Saudi Arabia Faces Outcry Over Execution of Former Minor

Published: 16 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Saudi Arabia is facing renewed international criticism over its use of the death penalty after human rights organisations warned that Youssef al-Manasif, a young man convicted over alleged offences committed when he was between 15 and 17, could be executed imminently. His case has intensified concerns about the treatment of juvenile defendants, the fairness of criminal proceedings and the kingdom’s growing use of capital punishment for offences that rights groups say did not involve violence.

Manasif was arrested in 2017 and accused of participating in demonstrations associated with the Shia Muslim minority’s calls for religious freedom, as well as attending funerals that Saudi authorities allegedly regarded as expressions of political protest. He was subsequently convicted by the kingdom’s specialised criminal court, a tribunal established to handle terrorism-related cases. His death sentence has reportedly been upheld by the Supreme Court, leaving his family and supporters fearing that the remaining avenues for preventing his execution may be extremely limited.

The case has attracted particular attention because the alleged conduct took place while Manasif was a minor. Human rights advocates argue that attending demonstrations and funerals cannot, by themselves, justify the imposition of the death penalty, particularly when the defendant was still a teenager. They have called on Saudi authorities to halt the planned execution and ensure that his treatment complies with international standards governing juvenile justice and the right to a fair trial.

Reprieve, a human rights organisation that campaigns against the death penalty, has raised serious concerns about the circumstances surrounding Manasif’s prosecution. According to the organisation, he was subjected to torture and pressured into signing a confession that he maintains was false. The allegations have prompted renewed questions about the reliability of evidence obtained during detention and the safeguards available to defendants facing the most severe criminal penalties.

The organisation has also highlighted concerns about Manasif’s access to legal representation. Reports indicate that he did not meet his state-appointed lawyer until 2022, approximately five years after his arrest. If confirmed, such a delay would raise substantial concerns about whether he had a meaningful opportunity to understand the charges against him, challenge the evidence and prepare an effective defence during the early stages of the proceedings.

The reported confirmation of his death sentence by the Supreme Court has increased fears that the case may be approaching its final stage. Although the precise timing of any execution has not been publicly established, human rights advocates say the possibility of an imminent execution makes urgent international intervention necessary.

Duaa Dhainy, a consultant for Reprieve and the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights, said Manasif’s family had little ability to influence the outcome at this stage. The family has not spoken publicly about the case, reportedly because of fears that public comments could expose relatives to harassment or arrest.

“There is nothing they can do now but wait,” Dhainy said, describing the uncertainty facing the family as they await news about Manasif’s fate.

The family’s silence illustrates the wider difficulties faced by relatives of prisoners in cases involving politically sensitive allegations. When families fear repercussions for speaking publicly, obtaining information about legal proceedings and drawing attention to possible abuses can become considerably more difficult. Human rights organisations often attempt to raise such cases internationally, but their ability to intervene directly in domestic judicial proceedings remains limited.

Manasif’s situation has also renewed scrutiny of Saudi Arabia’s wider record on capital punishment. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom has faced mounting criticism from rights organisations over the number of executions carried out each year and the range of offences attracting the death penalty.

According to figures cited in the reporting on the case, Saudi Arabia executed a record 356 people in 2025. Human rights organisations have expressed particular concern about the execution of foreign nationals convicted of drug-related offences, including cases in which the alleged crimes were non-violent. Critics argue that the scale of executions raises fundamental questions about proportionality in sentencing, the availability of fair trials and the effectiveness of international efforts to encourage restraint.

The issue is particularly contentious when defendants were children at the time of the alleged offences. Reprieve has reported that at least 17 people who were minors when the offences occurred have been executed in Saudi Arabia since 2015. Each such case has intensified demands for the kingdom to honour its stated commitments concerning juvenile offenders.

In 2020, Saudi Arabia announced a royal decree abolishing the death penalty for crimes committed by minors. The announcement was widely viewed as a significant development because it appeared to establish a clear distinction between offences committed by children and those committed by adults.

However, human rights groups say subsequent cases have raised doubts about how consistently that commitment has been implemented. They argue that continued death sentences and executions involving people convicted of offences committed before the age of 18 appear difficult to reconcile with the announced protections.

One case cited by campaigners involved Ali al-Subaiti, who was executed alongside his uncle, Mustafa al-Subaiti, in April 2026. Rights advocates said Ali had been accused of non-lethal offences described by the authorities as terrorism-related that were allegedly committed when he was 12 years old. The case further intensified criticism of the treatment of juvenile defendants and the gap between official commitments and reported practices.

Saudi authorities have historically defended their criminal justice system by emphasising national security, public order and the application of domestic law. However, international criticism has increasingly focused on whether capital punishment is being imposed in circumstances that meet accepted standards of due process and proportionality. The disagreement reflects a wider tension between the kingdom’s approach to security and the obligations it faces under international human rights principles.

The specialised criminal court involved in Manasif’s case has also attracted scrutiny because of its role in prosecuting terrorism-related offences. Rights organisations have questioned whether defendants appearing before such courts receive sufficient procedural protections, especially in politically sensitive cases. Allegations of coerced confessions and delayed access to lawyers have made those concerns more urgent.

For Manasif, the central issue is whether a conviction connected to conduct allegedly undertaken during adolescence can lawfully and fairly result in execution. International standards recognise that children have different levels of maturity, judgement and responsibility from adults. Juvenile justice frameworks consequently place particular emphasis on rehabilitation, age-appropriate treatment and safeguards against punishments that are disproportionate to a child’s development and circumstances.

The United Nations’ independent human rights experts have previously raised concerns about Manasif’s case and urged Saudi Arabia to halt executions of people convicted of offences allegedly committed when they were under 18. Their intervention reflects a broader international concern about the treatment of juvenile defendants and the compatibility of such executions with human rights obligations.

The UN experts’ position is significant because the debate extends beyond whether particular allegations can be proven in court. It also concerns whether the punishment imposed is appropriate when the alleged conduct occurred during childhood and whether the judicial process meets internationally recognised standards.

Dhainy argued that Manasif should be treated as a minor because the charges relate to alleged actions carried out before he reached adulthood. She also criticised the use of executions as a means of demonstrating state authority and discouraging opposition.

Human Rights Watch has likewise condemned the prospect of Manasif’s execution. The organisation said putting him to death for a non-violent offence allegedly committed while he was a minor would represent an unconscionable deterioration in the kingdom’s human rights record.

The criticism places renewed pressure on Saudi Arabia to clarify Manasif’s legal position, explain how the juvenile protections announced in 2020 apply to his case and address allegations of torture and procedural irregularities. Human rights advocates are calling for the authorities to suspend any execution while those concerns are examined and for the case to be reviewed in light of his age at the time of the alleged offences.

The case also raises broader questions about the international response to capital punishment. Governments and human rights institutions have repeatedly called for restrictions on the death penalty, particularly in cases involving juveniles, alleged non-violent conduct and disputed confessions. Yet efforts to secure changes can be complicated by diplomatic relationships, security cooperation and economic ties with countries that retain capital punishment.

For Saudi Arabia, the controversy comes amid wider international scrutiny of its legal system and the pace of executions. The kingdom has sought to project an image of modernisation and economic transformation, but rights organisations argue that progress in other areas cannot compensate for concerns about due process and the continued use of the death penalty.

Manasif’s family now faces an especially distressing period of uncertainty. With the sentence reportedly upheld at the highest judicial level, relatives have limited public information about what may happen next and may be reluctant to speak openly because of the potential consequences.

Human rights organisations are urging Saudi authorities to act before the situation reaches an irreversible point. Their appeal centres on a straightforward demand: that a person should not face execution for alleged non-violent conduct committed while still a child, particularly when serious allegations about torture and access to legal representation remain part of the case.

Whether Saudi Arabia responds to those demands could have implications beyond Manasif himself. The outcome may influence international assessments of the kingdom’s commitment to its stated protections for minors and shape future efforts to prevent executions in similar cases.

For now, the reported confirmation of Manasif’s sentence has left rights advocates warning of a possible execution and renewed international concern over juvenile justice in Saudi Arabia. His case has become another focal point in the wider debate over capital punishment, the treatment of political dissent and the responsibility of governments to protect the rights of those accused of crimes, especially when the alleged offences took place during childhood.