Saudi Arabia judgment on Ali Mohammed al-Nimr crucifixion ‘unfounded’ with ‘shocking flaws’
Ali Mohammed al-Nimr’s crucifixion judgment has been deemed “unfounded” by an independent legal expert on counterterrorism and human rights. Zafar Gondal, a former judge and magistrate, conducted an analysis into the case, which revealed “shocking flaws” with the ruling.
Gondal’s research was conducted on behalf of the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) and took into consideration the Kingdom’s legal obligations with respect to international and regional treaties that the country is bound to. The analysis also placed heavy emphasis on the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states prohibits capital punishment for those under the age of 18.
The convention states that those under 18 who are arrested or detained must have full access to guardians and legal assistance. Saudi Arabia is acceded the convention in 1996 and Gondal’s legal analysis concludes al-Nimr’s ruling is in violation of Article 37 and 40.
A spokesperson for ESOHR said: “The independent expert analysis has proven major gaps in the prosecution and conviction of Ali al-Nimr, which violate multiple international treaties, and calls on the judges involved to be the subject of serious disciplinary action.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.