CCPR/C/123/D/2785/2016
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party would violate Mr. Humaam’s rights under
article 6 of the Covenant if his death sentence were carried out, in the light of the alleged
violations of his rights under article 14 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author also claims that the repeated statements by the authorities and recent
legislative changes aimed at the resumption of the execution have caused an enormous
amount of distress to Mr. Humaam, contrary to the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment under article 7 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
In a note verbale dated 12 September 2016, the State party submitted its
observations on the communication and challenged its admissibility. It asserts that the
admissibility criteria have not been met and that the communication thus constitutes an
abuse of the right to petition the Committee.
4.2
In its observations dated 12 September 2016, the State party submits that, prior to
the present communication, the same claim was submitted to the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the independence
of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Therefore, the State party contends that the matter is
already being considered under another procedure of international investigation and ought
to be rejected under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. The State party further argues
that domestic remedies have not been exhausted under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional
Protocol. The State party submits that, at the current stage of the proceedings, there is a
mandatory mediation process between Mr. Ali’s family and Mr. Humaam, whereby the
family is allowed to either exercise or relinquish the right of qisas. Since the author asserts
that the family members have already written a letter stating that they will not seek to
exercise their right, it is likely that they will not enforce the right. The State party contends,
however, that this means this avenue is not exhausted at this point. Mediation under the
regulation is mandatory, and the death penalty cannot be imposed without mediation being
undertaken.
4.3
The claims regarding an unfair trial are insufficiently substantiated. With respect to
the claim of a coerced confession, the State party contends that the author has presented no
evidence upon which an allegation of coercion could be based. The confession was given in
a public trial; therefore, it seems illogical to suggest that the confession was coerced.
4.4
Regarding the allegation that Mr. Humaam showed signs of mental illness and
should have been given a psychiatric assessment, no evidence or clarification was provided
to support that claim, and is therefore not substantiated. The issue of Mr. Humaam’s mental
health was not raised until very late in the proceedings, and he was deemed lucid by the
trial judge.2
4.5
With respect to the claim regarding an inadequate investigation, the author’s
assertion that the police claimed publicly that vast sums of money had been paid for the
murder and that those claims had never been refuted nor explained lacks sufficient clarity
or factual support and does not establish that the investigation was incomplete. Even if a
person was ordered to carry out a certain criminal act, it does not lessen the degree of his or
her criminal responsibility if it is established, through a judicial process and beyond
reasonable doubt, that he or she carried out the criminal act in question. In this case, it was
established in a court trial, and confirmed by two levels of appeal, that Mr. Humaam was
guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to death. No credible evidence was put before the
2
The mental health of Mr. Humaam is not mentioned in the judgments of the High Court or of the
Supreme Court. The Criminal Court judgment of 16 January 2014 alludes to the matter only in one
paragraph, stating: “Even though the defense attorney had stated that the defendant had a mental
impairment since his adolescence. Subsequent to the statement by the defendant’s father, the defense
of insanity has never been brought up in any of the various offences he has been charged with.
Considering this, taking up the said defense in the current case makes it questionable. The defense
attorney had been unable to prove to the court that the defendant suffered from mental impairment.”
3