| Submit your comments on this article |
| Arabia |
| Saudi rape case lawyer 'reinstated' |
| 2008-01-22 |
| The Saudi lawyer who represented a woman kidnapped and raped by seven men said his license to practice has been reinstated. Lawyer and human rights activist Abdul Rahman al-Lahem told CNN's Nic Robertson that the Justice Ministry has reinstated his license. Al-Lahem had previously told CNN that the Saudi judge revoked his license as punishment for speaking to the media about his client's case, which attracted international attention. His client, an engaged teenager, was raped by seven men who found her alone with a man unrelated to her. She has said she was meeting with the man to retrieve a photograph. The attack took place in Qatif in March 2006. Seems to me the seven men ought to be tried for vigilantism as well. Might stop three quarters of this crap. If they didn't have the idea that the government and society would look the other way under these circumstances. The seven rapists were sentenced to two to nine years in prison but she also was sentenced to 200 lashes and six months in prison for having violated the kingdom's strict Islamic law by being alone with an unrelated man. The woman's sentence provoked outrage in the West and cast light on the treatment of women under Saudi Arabian law. In challenging what he said were his suspension and disbarment, al-Lahem said he had received threats on his life from the religious right. Last month, Minister of Justice Abdallah bin Mohammed al-Sheikh, in a phone call to a Saudi Television newscast, said the lawyer's license had never been revoked. Uh, yeah. Another big misunderstanding? "Such decisions are made through institutions in the kingdom," he said. "The punishment of the lawyer or any lawyer does not come from a reaction; it comes from a carefully examined procedure within a special council in the ministry." He said the council charged with deciding law license revocations had not issued any decisions in the case. So how did his license get revoked? Or is it true that it never was? Perhaps the judge needs 200 lashes and six months in prison? |
| Posted by:gorb |