Lawfulness of corporal punishment

Home

Corporal punishment is lawful in the home.

Children are legally protected from violence and abuse by the Children’s Rights Act (2002), due to be brought into force in 2004, and the Penal Code (1994).

Schools

Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools by article 68 of the regulations governing school punishment, but it continues to be used.

Penal system

Corporal punishment is lawful as a sentence for crime. Despite numerous legal prohibitions of torture and inhuman treatment (e.g. Public Rights Act, Juvenile Welfare Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, Constitution, Organisation of Prisons Act, Police Forces Act), corporal punishment is still available as a sentence, including stoning, flogging and amputation. In 1994, the Constitution was amended to state that Shariah is “the source of all legislation” (article 3).

For young people aged between 7 and 15 years, a judge can impose only the measures provided for in the Juvenile Welfare Act (1992), and corporal punishment is not explicitly listed among the permitted sentences in articles 36 and 37 of the Act. Article 14 states that a juvenile may not be ill-treated or placed in chains, prohibits the use of physical coercion and safeguards the dignity of the juvenile. Part V of the Children’s Rights Act deals with juvenile justice and does not prohibit doctrinal punishments. Under article 125, a child aged 10 years or under who has committed a criminal offence shall not be liable to the penalty or administrative measures prescribed in the Penal Code. However, a young person “in full possession of his mental faculties” is liable to up to a third of the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, and between the ages of 15 and 18 years young persons convicted of an offence are given reduced sentences of the Penal Code. The Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure (1994) allow for sentences of retribution (qasas) and doctrinal punishment (hadd) “which entail loss of life or limb” (Code of Criminal Procedure, articles 406, 410, 479). Article 243 of the Penal Code states: “A punishment identical to the crime itself shall be inflicted on anyone who commits an assault of any kind against another person, causing him to suffer a permanent physical disability, by breaking one of his joints, plucking out an eye, amputating an ear or inflicting a measurable bodily wound….” Many of the provisions in criminal law which protect the dignity of the offender or prohibit inhuman treatment include the clause that they “shall be without prejudice to the right of victims to claim retribution (qasas), blood money (diya) and indemnity for bodily injury (arsh)”.

There is no explicit prohibition of all corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. Under article 4 of the Organisation of Prisons Act (1991) the prison director must ensure that prison staff members treat detainees humanely and with respect for their dignity. The Juvenile Welfare Act (article 14) prohibits the mistreatment of juveniles and the use of physical coercion when enforcing court rulings.

Alternative care

There is no explicit prohibition of all forms of corporal punishment in other institutions and forms of childcare.

Workplace

No information.

Prevalence research

A sample of 1325 city schoolchildren and 274 rural schoolchildren in Yemen, together with their parents and teachers, participated in questionnaire based research into the prevalence of corporal punishment, reported in 2004. It was found that 80% of mothers in the rural area and 59% of mothers in the city use corporal punishment to discipline their children. Boys were significantly more likely than girls to be spanked, and the lower the level of the mothers’ education, the more likely they were to use corporal punishment. Experience of severe corporal punishment was linked with poor educational achievement for the child, and corporal punishment was found to contribute to a child’s mental health difficulties. The most common forms of punishment were hitting with the hand, a belt, stick or other implement. Other measures included locking, tying, biting and pinching. (Alyahri, A., 2004, “Mental health, education and corporal punishment in Yemeni school-aged children”, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London)

A synthesis in 2005 of research on physical and humiliating punishment of children in Yemen found that almost 90% of children reported that physical and humiliating punishment is the main method of disciplining them in the family. The most common form of punishment in the home was beating, especially for girls in rural areas. Severe physical punishment, including hitting with a stick, was more commonly used against boys in urban areas. Punishments were usually inflicted by mothers and fathers, but also by elder brothers. Corporal punishment in schools was found to be even more common and more severe, with over 90% of children reporting that it is the most commonly used form of punishment. A third of children in social care institutions reported experiencing severe treatment and a further third reported moderate treatment, including being beaten with a stick. Parents report that punishment usually begins to be inflicted on children between the ages of 5 and 7, though children as young as 1 are punished, and ceases at the age of 15. (Habasch, R., 2005, Physical and Humiliating Punishment of Children in Yemen, Save the Children Sweden)

Recommendations by human rights treaty bodies

Committee on the Rights of the Child

“The Committee is deeply concerned that corporal punishment is still used as a disciplinary measure in schools despite its official prohibition and is widely practised within the family and in other settings. The Committee is further concerned that corporal punishment, including flogging is still lawful as a sentence for crime.

