By P M Amza –

A question beyond two executions

The execution of two Bangladeshi nationals in Saudi Arabia on 14 October 2026 has raised important questions concerning the Kingdom’s obligations under international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963. According to a statement issued by the Saudi Ministry of Interior, the two individuals were convicted of committing acts described as immoral inside a mosque in the holy city of Makkah. The court imposed the death penalty under ta’zir, a form of discretionary punishment under Islamic law, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the sanctity of the place. The precise nature of the acts was not disclosed in the official statement.

The purpose of this article is neither to question nor to criticise Saudi Arabia’s criminal laws, judicial system or the sentences imposed by its courts. It is confined to examining the Kingdom’s international obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Saudi Arabia acceded in 1988, particularly those relating to consular notification, communication and access when foreign nationals face criminal proceedings.

According to the Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), the Bangladeshi authorities were not informed in advance of the executions and subsequently sought the relevant court verdicts and clarification from Saudi Arabia.

The circumstances recall the execution of Sri Lankan domestic worker Rizana Nafeek on 9 January 2013, when the Sri Lankan Embassy reportedly did not receive adequate advance information concerning the implementation of her death sentence.

These episodes raise a question extending far beyond the individuals concerned: Are existing consular arrangements sufficiently effective to protect the rights of millions of foreign workers living and working in Saudi Arabia, particularly when they face capital punishment?

The issue deserves examination within a framework of mutual respect, recognising both Saudi Arabia’s judicial sovereignty and the international treaty obligations the Kingdom has voluntarily undertaken.

Saudi Arabia’s obligations under the Vienna Convention

Saudi Arabia acceded to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations on 29 June 1988 and is legally bound by its provisions.

Article 36 establishes the rights of consular officers to communicate with and have access to their nationals who are arrested, detained or imprisoned.

Under Article 36(1)(b), the authorities must inform detained foreign nationals, without delay, of their right to consular notification. If requested, the appropriate consulate must be informed without delay.

Article 36(1)(c) recognises the right of consular officers to visit detained nationals, communicate with them and arrange legal representation, subject to the individual’s right to oppose consular intervention.

These are binding treaty obligations, not discretionary diplomatic courtesies.

However, an important distinction must be maintained. Article 36 does not expressly require advance notification of every execution, nor does it require automatic consular notification of every arrest regardless of the detainee’s wishes.

Article 37(a) separately requires competent authorities, where the relevant information is available, to notify the appropriate consular post without delay when a national of the sending state dies.

Consequently, the absence of advance notification of an execution does not, by itself, establish a treaty violation. Nevertheless, failure to respect consular rights during detention or to provide the required notification following death may raise serious questions of compliance.

Bangladesh: Questions requiring answers

Bangladeshi authorities have indicated that they were unaware of the executions before they occurred.

Reports further suggest that Saudi authorities had previously supplied Bangladesh’s diplomatic mission with lists of detained nationals, including the two individuals concerned, without identifying their death sentences.

If accurate, this suggests that communication existed but was insufficient to alert the mission to the gravity of the cases.

Several questions therefore arise. Were the individuals informed upon arrest of their right to consular assistance? Did they request such assistance? Were Bangladeshi consular officers able to communicate with them? Were the authorities informed of the capital proceedings? Was notification provided promptly following the executions?

The answers are essential before reaching a definitive legal conclusion.

Bangladesh’s request for judicial records and clarification is entirely legitimate. It represents the exercise of consular responsibility, not interference with Saudi Arabia’s judicial sovereignty.

The incident also exposes the limitations of periodic prisoner lists. Such lists may be administratively useful but cannot substitute for effective consular communication in capital cases.

Rizana Nafeek: A painful Sri Lankan experience

Sri Lanka experienced a similar tragedy when Rizana Nafeek, a young domestic worker, was executed in Saudi Arabia on 9 January 2013 following her conviction in connection with the death of an infant under her care.

Her case attracted international attention because of concerns regarding her age at the time of the alleged offence, access to legal representation, interpretation during proceedings and the circumstances surrounding her confession.

Sri Lankan authorities undertook extensive diplomatic efforts to secure clemency. The then president  made a final appeal to King Abdullah shortly before the execution.

Nevertheless, the sentence was carried out.

Contemporary reports indicated that the Sri Lankan Embassy had not received adequate advance information concerning the implementation of the sentence.

The distinction is important. Sri Lanka knew about Rizana’s conviction and had pursued diplomatic intervention. The concern was the absence of adequate advance communication regarding the actual execution.

While this alone does not establish a violation of Article 36, the experience demonstrated why a predictable advance-notification mechanism is necessary, particularly in capital cases.

The tragedy also highlighted the vulnerability of migrant workers confronting unfamiliar criminal justice systems.

Timely diplomacy can make a difference

A more recent Sri Lankan case illustrates the importance of sustained legal and diplomatic engagement.

