Rape case calls Saudi legal system into question

Sharia law at issue
Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom’s strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. Judges — appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council — have complete discretion to set sentences, except in cases where Sharia outlines a punishment, such as capital crimes.

That means no two judges would likely hand down the same verdict for similar crimes. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence to death, depending on the judge.

Saudis are urging the Justice Ministry to clarify the logic behind some rulings. In one recent case, three men convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy received sentences of between one and two years in prison and 300 lashes each. In contrast, another judge sentenced at least four men to between six and 12 years imprisonment for fondling women in a tunnel in Riyadh.

Saleh al-Shehy, a columnist for Al-Watan, asked Justice Minister Abdullah Al-Sheik to explain why the boy’s rapists got a lighter sentence than the men in last year’s sexual harassment case.

‘Do you think it satisfies God?’
“I won’t ask you my brother, the minister, if you find the ruling satisfactory or not,” wrote al-Shehy. “I will ask you, ‘Do you think it satisfies God?”

“Please explain to us how one judge ruled and how the other ruled? What evidence did the one rely on and what proof did the other use?” he added.

The broad discretion judges enjoy have been a disaster for Fatima, another Saudi woman. She suddenly found herself divorced from her husband, Mansour al-Timani, after her half-brothers went to a judge and told him their sister had married beneath her.

Fatima, whose full name has not been given in media reports, had been married for over three years and was pregnant with her second child when the judge declared the marriage void in July 2005.

Today, Fatima sits in jail with her 11-month-old son — her 4-year-old daughter was recently freed — rather than return to the custody of her family as the judge decreed.

Absence of evidence
The problems over sentencing are exacerbated by loose trial rules, in which physical evidence sometimes is not presented.

The Girl of Qatif said her trial had two sessions. The three trial judges asked for her statement, then heard the statement from the seven defendants in the first court session, according to the woman. In the second, about a month later, the judges pronounced their verdict. It was not known if there were other sessions she did not attend.

Judges in the case referred The Associated Press to the Justice Ministry when asked about the sentencing. The ministry, in a statement Tuesday, said rape could not be proved. There were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation, the statement said. It said the verdict cannot be appealed.

Sharia allows defendants to deny signed confessions, according to Abdul-Aziz al-Gassem, a lawyer who was not involved in the case. They still get punished if convicted, but the verdict is lighter.

“The lack of transparency in the investigation, the trial and the sentencing, plus the difficulties that journalists have to get access lead to deep a darkness where everything is possible,” said al-Gassem.

MORE FROM MIDEAST & N. AFRICA

Mideast & N. Africa Section Front

Iran forces down Hungarian plane Dubai aims to top its own world's tallest tower FBI: Tapeproof American al-Qaida member alive Egyptians looking for 'good side' of America Olmert: Don't arm Israel's enemies Jewish 'modesty patrols' sow fear in Israel Patience, persistence pay off with visit to Syria Mideast & N. Africa Section Front   Add Mideast & N. Africa headlines to your news reader: