lemonde.fr
Saudi Arabia's Rising Execution Rate: 101 Foreign Nationals Executed in 2025
Saudi Arabia executed two Ethiopian nationals for drug smuggling on July 10th, 2025, raising the total number of foreign executions this year to at least 101, highlighting a sharp increase in executions compared to previous years and prompting international criticism.
- What is the immediate impact of the recent executions in Saudi Arabia on the country's international image and human rights standing?
- On July 10th, Saudi Arabia executed two Ethiopian nationals for drug trafficking, bringing the total number of foreign executions in the kingdom this year to at least 101. This follows a sharp increase in executions in 2024, exceeding 300, compared to 170 in 2023 and 196 in 2022.",
- What are the underlying causes behind the increase in executions for drug-related crimes in Saudi Arabia, considering the country's stated aims of modernization and reform?
- The executions are part of a broader trend of increased use of capital punishment in Saudi Arabia, particularly for drug-related offenses. Amnesty International reports that from 2014 to 2025, Saudi Arabia executed 1816 people, approximately one-third for drug-related crimes, with 75% of those being foreigners. This rise contrasts with the kingdom's efforts to project a more modern and tolerant image internationally.",
- What are the long-term implications of Saudi Arabia's continued use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, particularly concerning its relations with other countries and its stated goals of Vision 2030?
- The surge in executions, especially of foreigners convicted of drug offenses, raises concerns about due process and fair trials in Saudi Arabia's justice system. The lack of transparency and the challenges faced by foreign nationals in accessing legal representation suggest systemic issues that undermine the legitimacy of these executions, despite the government's assertion that all appeals have been exhausted.",
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story primarily around the alarming increase in executions, emphasizing the negative aspects of Saudi Arabia's justice system and highlighting criticisms from human rights organizations. This framing, while legitimate given the high number of executions, could be perceived as biased against the Saudi government. The headline and introduction immediately focus on the negative aspect of the high number of executions, setting the tone for the rest of the article. While including the government's statement is positive, it is placed later in the article and doesn't effectively balance the initial negative framing.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language such as "alarming escalation," "terrifying trend," and "appalling," reflecting the negative stance of Amnesty International and Reprieve. While this reflects the organizations' views accurately, it may still contribute to a biased perception of the situation. More neutral alternatives could include phrasing like "significant increase," "growing trend," or "concerns." The article also quotes Jeed Basyouni using dramatic rhetoric such as comparing the country's modern aspects with its application of the death penalty. The article uses words like "alarming" and "terrifying" which are negative loaded terms. More neutral terms such as worrying or concerning could have been used.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the number of executions and Amnesty International's condemnation, but provides limited details on the legal processes involved in each case. It mentions obstacles faced by foreigners in accessing fair trials, but doesn't elaborate on the specific nature of these obstacles or provide examples. The article also omits details about Saudi Arabia's legal system regarding drug-related offenses, which could provide crucial context. While acknowledging space constraints is a valid consideration, the lack of crucial procedural details leaves the reader with an incomplete understanding of the justice system's application in these instances.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a dichotomy between Saudi Arabia's efforts towards modernization and its high execution rate, particularly for drug offenses. While this contrast is valid, it oversimplifies the complexities of the issue by failing to explore possible nuances or alternative viewpoints, such as whether there could be a correlation between drug-related crimes and social and economic factors in the country. The presentation could benefit from a more balanced analysis that acknowledges both sides of the story rather than relying on a simple contrast.
Sustainable Development Goals
The execution of two Ethiopian nationals for drug trafficking highlights a concerning trend of increased executions in Saudi Arabia, contradicting international human rights standards and principles of justice. The lack of transparency in the judicial system and obstacles faced by foreign nationals further undermine the pursuit of justice and fair trials. The high number of executions, particularly of foreigners for drug-related crimes, casts doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the legal processes.