JEDDAH, 6 December 2007 — At the same time that the case of the “Qatif girl” has sparked both local and international outrage and condemnation — and deservedly so — another ruling has received little attention despite being just as telling of Saudi justice but in a positive way.
Last week the Supreme Court Council upheld the death sentences issued in April by a Makkah judge against the father and stepmother of a nine year-old girl, Ghosun, who was repeatedly tortured and later died. Her death occurred last year when the police reported that she had broken ribs, that her front teeth had been knocked out, that her body showed bruises and knife wounds and that she had choked on her own blood. Ghosun’s father and stepmother both admitted to torturing the girl but refused to accept responsibility for causing her death.
For a whole year, while Ghosun was in her father’s custody and with her divorced biological mother knocking on the door of every official and human rights organization attempting to get custody, the child was starved, beaten mercilessly, burned, chained to her bed and prevented from going to school. Initially in February the father was sentenced to five years in prison, the minimum in such cases while his wife awaited prosecution. The child’s mother refused to rest until she had obtained justice for her slain daughter. She appealed the case and with overwhelming evidence and witnesses, the judge ruled that both the father and stepmother should be sentenced to death. In his statement, the judge said that due to the horrible and barbaric nature of the murder, committed by people who were supposed to take care of the child, and due to the increasing number of abuse cases by parents against their children, it was important to give the severest punishment as a deterrent to other parents.
The judge decided to issue this ruling and the Supreme Court Council upheld it even though according to the common interpretation of a Hadith (Prophet’s saying), a father should not be executed for killing his offspring. The judge surprised observers and went against expectations — which were at most a life-sentence for both — because he decided that both the case and the abuse of children in general required a strong statement.
And indeed, just two weeks ago in Riyadh, a 12-year-old girl breathed her last in a hospital emergency room after her father had brutally beat her and poured boiling water on her. Investigators found that he had also tortured his other three children — aged seven, eight and nine. He is now in jail awaiting trial and both prosecutors and religious scholars are asking for the severest punishment. Doesn’t he deserve the death sentence too for torturing and murdering his child?
Ghosun’s murder case received wide media attention at the time but coverage decreased as other and bigger stories came up. The father’s parents are now left with their last chance to save their son’s life for the sake of his other four-year-old daughter by appealing to the king for a pardon. The father’s lawyer has blamed the media for influencing public opinion and obstructing justice.
The rulings in Ghosun’s case and in that of the Qatif girl case reveal the problems and weaknesses of our judicial system. It seems that all depends on the judge’s feelings because apparently the investigation process and evidence can become irrelevant if the judge does not take them into consideration while listening to testimony in court.
The judge in Ghosun’s case weighed the evidence, taking a broad perspective and evaluation of the abuse/murder case; he then issued a statement expressing intolerance of such deviant behavior by parents. The judge in the case of the Qatif girl, on the other hand used a very narrow interpretation of socially unacceptable behavior in order to pass a harsh moral judgment against the victim of the brutal gang rape and disregarded the evidence incriminating the rapists. If the judge in the Qatif girl case was attempting to make a statement against girls dating and allegedly having affairs, he chose the wrong case. This case is about a gang rape regardless of the circumstances and allegations concerning her. He should have taken note of the judge in Ghosun’s case by looking at the broader issue rather than letting his personal prejudices blind him. By issuing a lenient sentence against the rapists — who deserve the death sentence under any circumstances — and blaming the girl for being with a man not related to her and allegedly in a compromising position, practically excuses the seven rapists’ act and opens the door for an unscrupulous man to rape any woman who happens to be outside her home.
The first indications of this happening might already be here. A story in a local newspaper two days ago reported that four men accused of raping a girl in Madinah had received sentences ranging from two to four years, even though the prosecutor asked for the death sentence. The reason for the seemingly light sentences was because the defendants’ lawyer raised doubts about the charges since the girl withdrew her charges. It is not clear what the circumstances were in that case, but is it possible that the girl withdrew her charges fearing punishment similar to that of the Qatif girl?
One last note about the role of the media in both these and other cases. It is important to have a free, objective and responsible media covering such issues. It was disappointing to see how some of our newspapers and satellite channels addressed the Qatif girl case in a blatantly biased and one-sided manner. Keeping the public ignorant or deliberately trying to tilt public opinion one way or another by withholding information or preventing the expression of opposing views does not serve the development of our society into a more tolerant one.
