Naffeek Rizana is facing the death sentence in Saudi Arabia, allegedly for the strangulation of a four month old baby. Through close study of the case the Asian Human Rights Commission is satisfied that, in fact, what has taken place was the tragic death of a baby in the process of being fed by an inexperienced teenager.
Naffeek Rizana was born on February 4, 1988 and comes from a war-torn, impoverished village. Here, many families, including those of the Muslim community try to send their under aged children for employment outside the country, as their breadwinners. Some employment agencies exploit the situation of the impoverished families to recruit under aged girls for employment. For that purpose they engage in obtaining passports by altering the dates of birth of these children to make it appear that they are older than they really are. In the case of Naffeek Rizana, the altered date, which is to be found in her passport now, is February 2, 1982. It was on the basis of this altered date that the employment agency fixed her employment in Saudi Arabia and she went there in May, 2005.
Later in 2007 she went to work at the house of Mr. Naif Jiziyan Khklafal Otaibi whose wife had a new-born baby boy. A short time after she started working for this family she was assigned to bottle feed the infant who was by then four months old. Naffeek Rizana had no experience of any sort in caring for such a young infant. She was left alone when bottle feeding the child. While she was feeding the child the boy started choking, as so often happens to babies and Naffeek Rizana panicked and while shouting for help tried to sooth the child by feeling the chest, neck and face, doing whatever she could to help him. At her shouting the mother arrived but by that time the baby was either unconscious or dead. Unfortunately, misunderstanding the situation the family members treated the teenager very harshly and handed her over to the police, accusing her of strangling the baby. At the police station also, she was very harshly handled and did not have the help of a translator or anyone else to whom she could explain what had happened. She was made to sign a confession and later charges were filed in court of murder by strangulation.
On her first appearance in court she was sternly warned by the police to repeat her confession, which she did. However, later she was able to talk to an interpreter who was sent by the Sri Lankan embassy and she explained in her own language the circumstances of what had happened as stated above. This version was also stated in court thereafter.
According to reports, the judges who heard the case requested the father of the child to use his prerogative to pardon the young girl. However, the father refused to grant such pardon. On that basis the court sentenced her to death by beheading. This sentence was made on June 16, 2007.
There is a period of one month for the lodging of an appeal. However, an appeal has not yet been lodged. The initiative for lodging the appeal is with the Sri Lankan government. The AHRC also understands that the Sri Lankan authorities have sought the help of a legal firm which had initially demanded the equivalent of US$ 160,000. In the initially reports in the media there were different figures quoted. However, this matter has now been clarified. The Foreign Ministry in Colombo, Sri Lanka has not authorised such money and the family of Naffeek Rizana is of course unable to raise any funds for her appeal. This matter of legal assistance is being pursued with the government at the moment.
However, under Saudi Arabian law it is the prerogative of the family of the victim, in this case the parents of the baby that has the right to pardon the teenaged, Naffeek Rizana. Such pardon will be valid in law under the Saudi Arabian legal system.
The Asian Human Rights Commission is of the view that was has happened is a tragedy and not a crime. At no stage was any allegation made of any animosity between the teenaged helper and the family. If such animosity existed it is very unlikely that a four month old infant would have been handed over to her care. The inexperience of the helper, as well as the difficulties of communication due to the language problems have ended up in an extremely unfortunate situation being misunderstood as a crime. If the nature of this tragedy is not dealt with within a matter of days from now there will be a further tragedy of a teenaged, inexperienced helper being given capital punishment for a crime she did not commit or intend to commit.
We urge all concerned persons to intervene with the Sri Lankan government, the government of Saudi Arabia and the family of Naif Jiziyan Khklafal Otaibi of Saudi Arabia to protect the life of Naffeek Rizana
