The execution of Bangladeshi nationals in Saudi Arabia: Violations of consular rights and vulnerability to systemic discrimination

Introduction

On 14 October 2026, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) executed two Bangladeshi nationals, a man and a woman, for committing what a statement by the Saudi Press Agency described as an “immoral act” inside a mosque in Mekkah. The statement identified the individuals as Nazrul Islam Abdul Basir and Suety Akhter, and noted that following investigation, they were charged and that a competent court found them guilty and awarded the death penalty under ta’zir (i.e. a discretionary punishment under Islamic law). However, there was no information detailing the offences allegedly committed or the exact charges pressed against the individuals. Tellingly, Bangladesh was only made aware of the executions through this public press statement, and not through any diplomatic channels. The individuals had previously been named in the inmates list that the KSA officials shared with the Bangladesh consulate in Jeddah on 30 September 2026. That list mentioned that Basir and Akhter were detained on two separate days in August 2023 and that two different charges were brought against them, respectively, of cybercrime and adultery. Apparently, neither Bangladesh’s foreign ministry nor its KSA mission were informed at any stage of the proceeding that they had been death row prisoners. The Bangladesh foreign ministry subsequently issued a note verbale seeking information from the Saudi government about the incident and also requesting clarification about why Bangladeshi officials were not made aware beforehand. In the midst of these state-level accounts and communications, there is a risk that concerns and questions about individual rights violations are overlooked. Indeed, Bangladeshi state officials have described the executions, coupled with the nature of offences, as “tragic”, a “lapse” in diplomatic communication with a friendly state, and as a “lesson” for all Bangladeshis abroad, yet not as plausible violation of the individuals’ rights as such.

Taking a step back and keeping the individuals as the focus of analysis, in this post I ask two questions. First, did the Saudi government violate individual consular rights established by the key treaty governing consular assistance, namely the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights (VCCR)? Second, did the executions form part of the KSA’s disproportionately racialised death penalty regime and its ongoing violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)? Even if the substantive violations may be apparent, their remedies are not, largely due to the KSA’s constrained commitment to international legal instruments and human rights treaties. A possible remedy – namely the compulsory inter-state complaint mechanism under the ICERD – remains, but is unlikely to be availed by Bangladesh against the KSA, particularly given the power and security dynamics shaping the relationship between the two. Accordingly, I argue that these executions show the limits of the co-respective regime of the VCCR and human rights that leave marginalised individuals, particularly migrant workers, expendable, and beholden to the mercy of bilateral/diplomatic negotiations between states. 

Violation of individual consular rights?

Under article 36(1)(b) of the VCCR, prosecuting states are under an obligation to inform any foreign national who is arrested, detained, or facing trial, of their right to have their home state’s consular officials notified, without delay. The same provision notes that, upon the foreign national’s request, the prosecuting state shall, without delay, inform the consular post of their home state accordingly. The words “without delay” are not to be conveniently deferred or construed as mere formality. While holding the USA liable for violating the VCCR in Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) categorically observed that the phrase “without delay” implies that “there is an obligation to provide consular information as soon as it is realized that the arrested person is a foreign national, or that there are grounds for thinking that he is probably a foreign national.” Accordingly, as soon as the Saudi officials realised that the detainees were foreign nationals, they were under an immediate obligation to provide them with relevant consular information and assistance. 

Indeed, the individual right to consular assistance is fairly established under international law, as well as in the jurisprudence of human rights treaty and charter bodies. In the LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) case before the ICJ, for instance, Germany alleged violation by the USA of the VCCR with respect to two German nationals, Karl and Walter LaGrand, who were sentenced to death without having been informed of their rights. Deciding on merits, the ICJ held that the USA had not only breached its obligations to Germany as a State party to the VCCR, but also that there had been a violation of the individual rights of the LaGrands under Article 36(1). Similarly, the UN Human Rights Committee has stated that a failure to promptly inform detained foreign nationals of their right to consular notification pursuant to the VCCR, resulting in the imposition of the death penalty violates rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has emphatically noted that consular access is a human right, and it places distinct but complementary obligations on both the prosecuting and the home states of the detainees. Perhaps considering the pattern of states evading their obligations, the Special Rapporteur sought to also establish access to certain standard of consular assistance and protection to nationals facing death as an “emerging customary international norm” as well. Notably, her arguments too remain at a relatively emergent stage.

