Despite of the speculation created through some statements by the Sri Lankan government that the Saudi Arabian authorities were considering commuting the death sentences of three Sri Lankan citizens held in Al-Ha’ir Prison, they, and a fourth man have been beheaded.
What were the real negotiations between the Sri Lankan and Saudi Arabian authorities regarding the death sentences of these prisoners? The families of the deceased and the public have a right to know the details of what these negotiations were and where and how they failed.
This is even more relevant due to the fact that the executions were carried out without any notice and presumably this included the Sri Lankan authorities. If the former president Chandrika Kumaratunge in her capacity as president and the incumbent president are said to have intervened with the now late King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud and his successor, it is most surprising that the death sentences were carried out even without giving any notice to the Sri Lankan authorities. It is quite well known that in some instances, like a case in the Philippines when the foreign minister visited Saudi Arabia and intervened in the issue of a similar death sentence, the Saudi authorities commuted the sentence. In another case of two persons from Britain, after the intervention of the British government they were returned to Britain to serve out their sentences. Under these circumstances quite legitimate concerns arise as to the nature of the negotiations between the governments of Sri Lanka and Saudi Arabia.
In this case three Sri Lankans were sentenced to death in October 2004 after they were arrested in March of that year in the capital Riyadh. The fourth was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Their sentences were apparently upheld in March 2005. As Amnesty International pointed out, “Court proceedings fall far short of international standards for fair trial, and take place behind closed doors… Defendants do not have the right to formal representation by a lawyer, and in many cases are not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them. They may be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress, torture or deception.”
The news about the death sentences came to be known in early April 2005 and the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) made its first statement on this issue on April 4, 2005 urging that the Government of Sri Lanka must take a more proactive stance to save the lives of the three Sri Lankans. The publication of the news in the Sri Lankan press lead to many reactions on the part of the public and the media published interviews with the family members. On April 8, 2005 the AHRC published a statement which stated that the Sri Lankan president’s intervention might save the lives of the three migrant workers. This statement was reproduced as the lead item of the Daily Mirror. A number of local newspapers and the BBC Sinhala Service also raised this issue. Subsequently a press release from the President’s house stated that President Kumaratunge had written to the King of Saudi Arabia requesting clemency for these men. The AHRC inquired about the details of this communication from the Sri Lankan Embassy in Saudi Arabia but none were forthcoming.
The family members of the convicted prisoners made private visits to leading politicians including the then prime minister and now the incumbent president, Mahinda Rajapakse. A demonstration of several hundred persons was held in Colombo and the families of the prisoners participated. The then prime minister Mahinda Rajapakse met a delegation from this demonstration and listened to their grievances. He personally undertook to intervene in this matter. A photograph of the Prime Minister meeting the families of the prisoners appeared in the press.
The public agitation on this question continued and a Buddhist monk, as a member of the parliament, raised a question on this issue as a private member’s question. The public concern on this issue was expressed through many other forums and publications. Amnesty International also made several interventions on this case and wrote to the King of Saudi Arabia. The AHRC also issued an urgent appeal to his Royal Highness and was aware that many persons had intervened on behalf of the prisoners for clemency.
However, some lull was created in this agitation after the speculation arising from a statement by the Sri Lankan government that the matter was being actively considered by the Saudi Arabian authorities and that the sentences would be commuted to life imprisonment. Therefore when the news broke yesterday (February 19) everyone, including the family members was taken by surprise. According to one report, one family heard the news only when the newspaper called them yesterday.
In an interview with the BBC on the evening of 19th a minister, speaking on behalf of the Sri Lankan government insinuated that the responsibility for the executions is on the convicted persons themselves as they have engaged in crimes in a foreign land. The previous stand by the government that at the trial no legal representation was allowed, and that the trial itself might have fallen short of international standards, was not mentioned by the government spokesman.
An issue of a very grave nature arises regarding the execution of the fourth person who was only sentenced by the court to a period of imprisonment. How did this person come to be executed? Was this a mistake or was it a misrepresentation of the actual sentence? Whichever, this is a very serious issue that Sri Lanka is obliged to seek an explanation for from the Saudi Arabia authorities. Both Sri Lankan citizens and the family of the executed man have a right to an explanation. It would be rather sad if the seeking of an explanation even regarding this matter is not pursued due to the fear of reprisals of repercussions on trade relations with Saudi Arabia.
Both from the point of view of the four executed persons, their families and also others who go for employment in Saudi Arabia and other countries and also from the point of view of the public, many questions arise as to the obligations of a state regarding its citizens facing criminal trials and convictions in foreign lands. Many countries have bi-lateral agreements for conducting trials for crimes committed abroad in the country of origin of the accused persons, particularly when the punishment for the crime in the country of origin is far less severe than that of the country where the crime allegedly took place. It appears that Sri Lanka does not have any agreements with Saudi Arabia on any of the issues that affects the rights of its citizens under these circumstances. It is also the practice of many countries to provide legal assistance to citizens who face criminal trials while abroad. This matter was initially brought to the consideration of the Sri Lankan government by the media and the government commented that such legal assistance may be provided for these four persons in order to find ways for any appeals from the sentences. However, there is nothing on record to show that any such obligation was carried out. Furthermore, it is a basic obligation of the state to provide humanitarian assistance in prison and even on the occasion of a death sentence being carried out. There is nothing at present on record with regard to the actions of the Sri Lankan authorities on this issue. They had not even received information in advance of the date of execution of these men. The families of the executed men did not have even privilege of being informed of that such action was due to take place which is when most families make last minute attempts to intervene on behalf of people in jail who cannot help themselves.
The families also have burial rights. These are afforded to families even after execution takes place. How are the Sri Lankan authorities going to respect the rights of the families to have the bodies of their loved ones returned so that they might engage in whatever traditions they may have to honour the deceased?
Beyond the concerns of the four individuals this execution raises questions regarding the relationship Sri Lanka has with other nations, particularly ones in which local citizens engage in large scale employment. Do such relationships imply some form of supply of slave labour where the rights of the citizens are abandoned in pursuit of trade relations and foreign exchange earnings? Is Sri Lanka not in a position to take up the issues of the rights of citizens in a strong manner for fear of loosing trade agreements or other contracts? Has the country entered into a stage where labour rights are considered a thing of the past and that in order to maintain foreign relationships without embarrassment to authority the rights of citizens need to be sacrificed? All these are questions that the government as well as the citizens groups should ask on this occasion because these four cases may just be the beginning and other stories of similar tragedies may follow as there are many Sri Lankans in prisons around the world.
