A Saudi Arabian court has upheld the sentence of 21 year old Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who is to be crucified for allegedly taking part in anti-government protests. Activists fear that the young man could receive this brutal punishment within days.
Crucifixion is a rare punishment in the Saudi Kingdom as beheadings are the typical method of carrying out the death sentence. Some speculate that the Saudi government is trying to make an example of al-Namir.
Many rights groups, including the United Nations, are urging the Saudis to halt their plans for the execution, claiming that al-Namir was tortured into confessing to crimes he did not commit. He was only 17 years old when he was convicted - an age the UN Human Rights Charter considers individuals to be "children."
News of the impending crucifixion comes in the same week the UN announced that a UN representative from Saudi Arabia had been elected to head a key UN Human Rights Council panel that selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations worldwide.
Crucifixion is a barbaric practice that, in modern times, is carried out only in radical Islamic enclaves. But, the fact that the UN is condemning it and YET, at the same time, turning over the very council that is responsible for stopping such acts to Saudi Arabia, doesn't just send a mixed signal. It makes one question whether the UN is even capable of upholding its mandates. If not, then what exactly is the argument for the its continued existence?