CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016
On 12 July 2016, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting
through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested
that the State party not carry out the execution. On 12 September 2016, the State party
agreed not to carry out the execution pending the Committee’s consideration.
1.3
On 12 September 2016, the State party challenged the admissibility of the
communication. On 19 November 2016, the Committee, acting through its Special
Rapporteur, decided to consider jointly the admissibility and merits of the case.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
On 2 October 2012, the body of Afrasheem Ali, a member of parliament, was
discovered by his wife in their apartment in Male’. A few minutes later, the police arrested
Mr. Humaam, who was nearby. The police initially declared that the murder was politically
motivated and also arrested four other people. However, all were released except Mr.
Humaam.
2.2
Mr. Humaam was convicted of murder by the Male’ Criminal Court on 16 January
2014 and sentenced to death. His lawyer appealed the decision to the High Court, which
upheld the lower court’s decision on 7 September 2015. On 24 June 2016, the Supreme
Court upheld the High Court’s decision.
2.3
The author claims that the investigation of the murder was not properly conducted,
because the authorities never identified Mr. Humaam’s motive for killing Mr. Ali and have
never clarified why they initially announced that the killing was politically motivated. The
police initially claimed publicly that vast sums of money had been paid for the murder, and
those claims have neither been refuted nor explained. Therefore, no motive for the murder
has been established. Mr. Ali’s family even requested that the Supreme Court decision
confirming the death sentence of 24 June 2016 not be implemented until a proper
investigation of the murder had been conducted. However, the court refused to consider the
request, as it was presented outside working hours.
2.4
The author submits that there were several irregularities during Mr. Humaam’s trial.
Firstly, his lawyer was not present when he confessed to the crime. He subsequently
retracted the confession indicating that he had confessed because threats had been made
against his family, but the court did not accept the retraction. No investigation was carried
out into the claim of duress.
2.5
Mr. Humaam was also not allowed to present witnesses to support his defence. A
key witness, Ahmed Nazeef Shaukath, who was with Mr. Humaam when he was arrested,
was found dead on 7 February 2013, before he could testify in court. Another witness, Azlif
Rauf, with whom Mr. Humaam was alleged to have planned the murder, was allowed to
leave the country in January 2015, despite having had his passport confiscated.
2.6
Mr. Humaam’s family requested an independent medical and psychiatric assessment
of Mr. Humaam’s mental state, as he increasingly displayed signs of being mentally
unstable, including erratic behaviour and the changing back and forth of his plea. This also
impeded the ability of his lawyer to provide effective counsel. No assessment was ever
carried out.
2.7
Furthermore, the current law on clemency gives the President the power to pardon or
commute sentences in all cases, including murder cases. However, after the trial of Mr.
Humaam, the judiciary interpreted the Clemency Act as stating that, when exercising
clemency, the President must take into account factors including sharia law, especially the
right of the family of the deceased to qisas, 1 and that clemency therefore could not be
subject to presidential discretion. This, the author alleges, targeted Mr. Humaam and
impinged upon his right to clemency.
1
2
The “right of qisas” means the right of a victim’s nearest relative to, if the Court approves, take the
life of the individual deemed responsible for the crime of murder.