the Kashmir valley?
Since the Supreme Court of India sentenced Guru to death in 2005, doubts have
been raised about the merits of the case against him. Both the evidence and the
process used to convict him were questioned.
The apex court found Guru guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In an
article in the Hindu titled "Unanswered Questions are the Remains of the Day"
Anjali Mody wrote: "Anyone conversant with how this case was prosecuted will
admit that where Mohammed Afzal was concerned there was a presumption of guilt.
He had nothing that amounted to legal representation".
In the court's verdict, one paragraph stated: "The incident, which resulted in
heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation, and the collective conscience
of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the
offender. The challenge to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of India by
these acts of terrorists and conspirators can only be compensated by giving
maximum punishment to the person who is proved to be the conspirator in this
treacherous act" (Emphasis added by writer and social activist Arundhati Roy in
an article published in Outlook Magazine in 2006).
In the same article, Roy wrote: "To invoke the 'collective conscience of
society' to validate ritual murder, which is what the death penalty is, skates
precariously close to valorising lynch law."
Taking note of the 2 executions in quick succession, Human Rights Watch (HRW)
has urged the Indian government to "end this distressing use of executions as a
way to satisfy some public opinion."
Political analysts view these executions as an attempt by the Congress-led
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to change the image that it is
soft on terror. They also argue that if the government had commuted Guru's
death sentence to life imprisonment, the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) could have gained a chance to polarize the situation just 1 year away
from general elections.
But this political one-upmanship is harming the cause of peace in Jammu and
Kashmir and chokes the liberal voice in the valley. There is strong sentiment
in the state that justice has not been done in the case of Guru, who has become
a scapegoat. In this atmosphere of anger, fringe elements have a greater chance
to influence the youth of the region.
Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, Omar Abdullah, echoed the sentiment in an
interview with NDTV when he said that "the long term implications of Afzal
Guru's execution are worrying as they are linked to the people of Kashmir,
especially the younger generation. Like it or not, the execution has reinforced
the point that there is no justice. We will have to deal with how we can change
that sort of alienation."
Even more worrying is the alienation of liberal voices from popular political
discourse in the country. According to political analyst Professor Badri Raina,
crying for the death penalty means deviating from the Gandhian philosophy of
nonviolence, which he called a "gruesome contradiction".
The death of Afzal Guru leaves us with many questions which India must address
if it wants to continue evolving as a vibrant and robust nation.
(source: The Diplomat)
****************************
Taint hangs over the UPA Govt; The decision to hang Afzal Guru leaves many
questions on the investigation unanswered. The feeling of alienation in the
Valley is likely to deepen.
It is inappropriate to talk in the same breath about the hanging of Kasab, the
lone Pakistani terrorist caught red-handed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, and
that of Afzal Guru on Friday for the attack on Parliament in 2001.
Union Home Secretary R. K. Singh's statement that Guru's wife had been informed
of his hanging by speed post was contemptible. The TV channels would have woken
her up with this rude shock...that is before both cable and Internet were cut
off in many parts of the Kashmir Valley. I can already hear outraged voices
about terrorists having rights and not the families of the victims of that
attack. Of course, the attack on Parliament was a heinous and outrageous crime,
and rightfully interpreted as an attack on the soul of India. Of course, law
and justice too had to take their course.
Uncomfortable questions
But the manner in which the entire police investigation was done: the number of
times Guru was made to give and change his statements, including the one naming
the 5 terrorists who were killed on the spot; how the courts had repeatedly dug
holes in police investigations; the Kashmiri "surrendered militant's" abject
failure to get decent legal representation in the initial stages; and, above
all, how the "mastermind" of the attack, S. A. R Geelani was acquitted by the
higher court, leaves many questions unanswered.
Over the years, as there have been strident voices to "quickly hang Guru",
human rights activists such as Arundhati Roy and others have pointed out - not
only after the hanging, but from 2006 onwards - the Supreme Court's observation
that the evidence against Guru was only circumstantial. Dismissing his appeal,
the apex court said as in most such conspiracies, there wasn't "direct
evidence" against Guru, and then went on to pronounce a questionable and widely
criticised premise that this attack "had shaken the entire nation, and the
collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital
punishment is awarded to the offender".
Repercussions in Kashmir
Those of us who have travelled to Kashmir - experienced firsthand the
alienation of the Kashmir people, often not without justification - are fearful
of the repercussions of Guru's hanging in the Valley. And also the manner in
which it was done. Kasab was a confirmed fidayeen, who mowed down innocent
people, but Guru's case was different.
Getting involved in the Kashmiri secessionist movement, like many Kashmiri
youth, he too crossed over to Pakistan in 1990, but soon returned
disillusioned, surrendered, was often picked up and tortured by both the STF
and BSF, and used by them. According to Guru's wife Tabassum, once they
demanded a bribe of Rs 1 lakh to release him, which she paid by selling her
jewels.
More important, in an article titled "A wife pleads for justice" in The Kashmir
Times in 2004, she contended he had not get a "fair trial", was "totally
undefended in the trial court", and charged that the police had forced him to
"falsely confess before the media. They humiliated him, beat him, tortured him
and even urinated in his mouth. I feel deep shame to talk about these things in
public but circumstances have forced me. It has taken a lot of courage for me
to put all this on paper but I do so for the sake of my child (Ghalib) who is
now 6 years old." She talked of the "communal bias" of the trial judge and
wrote: "You will think that Afzal must be involved in some militant activities
that is why the security forces were torturing him to extract information. But
you must understand the situation in Kashmir, every man, woman and child has
some information on the movement (of militants) even if they are not involved.
By making people into informers they turn brother against brother, wife against
husband and children against parents."
How many in the rest of India know this reality of Kashmir? Her final desperate
plea was of "a Kashmiri woman who is losing faith in Indian democracy and its
ability to be fair to Kashmiri Muslims."
A political game?
These words are being recalled here because, now that the bloody cries for
Guru???s hanging have been satiated, "our collective conscience" needs to ask
some tough questions. Was justice really done? When one accused was freed and
others got life imprisonment or a reduced sentence, was his hanging justified?
And that too without his family being allowed to meet him or informed?
Note how the BJP and rest of the Sangh Parivar are saying triumphantly that the
UPA Government was compelled to finally act because the Congress is getting
increasingly panicky about the rise of Narendra Modi and the growing clamour to
make him the NDA's prime ministerial candidate.
J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah, sombre on Day 1, expressed anger the next day
and quizzed the Centre about the haste, not informing Guru's family and seeking
answers on the "selective hanging" of only some of those facing death penalty.
He said he was extremely worried about the long-term repercussions this would
have in Kashmir, where an entire generation might grow up identifying with Guru
and resenting the Indian Government.
Social media angry
On Twitter, the resentment of some youngsters was evident within minutes of the
story breaking. Sehla Rashid's tweets were telling enough. "His trial was
unfair. So was his execution. So will be his burial. Kashmiris will protest, be
shot at. God bless #Kashmir" Her 2nd tweet said, "Oh great nation, now that
Afzal guru is hanged, please also hang Army men who have killed Kashmiris in
cold blood."
Sameer Bhat @sameerft said: "Why shut the cable in #Kashmir cowards? What
happened to democracy and freedom of speech crap?
But much more scathing was this tweet from Rana Ayyub, responding to Modi's
tweet on better late than never. "Narendra Modi says der aaye durust aaye. Sir,
we are waiting for the day u are indicted for the genocide in Gujarat. Will say
the same."
But at the end of the day, the buck stops with the UPA Government. If it is
perceived that the decision to hang Guru was taken before the Budget and the
2014 elections only to prove that India is not a "soft state", a section of
Indians still with the UPA - despite the plethora of scams, because they are
uncomfortable with the BJP and its ideology - will be alienated.
