The decision by Algerian President Abdelmadjid Tebboune to resume executions, after more than three decades of a de facto freeze on the penalty, is sparking legal and human rights controversy in Algeria, between those who see the move as a necessary tightening of deterrence and protection of the right to life, and those who warn of the dangers of implementing an irreversible punishment, especially if the guarantees of a fair trial are not sufficient.
Top trending topics
Tebboune’s announcement last Sunday came after widespread fires struck several states of the country, causing significant human and material losses. He ordered the Minister of Justice to prepare a draft amendment to the Penal Code before September 15, which includes tightening penalties for those deliberately involved in starting forest fires, up to and including “ the application of the death penalty with implementation .”
The decision, if translated into executive texts and procedures, opens the door to a new phase in dealing with death sentences, after Algerian courts continued to pronounce them in a number of serious crimes, while their implementation remained suspended for more than thirty years.
Once announced, the decision found support among voices that had been calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty for years, especially in crimes that target people's lives.
Former MP Ahmed Beljilali, who had previously advocated for the resumption of the death penalty, wrote that the president’s emphasis on carrying out the death penalty responds to a long-standing demand, arguing that the penalty can contribute to “securing and preserving the right to life and deterring anyone who might consider taking it.”
This trend is based on the idea that the maximum penalty is not aimed at taking revenge on the perpetrator of the crime as much as it is aimed at protecting society, especially when it comes to acts that lead to the death of people, such as premeditated murder or some forms of terrorism or arson that result in casualties.
The kidnapping and murder of children in recent years has brought the debate about the death penalty back to the forefront, with rising public demands to implement the sentences issued in cases that caused widespread shock, including recently the case of the child Marwa Bogachesh.
Proponents of this view argue that the continued issuance of death sentences without their execution puts the punishment in an exceptional legal position, as the judiciary issues a sentence that is supposed to be prescribed for the most serious crimes, and then it remains unexecuted for decades.
It is noteworthy that the legal debate did not stop at the principle of carrying out the death penalty, but extended to the question of whether there was even a need to amend the law in order to punish those involved in the fires with the death penalty.
Human rights activist and lawyer Boujemaa Ghachir points out that Article 399 of the Penal Code already includes the death penalty in the case of arson that leads to the death of one or more people.
The article states that in the cases stipulated in Articles 396 to 398, the perpetrator shall be punished by death if the arson resulted in the death of one or more persons, while the penalty shall be life imprisonment if the fire caused injury or permanent disability.
From this standpoint, Ghashir believes that the legal text that can be applied to the facts of the fires already exists, and that the discussion should focus on applying the existing text, and not necessarily on creating a new legal basis.
But the directive to amend the penal code may, according to others, be aimed at expanding the death penalty beyond the scope of fires leading to death, which does indeed require an amendment.
At the same time, the human rights activist raises another issue related to Algeria’s international obligations, questioning the repercussions of moving from a policy of suspending executions to carrying out death sentences, and how the country deals with the commitments it has undertaken within the framework of international efforts aimed at reducing the implementation of the penalty and ultimately abolishing it.
The international commitment here does not mean that the agreements ratified by Algeria have abolished the death penalty from domestic legislation, as it remains in the penal code. However, the moratorium on executions for more than thirty years has effectively placed Algeria among the countries that do not carry out these sentences, which makes the resumption of executions carry legal and human rights dimensions that go beyond simply amending an article in the penal code.
Lawyer and human rights activist Abdelghani Badi raises concerns about the independence of the judiciary, the separation of powers, and the presumption of innocence, pointing to the spread of defamation of suspects in the media and the virtual space, even before they are charged or court rulings are issued against them.
He points out that the penal code contains approximately 16 articles stipulating the death penalty, covering crimes related to state security, terrorism, murder, arson, and other offenses. He argues that some of these provisions, particularly those concerning state security, rebellion, and terrorism, may intersect with political circumstances or conflicts, making the issue of ensuring a fair trial even more sensitive when the potential punishment is death.
Human rights activist Boujemaa Ghachir raises another question concerning the fate of previous death sentences issued during the moratorium. Since 1993, courts have continued to issue death sentences, particularly in cases of murder, terrorism, and other serious crimes, but these sentences have not been carried out. Therefore, resuming executions automatically reopens the file on hundreds of sentences issued over the past decades, raising the question of whether they will become enforceable or be subject to review or new legal procedures.
Ghashir believes that some of these rulings were issued under different security and legal circumstances, and some of the files, as he put it, may be marred by procedural or legal flaws, which raises a question about whether it is possible to move directly to implementation after this long pause.
Within this discussion, lawyer and politician Abdul Rahman Saleh invokes historical cases to defend his position rejecting haste in carrying out the punishment.
He referred to an incident dating back to the 1970s, when a death sentence was carried out on one of the defendants in a famous kidnapping and detention case, before strong doubts later arose about the possibility that he had not committed the crime.
Saleh uses this incident to emphasize that human justice is not infallible, and that execution differs from other punishments in that any mistake cannot be rectified after execution.
He also points out that the execution of sentences was not regular even before the actual halt in 1993, saying that the number of death sentences carried out between 1963 and 1993 remained limited, compared to the number of sentences issued.
For him, the priority should be reforming the justice system before moving to implementing the maximum penalty, by strengthening the guarantees of defense and the presumption of innocence, improving the training of lawyers, and involving the defense in judicial proceedings from their earliest stages.The death penalty in Algeria has its roots in the post-independence era, with the state retaining it within its legal system. The law governing its implementation regulates the method of execution, including exceptions and time limits.
The death penalty remained in effect until 1993, when the last executions were carried out, after which Algeria entered a period of de facto moratorium on its implementation. However, this moratorium did not lead to its legal abolition. The death penalty remained in the penal code, with a narrowing of the range of crimes for which the maximum penalty could be imposed.
Tags:
africaaustralia
