Geneva - SAM Organization for Rights and Liberties published a legal study on political executions in Yemen, prepared by Dr. Nabil Abdel-Wasie, which aims in one of its aspects to determine the extent to which the de facto authority has exploited the provisions of the death penalty to eliminate opponents, in service of its political interests, by depriving the judiciary of its independence and violating the guarantees stipulated for a fair trial.
The study followed a specialized legal methodology aimed, in its theoretical aspect, at addressing the origins of the death penalty, defining its data and the nature of the political authority's exploitation of it, and tracing the implications and outcomes of that exploitation. The study is based on the assumption of a relationship between the abundance of provisions for the death penalty in general, and the breadth of provisions for political incrimination punishable by execution in particular, and the political authority's exploitation of that in eliminating its opponents, through the use of a judiciary deprived of independence and the violation of the principles of a fair trial.
The study addressed several questions (issues) revolving around the intertwined nature of the relationship between the provisions of execution, the political authority, and the judiciary, and the limits of their influence and interaction, which can be summarized in the core issue represented in: How does the de facto authority (the Houthi group) use the penalty of political execution against those who differ with it?
The study used the inductive and analytical approaches, by addressing the general provisions related to the death penalty and everything associated with it, analyzing the legislative texts that contain them and the judicial rulings that mandate them, and the general context in which they were issued, and how the political authority exploited them through the data related to the independence of the judiciary and the principles of a fair trial.
The research paper was divided into three main parts:
The first part addresses execution as a penalty that raises a lot of debate in its inherent nature, as well as in its political exploitation.
The second part tackles the death penalty in Yemen by comparing its current reality and future prospects.
The third part deals with the authority of execution in Yemen, which destroyed the independence of the judiciary, and consequently, the guarantees of a fair trial for the victims of execution.
The study ultimately reached several conclusions and recommendations.
The study mentioned that along with the legislative excess in the provisions of the death penalty, there comes the negative role of the ruling authority in the poor political exploitation of the death penalty, which was entrenched by the de facto authority in Sana'a that excessively resorted to issuing death sentences against its political opponents.
The study stated that the de facto authority (the Houthi group), after seizing power in Sana'a in 2014 by force of arms, and losing legitimacy without a clear vision to govern the state, proceeded to physically destroy state institutions and undermine the idea of an institutionalized state that respects the rule of law. This effectively emptied the constitutional principles of their substance.
The study explained that the group (the Houthis) stripped the judiciary of its effectiveness and turned it into a machine for settling political scores with opponents through the technique of political execution. This necessarily entails the waste of all guarantees of fair trial, explaining that this is clearly evident from examining the procedures followed by the execution judiciary in the trials they conduct for those who oppose the authority, as recorded in the issued judicial rulings. These rulings clearly show the audacity of the authority in violating international, constitutional, and legal principles, and the extent of the subordination and subservience of the judiciary.
The legal study issued by "SAM" added that the Houthi group stripped state institutions of their substance and turned them into tools in the service of the group's interests, including the judiciary, which it transformed into a mouthpiece expressing its will and serving its interests. This also included the liquidation of its opponents through the death penalty, which is overwhelmingly dominated by the political aspect.
The researcher stated that the Houthi group considers any opponent of the de facto authority's ideology to be a political criminal, as long as they have exercised their constitutional right to expression by objecting to any of its ideological policies or actions in any way and at any level. He pointed out that the group has turned the death penalty into a sword hanging over the necks of its political and ideological opponents. Since seizing power, Houthi-appointed judges have issued hundreds of death sentences against their opponents who do not agree with the group's ideology, policies, sectarian beliefs, or criticize its discriminatory or authoritarian practices.
The researcher pointed out that the group (the Houthis) exploited a group of judges affiliated with it sectarianly and loyal to it, who are under its control and were reappointed by the group in the criminal and specialized criminal courts, to issue judicial death sentences based on the legislative texts related to state security cases.
The research paper noted that the domination of the de facto authority over the judiciary is manifested through its complete undermining of the independence of the judiciary and its transformation into a mere mouthpiece for issuing death sentences, which is clearly evident in its disregard for any rules and guarantees of fair trial for the convicted victims. The group has issued approximately 150 death sentences against 350 convicts, for political motives against its opponents.