Much more important than the political positioning is what will happen in the
Valley. The separatists in the Valley have already got a shot in the arm.
Thankfully, a section of the media has refused to join the "celebrations" and
raised tough and scathing questions on the whole trial, role of the police and
even the judgment.
If Guru got more punishment than he deserved, Ghalib, like his father, might
once again cross over the border. Who can blame him...and what other choice
have we given him?
(source: The Hindu Business Line)
SOUTH AFRICA:
Minister rules out death penalty in SA
The 2 men accused of killing Bredasdorp teenager Anene Booysen must not be
granted bail, Women and Children Minister Lulu Xingwana said on Tuesday.
"We are saying to the courts today there must be no bail," she told reporters
after the appearance of Jonathan Davids and Johannes Kana in the Bredasdorp
Magistrate's Court.
Xingwana said tough sentences could be a deterrent to criminals that abused and
killed women and children.
The men appeared for the rape and killing of Booysen, 17, who was found at a
local construction site on Saturday 2 February after visiting a club the
previous night. She was brutally injured and disembowelled.
Xingwana attended the court hearing and sat next to Booysen's relatives,
comforting them with hugs and words.
The case was postponed to 26 February for bail applications.
The 2 men hid their faces with a towel and jacket. The court ruled on Monday
that their faces not be shown in the media because the State believed this
could jeopardise the ongoing investigation.
Death sentence, castration
Xingwana said government was leading "from the front" when it came to crimes
against women and children. Police had a sexual offences unit and units for
protecting families and children. A concerted effort was also being made to
establish sexual offences courts.
When asked if government would reinstate the death penalty for such crimes,
Xingwana said this was against the democratic values of the country.
"It is against our ethos of human rights."
She said the country would not consider castration of rapists as practised by
select countries.
"We will not do anything that is illegal as government. Well, we believe in
human rights of all people and believe the courts are the body that should be
given the authority to ensure the law takes its course."
The minister said the entire nation shared in the grief of Booysen's family and
that her death would not be in vain.
(source: South African Press Agency)
BANGLADESH:
Bangladesh approves law to swiftly execute war criminals
Bangladesh's cabinet approved on Monday changes to war crime laws to ensure
opposition leaders on trial for alleged atrocities during the nation's 1971
independence war can be swiftly executed if convicted. The move came amid huge
demonstrations by hundreds of thousands of people in Dhaka for the past 7 days
calling for quick executions of the 10 alleged war criminals currently being
tried on such charges as genocide and rape.
2 others have already been convicted.
The demonstrations began after the war crimes tribunal last week handed a life
sentence to a leader of the largest Islamic party - a term critics condemned as
too lenient.
The demonstrators include students, bloggers, academics and journalists.
Cabinet secretary Musharraf Hossain Bhuiyan said the cabinet, led by Prime
Minister Sheikh Hasina, approved the changes, allowing the state and victims to
contest the life term for Abdul Quader Molla of the Jamaat-e-Islami party.
The cabinet also set a 60-day limit for the Supreme Court's Appellate Division
to dispose of appeals, Bhuiyan said, meaning someone getting a maximum death
sentence can be hanged this year.
"Previously there were no rules on disposing of an appeal at the Appellate
Division," he told reporters.
Bangladesh's legal system is notoriously slow with the judiciary overwhelmed by
millions of cases, meaning some take years to be heard.
"Now, a new rule has been added under which an appeal (against a war crime
verdict) must be disposed of within 45 days. If not possible...the Appellate
division will get another 15 days. The total is 60 days," Bhuiyan said.
The parliament "will pass the law within a few days", he said.
The war court, called the International Crimes Tribunal despite having no
international oversight, last month sentenced a fugitive Islamic TV preacher to
death for murder during the 1971 war.
Last Tuesday, Molla, Jamaat's 4th-highest ranked leader, who was accused of
mass murder, became the 1st opposition leader to be sentenced.