In any case, it is by no means clear from the press release by the Saudi government whether the individuals were made aware of their consular rights. It is also not clear whether the Bangladesh ministry framed their note verbale around individual rights concerns. Interestingly, article 36(1)(c) of the VCCR states that consular officers shall have the right (not an obligation) to visit and correspond with their nationals who are in prison, custody or detention and to arrange for their legal representation. The receipt of consular assistance thus remains conditional upon two things: first, that the prosecuting state fulfils its obligation, and second, that the home state is willing to provide the required support. Apparently, the Bangladeshi officials were aware of the inmates but not of the sentences awarded to them. No legal representation was arranged, and one can only speculate as to whether the situation would be different had the officials were made aware that death sentences had been handed down. In any case, if the individuals were never informed by the KSA authorities of their consular rights, then that constitutes, in substantive terms, violations of international law and individual consular rights, and relatedly the right to a fair trial, thus making the subsequent death sentences and their execution both arbitrary and unlawful.

Bangladesh and the KSA are not parties to the Optional Protocol to the VCCR (1963), concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes. Therefore, contentious proceedings at the ICJ arising in relation to the VCCR remain unavailable. Moreover, the KSA is not party to the ICCPR, and while it remains party to several human rights treaties such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), subject to sweeping reservations and declarations based on Shariah law, the country has deliberately opted out of all forms of individual complaints and dispute settlement mechanisms across the entire international human rights regime. Within the international human rights treaties, only the ICERD has a compulsory inter-state complaints mechanism, found in Articles 11-13, which applies to both Bangladesh and the KSA. Use of this mechanism by Qatar in the past has resulted in a historic decision on admissibility against the KSA. In fact, the executions raise significant questions concerning the ICERD and whether they form part of the KSA’s ongoing violations of this convention. 

Violation of the ICERD?

In 2024, in its concluding observations on the combined tenth and eleventh periodic reports by the KSA, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed grave concern that “members of the Shia ethno-religious minority group, migrant workers and domestic workers, including women, are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and disproportionately subjected to arbitrary detention, torture and ill-treatment along with an absence of fair trial guarantees, and with coerced confessions, particularly in cases involving the death penalty.” In the following year of 2025 alone, the KSA carried out 347 executions, marking a new high in the country, of which the majority were foreigners, accounting for 57% of all executions. The latest two executions thus cannot be viewed in isolation from this broader pattern of the KSA’s criminal sentencing and its application of the death penalty. 

It is notable that Bangladesh is one of the largest and most prominent sources of cheap migrant labour, including domestic aides, in the KSA. These Bangladeshi migrant workers sustain serious structural and systemic discrimination tied to the KSA’s labour system and social hierarchy. In particular, an overwhelming number of Bangladeshi women migrant workers are victims of fatal violence (reduced in their description in most cases to “suicides”), serious abuse, and extremely harsh working conditions in the country. Accordingly, the KSA’s criminal justice system generally has a particularly disparate impact on Bangladeshi migrant workers, as they suffer torture, degrading treatment, prolonged incommunicado detention, nontransparent and undue trial processes. In 2011, the public beheading of eight Bangladeshi nationals drew sustained attention from human rights organisations across the world. 

Against this backdrop, questions arise as to whether the lack of initiative on the part of the KSA officials in informing the Bangladesh mission or ministry of the sentences in the recent cases is attributable to the systemic discrimination against the Bangladeshis, their vulnerability and expendability in general within Saudi society, the country’s criminal justice system, or its death penalty regime as a whole. By all means, as a state party to the CERD, Bangladesh has the option to submit inter-state complaint against the KSA. However, given the country’s deferential attitude towards the KSA, this appears fairly unlikely. In this context, the executions currently constitute a central focus of diplomatic “requests” for clarification and information. In subsequent years, they may well be relegated to mere anecdotes in human rights reports and treaty bodies’ concluding observations.  

Conclusion

The executions of two Bangladeshi nationals in the KSA raise serious questions about violations of individual consular rights under the VCCR, fair trial standards, and possible violations of the ICERD. Simultaneously, they also reflect the broader structural patterns of the Saudi criminal justice system and a death penalty regime marked by arbitrariness, which disproportionately harms foreign nationals, including migrant workers. The violations in individual cases often become apparent in substantive terms, as is the case with the recent executions. However, due largely to the KSA’s constrained commitment to international law and the power dynamics shaping its relationship with the foreign nationals’ home states, they remain largely unremedied. Unfortunately, Basir and Akhter are unlikely to be the last foreign nationals in a vulnerable condition to be executed in the KSA.

Psymhe Wadud teaches law at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, and is currently on study leave to pursue her doctoral studies at the Central European University. She is a graduate of the Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) at the University of Oxford. Her research and teaching broadly focus on human rights and anti-discrimination law.