The study showed that the de facto authority in Sanaa went on to violate the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary through the comprehensive appointments of its loyalists in non-standard ways, and subjecting the judges' work to political oversight by forming a parallel entity to oversee the work of the judicial authority, under the name "...", which exerts pressure and persecution on judges and imposes its political dictates on them, in a blatant and flagrant violation of the constitutional and legal texts.
The paper added that the Houthi group's authority has worked to dismantle the foundations of the judicial authority and strip it of the traditional guarantees of independence. This is manifested in several aspects, including:
Reshaping the Supreme Court, the chambers within it, the Public Prosecution Office, and the Judicial Inspection Authority, on a sectarian basis with elements affiliated with and loyal to the group.
Forming specialized criminal courts/prosecutions that consider serious criminal cases related to public affairs, political and ideological trials, terrorism, and economic cases.
The "SAM" study stated that among the manifestations of the dismantling of the judicial authority is the selection of new entrants to the judiciary and employees in the Public Prosecution Office, who are chosen to study at the Higher Institute of the Judiciary on a discriminatory and sectarian basis, excluding national competencies and criteria of equality and preference, as well as excluding women from joining the judiciary.
The study stated that international and national texts have obligated the rejection of arguments and evidence obtained through torture or other inhumane and degrading treatment. However, the Houthi judicial authority of execution has done the exact opposite of these legal requirements in three main areas:
It did not investigate the facts of torture, abuse, humiliation, and violations of human dignity to which the victims are exposed in Houthi prisons.
It did not determine the responsibility of those carrying out the violations and torture, which means complicity with the perpetrators to facilitate their escape from punishment.
The political execution judiciary has based all its rulings on the evidence extracted from the victims under coercion and torture during the pre-trial stage.
The research paper noted that the deprivation of the judicial authority of its independence results in the continued occurrence of more organized violations, especially since impunity in Yemen is a main reason for the continuation of the conflict and the commission of further violations. This is both a result and a cause of the conflict that has slipped out of legal, value-based, and ethical constraints.
The study argued that the development of penal policy regarding the death penalty, with all the developments and implications at the international level, is as much related to the specificity of the impact of national factors and circumstances, to the point of saying that it is possible to abolish the penalty. However, it remains influenced by the political, legislative, religious, and social environment in Yemen, which makes it difficult to abolish it absolutely.
The study suggests that in an initial stage, it is necessary to know the constraints that limit the idea of abolition, and in a second stage, to differentiate between types of penalties and their circumstances, in order to then decide on each type separately based on the reality allowed by those constraints.
The study recommended that the international community and international bodies demand that the de facto authority impose limits on the use of arbitrary death sentences, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearance - which constitute flagrant violations of international law.
It also called for activating the international community's role in monitoring and overseeing the violations committed in trials before the judiciary of the de facto authority, which does not respect international obligations and does not take human freedom, rights, and dignity into account.
The study called on the international community to establish a criminal investigation mechanism, as recommended by the Group of Eminent Experts, and grant it a mandate to create case files that can be used by the competent prosecuting authorities.
It also called for activating specialized monitoring and oversight mechanisms, with the right to receive any complaints about violations affecting the rights of the accused before or during the trial phase. These mechanisms should have immunity that enables them to visit detention centers and provide the necessary services to assist victims, such as providing legal assistance like appointing a lawyer, notifying the victim's family, stopping the violation or detention under humane conditions and in places under judicial supervision.
After that, these mechanisms should submit periodic reports on the state of these national cases, in order to take the necessary measures to protect these rights.
The study called on the legitimate government to be diligent in referring those responsible for human rights violations to trials, as some of these violations amount to war crimes, to ensure that the perpetrators do not escape punishment.
It urged the legitimate government to adhere strictly to the criminal code and its clarity when it comes to political crimes punishable by death, noting that the abolition of the death penalty for political crimes would be the most appropriate course of action.
The study addressed the legitimate government with the need to invite the relevant local and international bodies to investigate cases of executions in the broader context of arbitrary detention and the use of torture to extract confessions.
The research paper recommended that the de facto authority (the Houthis) keep the judiciary independent from the desires and whims of the executive authority, and prevent its use in settling political scores. It urged safeguarding the judiciary's independence as a sovereign authority, and not interfering in its work.
The paper demanded that the de facto authority abolish death sentences issued against Yemenis who were arbitrarily detained and sentenced to death without a fair trial, immediately stop issuing death sentences, and compensate the victims of unjust death penalties.