8 other Jamaat officials, including its head and deputy head and 2 senior
officials of the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), are also
being tried by the tribunal. Most of the cases are at an advanced stage.
Both Jamaat and BNP have labelled the cases "show trials" aimed at barring the
leaders from upcoming polls. International rights groups have questioned the
proceedings.
The life term for the Jamaat-e-Islami party leader triggered nationwide
protests with Jamaat rejecting the verdict and its supporters clashing with
police, resulting in at least four deaths.
The government says the trials are needed to heal the wounds of the 9-month war
in which it says 3 million people were killed, many by pro-Pakistani militia
whose members allegedly included Jamaat officials.
Mujibur Rahman, the father of the current prime minister, had planned to put
alleged war criminals on trial before his assassination in a coup in 1975,
which Hasina says was masterminded by war criminals.
(source: Dawn)
RUSSIA:
Russia strongly opposed to reinstating death penalty
The Russian State Duma decided against re-introducing the death penalty. MPs do
not see execution as means of "eradicating evil," but caution that it would
appease public opinion. Earlier, Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev said
that he saw nothing wrong in the return of execution.
Talks on the return of the death penalty as capital punishment for the most
serious crimes have been ongoing from the date of abandonment of the death
penalty in Russia. The reason for the differences in the circles of the
legislators and members of the parliament is the notorious public opinion,
which, in theory, should be carefully considered by MPs. Public opinion on a
number of high profile crimes unanimously claims that some prisoners do not
deserve life sentence and should be sentenced to death.
People's point of view was suddenly supported by the Minister of Internal
Affairs Vladimir Kolokoltsev, who said that he, as a citizen, did not see
anything wrong in the return of capital punishment. Head of the State Duma
Committee on Legislation Pavel Krasheninnikov at a recent meeting of the State
Duma said that the re-introduction of the death penalty would appease the
public opinion, but would not "eradicate the root of evil."
Parliamentarian Alexander Kulikov, on the contrary, cited statistics of the
Soviet times, from which it appears that capital punishment was a measure that
limited and reduced the level of crime in general.
"I think that now all the talk about the return of the death penalty, by and
large, is meaningless," told presidential advisor, head of the Presidential
Council for the Promotion of Civil Society and Human Rights Mikhail Fedotov to
a correspondent of Pravda.Ru. "To talk about the return of the death penalty,
we must re-write and pass a new constitution. I would emphasize that it would
take a complete re-write and not an amendment. Only in this case the return of
such penalties would not be contrary to the provisions of the Constitutional
Court. So these issues are now only theoretical and have no real application.
As for me as a citizen, I am against the death penalty, but this is
irrelevant."
Death penalty was abolished in Russia in 1997. It was then legally established
that in Russia capital punishment could not be implemented or appointed. The
issue of the final application of the law was clarified by the Constitutional
Court only in 2009. The court determined that, under international law, the
application of capital punishment is not a guarantee for a citizen not to be
subjected to the death penalty under any circumstances. This is required by a
variety of international acts.
Supporters of abolition of death penalty point to the fact that execution is
not a punishment that would compensate for the loss of the society from a
criminal offense. In particular, detainees imprisoned for a long-term
(life-long) period fulfill a social function by working and producing products
that may be needed by the society. This is a way to compensate financially. In
addition, according to supporters of the "humane" approach, life imprisonment
may guarantee that sooner or later justice mistakes (if any) can be identified
and corrected. After the execution of capital punishment this is impossible.
However, despite the feelings of lawmakers and those who support the rights of
the convicted to life (guaranteed by the Constitution), in high profile crimes
the society has one desire to punish criminals - by sentencing them to death.
The economic aspect speaks in favor of this measure, because life-long
detention requires government expenses, i.e., taxpayers' money. In addition,
after 25 years of imprisonment, prisoners are entitled to petition for
leniency, and in the event the petition is satisfied, a maniac or a murderer
may once again be free.
