The vulnerability of migrants facing the death penalty - examples from Pakistan and Singapore

Pakistani migrants in the Gulf countries
A considerable number of Pakistani migrants move to countries in the Gulf in order to build a better life. 96% of the total number of Pakistani migrants are concentrated in six countries in the Gulf, 90% of whom are in Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Most of these migrants are employed to do manual work such as construction or carpentry for example.
Over the last three years, 39 Pakistanis have been executed in Saudi Arabia, particularly in cases linked to drug trafficking. Usually, these people are uneducated and come from the poorer sections of Pakistani society.

In a good number of cases, national legislation is applied in a discriminatory manner with regard to minorities.

According to Justice Project Pakistan, in most of the cases in Saudi Arabia prisoners do not have access to a lawyer. Most of the hearings are carried out in Arabic without access to a translation so prisoners cannot understand the accusations retained against them or defend themselves. In some cases, confessions are obtained under torture and prisoners are refused any contact with their families. Families do not receive information about arrests, death sentences or executions, and the bodies are not returned to Pakistan. The latter does not provide any consular assistance to these migrants and their families but fully benefits from the significant sums of money transferred from these workers to Pakistan (approximately 30% of total funds sent to Pakistan come from migrant workers in Saudi Arabia alone according to Justice Project Pakistan).

The situation in Singapore
Amnesty International has called Singapore the “Disneyland of the death penalty” with the highest number of executions per inhabitant in the world. Between 25 and 50% of prisoners sentenced to death are foreign nationals, most of whom are overseas workers with little education. The economic status of the prisoners, as well as their civil status and level of education, have an impact on their ability to access a fair trial.
Most executions are connected to drugs cases. Singapore’s legal specificities pose specific problems for vulnerable groups, particularly migrants and minorities. For example, the presumption of guilt in cases of drug trafficking where the burden of proof is reversed. There is no obligation to provide an independent interpreter which has an impact on the reliability of the questioning transcripts and means that the accused cannot understand their statements before signing them. Added to these obstacles is the 21-day period before the accused can access a lawyer.

The situation for minorities is just as alarming, although less well-known
In a good number of cases, national legislation is applied in a discriminatory manner with regard to minorities. For example, according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, legislation in nearly 30 countries targets religious minorities or atheists. Similarly, the laws related to the struggle against terrorism are sometimes used to target minorities, such as the Shiites in Saudi Arabia for example.

How can this vulnerable group be protected from application of the death penalty? In particular, it is essential:
• To ensure that everyone has access to a fair trial, knowing that the poverty and poor levels of literacy and education among numerous minority groups increase their vulnerability;
• For governments to provide consular assistance to their nationals in conformity with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations adopted on 24 April 1963;
• To identify good practice in terms of consular assistance.

Minorities in Iran
The minority Baloch ethnic group in Iran is disadvantaged and systematically discriminated against in terms of access to housing, the right to a fair trial, and social and political rights. Further, there are high levels of poverty and marginalisation, and a strong military presence in regions where minorities live. The obstacles facing Iranian minorities are impossible to resolve individually.
These ethnic minorities are discriminated against with regard to accessing legal representation. Last year, 95% of executions carried out in Iran were not made public. Numerous death sentences for crimes related to drugs were, in fact, sentences for political dissidents, sometimes without a trial and, above all, without access to a lawyer. Most prisoners from minorities are arbitrarily arrested without a mandate or a reason.
The Revolutionary Court, the strictest judicial institution in Iran, handles most cases connected to drugs. Most judges rely on confessions, often obtained through physical or psychological torture. Sometimes, the families of prisoners are only informed after the execution and do not even have the right to know where the member of their family has been buried.
The Iranian State uses the death penalty as a political tool to discourage activism among ethnic minorities. Combined with accelerated trials and the movement of prisoners between regions, in particular to regions where journalists are refused access, there is little awareness of what is happening. The only account is that of the State and the latter dehumanises ethnic minorities.

Consular and diplomatic issues
Consular support is essential from the very first days of arrest and investigation, particularly in order to ensure that migrants can benefit from their right to freedom and safety, their right to a fair trial and to ensure that they are treated in conformity with all the minimum regulations for the treatment of detainees (they must be represented, understand the accusation proceedings and have access to a translation of the statement and other official documents which will form part of the file, have an interpreter to understand the questions of the investigators for example). Many countries do not offer their fellow citizens this elementary consular support. This was case notably for Mary Jane Veloso in Indonesia who only received diplomatic support from the Philippines Government long after the sentence. It was already much too late.
Such diplomatic support is also essential with regard to appealing a conviction or a sentence, requests for pardon or to halt executions. Indeed, the ambivalence of certain countries which internally execute prisoners sentenced to death (including foreigners) but, on the other hand, take real action for their fellow citizens in danger overseas was underlined. This contradiction is particularly obvious in Indonesia, Pakistan and China, countries which do not accept the executions of their fellow citizens in the countries of the Gulf region for example. This ambivalence is visible within both diplomatic services and governments, as well as public opinion. In Indonesia, for example, millions of people demonstrated in the streets of Jakarta in 2014 in support of Satinah Binti Jumadi Ahmad, sentenced for murder, while at the same time executions in Indonesia, mainly of foreigners, make little or no impact on public opinion.
Other countries engage their entire diplomatic service in support of their fellow citizens sentenced to death. This is the case, for example, of Mexico which even went so far as to take the United States to the International Court of Justice⁶⁶.
However, some countries do not offer their fellow citizens any support, be it consular or diplomatic, demonstrating real abandonment of those people, some through a lack of diplomatic capabilities and others through active support for executions and aggressive repression. That is the case for Afghan migrants in Iran, for example, who are often the subject of persecution by the Iranian authorities with the support of the Afghan Government.
Moreover, the Ministry of Justice of South Africa recalled that, even when a country abolishes the death penalty and believes the practice to have been consigned to the past, capital punishment can catch up with us through the conversations and communications of individuals and fellow citizens. Diplomatic and political supervision must therefore remain vigilant.