“The Committee recommends that the State party, as a matter of urgency:

1. review existing legislation and explicitly prohibit all forms of corporal punishment;
2. abolish by law the possibility of sentencing a child to any form of physical punishment;
3. undertake well-targeted public-awareness campaigns on the negative impact of corporal punishment on children, and provide teachers and parents with training on non-violent forms of discipline as an alternative to corporal punishment; and

“The Committee also reiterates its previous concluding recommendations (CRC/C/15/Add. 102, paras, 21 and 34) and joins its voice to those made by the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/75/YEM, para. 16), and the Committee Against Torture (CAT/C/CR/31/4, para. 7).”

(21 September 2005, CRC/C/15/Add.267, Concluding observations on third report, paras. 41, 42 (a, b and c) and 43)

“Although the Committee is aware that ill-treatment of children is prohibited by law, it remains concerned that the use of corporal punishment by parents is widely regarded to be acceptable. The Committee recommends that the State party reinforce measures to raise awareness on the negative effects of corporal punishment and ensure that discipline in schools, families and all institutions is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s dignity, in the light of articles 3, 12, 19 and 28 of the Convention. The Committee further suggests that the State party ensure that alternative disciplinary measures are developed within the family and in schools and other institutions.

“While noting that the State party has in place domestic legislation relating to juvenile justice, the Committee remains concerned at the general situation of the administration of juvenile justice and in particular its compatibility with the Convention, as well as with other relevant United Nations standards. The Committee is especially concerned about the lack of detention centres for female juvenile offenders; the use of detention other than as a measure of last resort; the poor living conditions in detention centres; the use of physical punishment, including flogging, and torture in detention centres; the lack of rehabilitation measures and educational facilities for juvenile offenders; and the placement of ‘potential delinquents’ in detention centres instead of care institutions for their rehabilitation. Furthermore, the Committee considers that the age of criminal responsibility, set at 7 years, is too low. The Committee reiterates its recommendations (see CRC/C/15/Add.47, para.21) that the State party take all measures to review its legislation in order to reflect fully the provisions of the Convention, in particular articles 37, 40 and 39, as well as other relevant international standards in this area, such as the Beijing Rules, the Riyadh Guidelines and the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty. Training programmes on relevant international standards should be organized for all professionals working in the system of juvenile justice. The Committee recommends that the State party consider seeking technical assistance from, inter alia, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Centre for International Crime Prevention, the International Network on Juvenile Justice and UNICEF through the Coordination Panel on Juvenile Justice.”
(10 May 1999, CRC/C/15/Add.102, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 21 and 34)

Human Rights Committee

“The Committee reiterates its deep concern that corporal punishments such as flogging, and in a few cases even amputation of limbs, are still prescribed by law and practised in the State party, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

The State Party should immediately put an end to such practices and modify its legislation accordingly, in order to ensure its full compatibility with the Covenant.”
(9 August 2005, CCPR/CO/84/YEM, Concluding observations on fourth report, para. 16)

“The Committee is extremely concerned to find that amputation and flagellation, and in general corporal punishment are still prescribed by law and practised, contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.

The State party should take appropriate measures to put an end to such practices and to ensure respect for the provisions of the Covenant.”
(26 July 2002, CCPR/CO/75/YEM, Concluding observations on third report, para. 16)

“… The Committee is also deeply concerned about the maintenance of corporal punishments like amputation of limbs and whipping, which is in violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

“… The Committee recommends that the Government take the initiative for the total abolishment of corporal punishment.”
(3 October 1995, CCPR/C/79/Add.51; A/50/40, paras. 242-265, Concluding observations on second report, paras. 256 and 262)

Committee Against Torture

“The Committee expresses its concern about the following:

b) The nature of some criminal sanctions, in particular flogging and amputation of limbs, which may be in breach of the Convention….

“The Committee recommends that the State party:

b) Take all appropriate measures to ensure that criminal sanctions are in full conformity with the Convention….”
(5 February 2004, CAT/C/CR/31/4, Concluding observations on initial report, paras. 6 (b) and 7 (b))