Now Russia has 5 colonies where prisoners serve life sentence. If we consider
that the detention regime is incredibly strict, would a prisoner released after
25 years of living in such circumstances be dangerous? However, after a quarter
of a century the offender may not even want to go into strange to him world
without family, friends and any social adaptation.
The talks about capital punishment resumed with new vigor over the last year,
when the details of a series of crimes became apparent. In particular, the
killing and abuse of children reported by the media generated a wave of outrage
over the "humanity" of the legislation. If citizens wishing death to children
murderers cannot arrange a lynching (such attempts at times had to be stopped
by special forces), the society whose opinion lawmakers have to consider is
asking to punish the killers legally and according to the law. The law,
however, remains silent.
(source: Pravda)
INDONESIA:
Bali: Lindsay Sandiford Fights Death Penalty--Judges failed to take account of
Lindsay Sandiford's co-operation with police that led to other convictions, her
lawyer says.
A British woman has started an appeal against the death sentence she received
in Indonesia for smuggling cocaine worth 1.6m pounds into the resort island of
Bali.
Lindsay Sandiford, a grandmother from Cheltenham. Gloucestershire, co-operated
with the police and local authorities after her arrest last year, actions which
led to other arrests being made.
Her lawyer, though, says this was not taken into account by the 3 judges
sentencing her.
In the appeal filed to the Indonesian higher court, Sandiford's lawyer Fadillah
Agus said: "She has acknowledged that she did that crime, but the punishment
was not fair and out of proportion."
He said she had expressed regret and apologised and "her co-operation with the
police led to the arrests of the other suspects".
Lindsay Sandiford claims she was forced to smuggle drugs by a criminal gang
Sandiford, 56, was arrested in May 2012 at Bali airport when customs officers
found almost 5kg (10.6lb) of cocaine in her luggage. She claimed she had been
forced to smuggle the drugs into Bali from Thailand by a criminal gang.
Prosecutors announced in December that they would be recommending a 15-year
prison sentence after she agreed to co-operate in a sting operation in which
police swooped on 4 other suspects alleged to be her accomplices, including
Britons Rachel Dougall, Julian Pounder and Paul Beales.
However, in January she was sentenced to death by firing squad. Dougall,
Pounder and Beales have all received sentences ranging from one to 6 years.
Sandiford, originally from Redcar, Teeside, claims she was forced to transport
the drugs by gang members who were threatening to hurt her children.
Paul Beales, Rachell Dougall and Julian Ponder all received jail sentences
"However, her role as a justice collaborator was not taken into account by the
district court," Mr Agus said. "Rather, she was sentenced to death while those
masterminds and actual owners of the cocaine received lighter sentences."
The High Court in London last month dismissed a case Sandiford filed against
the British Government, saying it did not act unlawfully when it refused to
fund her appeal.
Indonesia has very strict anti-drug laws and most of the more than 40
foreigners on its death row were convicted of drug offences.
The country has not executed anyone since 2008, when 10 people were put to
death, leaving 113 prisoners remaining on death row. Officials have said
several executions are expected this year.
A response to Sandiford's appeal could take up to a month and a half.
(source: Sky News)
SAUDI ARABIA----execution
Saudi Arabia beheads citizen for murder; He was executed for killing a fellow
citizen
Saudi Arabia beheaded one of its nationals on Tuesday in the southwestern Aseer
region after he was convicted of murdering a fellow citizen, the interior
ministry announced.
Mohammad Al Qah'tani shot dead Mueed Al Qah'tani during a fight between the 2,
the ministry said in a statement carried by state news agency SPA.
His execution brings to 11 the number of people beheaded in Saudi Arabia so far
this year.
In 2012, the kingdom beheaded 76 people, according to an AFP tally based on
official figures. The US-based Human Rights Watch put the number at 69.
Rape, murder, apostasy, armed robbery and drug trafficking are all punishable
by death under Saudi Arabia's strict version of sharia.
(source: Gulf News)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