On 13 October 2026, Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court reportedly set aside the death sentence imposed on Sri Lankan national Sivarasa Anojan over a social media comment considered offensive to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

The development followed legal proceedings and diplomatic efforts undertaken by the Sri Lankan government.

Although it did not necessarily conclude every aspect of the case, the decision demonstrated that judicial remedies and diplomatic engagement can produce significant results.

Respect for Saudi Arabia’s legal institutions need not exclude determined efforts to protect a foreign national. Legal representation, consular assistance and diplomatic representations can operate together.

Such engagement, however, requires information, access and sufficient time.

The contrast between cases where intervention remains possible and those where an execution becomes known only after it has occurred deserves serious reflection.

Protecting millions of foreign workers

Saudi Arabia hosts millions of foreign nationals from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia and numerous other countries.

These workers contribute substantially to the Kingdom’s development while supporting their families and national economies through remittances.

Most live and work within the law. However, foreign nationals involved in criminal proceedings may encounter considerable difficulties arising from language barriers, unfamiliar legal procedures, limited financial resources and dependence upon employers.

Domestic workers and other vulnerable categories may face particular disadvantages.

Consular protection therefore serves a purpose extending beyond formal relations between governments. It provides an institutional channel through which individuals can obtain assistance when confronted with unfamiliar legal systems.

This does not mean diplomatic missions can override judicial decisions or secure immunity from prosecution. Foreign nationals remain subject to the laws of the host country.

Rather, consular assistance helps ensure that individuals understand their rights, can communicate with their governments and have access to available legal remedies.

These safeguards become especially important when a person faces an irreversible punishment.

International jurisprudence and consular rights

The International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed the significance of Article 36.

In LaGrand (Germany v. United States, 2001) and Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States, 2004), the Court addressed failures concerning consular notification in capital cases.

In Jadhav (India v. Pakistan, 2019), it reaffirmed the importance of consular notification and access even where serious national-security allegations were involved.

These judgments establish that consular rights are legal protections rather than optional diplomatic privileges.

They do not, however, create a general requirement under Article 36 for advance notification of executions. This distinction strengthens the case for supplementary arrangements.

Towards stronger consular safeguards

The Bangladeshi executions provide an opportunity for Saudi Arabia and migrant-sending countries to review existing arrangements constructively.

Five measures deserve consideration:

1. Foreign nationals should be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of their right to consular notification.

2. Requests for consular assistance should be transmitted without delay, with access provided in accordance with Article 36.

3. A dedicated mechanism should communicate significant developments in capital cases to the relevant diplomatic missions, consistent with applicable law and individual rights.

4. Advance notification of scheduled executions should be formalised through bilateral consular agreements or a uniform administrative arrangement.

5. Notification following the death of a foreign national should be prompt and systematic, consistent with Article 37(a).

These measures would strengthen the Kingdom’s international commitments without undermining its judicial institutions.

Sovereignty and international responsibility

Saudi Arabia’s judicial sovereignty must be respected. Its laws, courts and legal traditions form part of its national legal system.

At the same time, sovereignty does not diminish the significance of international obligations voluntarily accepted through treaty accession.

The Vienna Convention accommodates both principles.

The receiving state retains jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and punish offences under its laws, subject to applicable international obligations. The sending state retains the right to protect its nationals through lawful consular engagement.

These responsibilities are complementary, not contradictory.

For countries such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, protecting citizens abroad is among the most important responsibilities of diplomatic missions.

For Saudi Arabia, transparent and reliable consular procedures would strengthen longstanding relationships with countries whose citizens contribute substantially to its economy.

Conclusion: A lesson that should not be forgotten

The execution of Rizana Nafeek in January 2013 remains a painful memory for Sri Lanka. The execution of two Bangladeshi nationals in October 2026 has brought similar concerns about consular communication back into international discussion.

The circumstances are not identical, and a definitive conclusion concerning treaty violations requires examination of the relevant records.

Nevertheless, both episodes demonstrate the importance of reliable communication between Saudi authorities and foreign diplomatic missions, particularly in capital cases.

The issue extends beyond three individuals or two countries. It concerns millions of foreign workers whose security depends upon effective legal protections.

Saudi Arabia’s accession to the Vienna Convention represents a commitment to internationally recognised consular rights. Giving those rights practical effect, while introducing additional safeguards, would reinforce rather than diminish the Kingdom’s sovereignty.

For a foreign national facing the death penalty, timely consular communication is not merely an administrative formality. It may represent the final opportunity for legal assistance, diplomatic intervention and the exercise of mercy. 

References

United Nations (1963). Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Articles 36 and 37.

United Nations Treaty Collection. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — Status of Participation, including Saudi Arabia’s accession in 1988. UN Treaty Collection⁠

Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), 19 October 2026. “Dhaka seeks Saudi court verdict sentencing Bangladeshis to death.” BSS⁠.

International Court of Justice. LaGrand (2001), Avena (2004) and Jadhav (2019) — judgments concerning consular notification and access. ICJ⁠.

*Author is Former Ambassador of Sri Lanka to Saudi Arabia