Source: https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/yemen/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:52:36+00:00

Document:
Prohibition is still to be achieved in the home, alternative care settings, some day care and as a sentence for crime.
The Children’s Rights Act 2002 recognises “the legal and legislative rights of parents to discipline their children” (art. 146c). The near universal social acceptance of corporal punishment in childrearing necessitates clarity in law that no level of corporal punishment is lawful or acceptable. Article 146c of the Children’s Rights Act should be repealed and legislation amended to prohibit all corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment, in the home and all other settings where adults have authority over children.
Day care – Corporal punishment should be prohibited in all early childhood care (nurseries, crèches, kindergartens, preschools, family centres, etc) and all day care for older children (day centres, after-school childcare, childminding, etc). It has possibly already been achieved in preschool settings.
Sentence for crime – Legal provisions for judicial corporal punishment, including doctrinal punishments, should be repealed.
Corporal punishment is lawful in the home. Article 146 of the Children’s Rights Act 2002 confirms “the legal and legislative rights of parents to discipline their children”. Provisions against violence and abuse in the Children’s Rights Act, the Criminal Code 1994 and the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act 2008 are not interpreted as prohibiting corporal punishment in childrearing.
In 2010, amendments to the Criminal Code and the Children’s Rights Act were under discussion which had been drafted with a view to addressing corporal punishment but at that time proposed provisions included confirmation of the “right to discipline children”. In reporting to the Universal Periodic Review of Yemen in 2014, the Government stated that, in cooperation with UNICEF, it is reviewing current legislation on children with a view to proposing draft new legislation in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child; it indicated that a Children’s Bill is under discussion. As at February 2015, the draft Child Rights Law had been submitted by the Ministry of Legal Affairs to the Cabinet and was awaiting approval; it did not include prohibition of corporal punishment by parents.
A new Constitution is under discussion. As at February 2015 the draft states that everyone has the right “to physical, mental and psychological well-being” and prohibits “physical, mental, psychological torture” (art. 77) and that children have the right to “protection from negligence, economic, social and sexual abuse, the risks of human trafficking and smuggling, and detrimental cultural practices, and all that undermines dignity and prejudices their health, physical and psychological wellbeing” (art. 122); article 125 states: “It is prohibited to exercise any form of violence or force against children….” It does not explicitly prohibit all corporal punishment.
Corporal punishment is lawful in alternative care settings. Article 146 of the Children’s Rights Act 2002, confirming “the legal and legislative rights of parents to discipline their children”, presumably applies to all persons with parental authority. As at February 2015, the draft Child Rights Law under discussion does not include prohibition of corporal punishment in alternative care settings.
Corporal punishment is lawful in early childhood care and in day care for older children. Article 146 of the Children’s Rights Act 2002, confirming “the legal and legislative rights of parents to discipline their children” presumably applies to all persons with parental authority. Corporal punishment is possibly unlawful in preschools under education legislation (see under “Schools”). As at February 2015, the draft Child Rights Law under discussion did not include prohibition of corporal punishment in day care.
Corporal punishment is unlawful as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions. The Constitution states in article 47(b): “Physical punishment and inhumane treatment during arrest, detention or imprisonment are prohibited.” 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 (art. 14) prohibits the mistreatment of juveniles and the use of physical coercion when enforcing court rulings, though does not explicitly prohibit corporal punishment. The draft Constitution states in article 127 that “children, during arrest or restriction of freedom, shall be treated in a manner that protects them and maintains their dignity”.
Corporal punishment is lawful as a sentence for crime under article 38 of the Criminal Code 1994, which provides for amputation, retribution-in-kind and flogging; according to article 31, children between the ages of 15 and 18 may be given reduced sentences; children between 7 and 15 years may receive the measures provided for in the Juvenile Welfare Act 1992, which do not include corporal punishment though it is not explicitly prohibited. The Children’s Rights Act 2002 does not prohibit doctrinal punishment (see below): a child aged 10 or under is not liable to the punishments prescribed in the Criminal Code, but a child “in full possession of his mental faculties” is liable to up to a third of the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence (art. 125).
The Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure 1994 allow for sentences of retribution (qisas) and doctrinal punishment (hadd) (Criminal Code, art. 11; Criminal Procedure Code, arts. 477 to 493). Qisas punishments are ordered for offences against the person leading to injury or death (Criminal Code, art. 13), and they involve the infliction on the defendant of the same injury for which he or she was convicted of inflicting on the victim. 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.” Hadd punishments are mandatory punishments for the offences of transgression, apostasy, banditry, theft, adultery, slander and drinking alcohol (Criminal Code, art. 12). Under certain circumstances, doctrinal punishments do not apply (e.g. see Criminal Code arts. 266 on adultery and 299 on theft), and the Government has stated that these grounds for non-applicability “are such as to make the use of those punishments nearly impossible”.
When a person is sentenced to “retaliation resulting in loss of life or limb”, the Department of Public Prosecutions must inform the Supreme Court, which may set aside the sentence (Criminal Procedure Code, art. 434); the President must ratify the sentence and issue a Decree before it can be carried out (arts. 479 and 480). It should not take place on an official or religious holiday (Criminal Code, art. 484).
The Criminal Procedure Code states that doctrinal and retribution-in-kind sentences should take place in a hospital or other designated place, in the presence of a member of the General Prosecution, the Investigations Clerk, a police officer and a doctor, as well as the victim’s relatives and legal representative (art. 483). Doctrinal amputation “shall be carried out by a sharp tool on the right hand at the wrist and on the foot at the ankle” (art. 489). Injuries inflicted in fulfilment of retribution-in-kind sentences must be similar to the original injury (for which the defendant has been convicted) and “both the injured organ of the plaintiff and the vindicating organ of the sentenced defendant [must be] equal in health and soundness;” compliance with these conditions must be certified by a medical doctor (art. 490). The sentence must be carried out “by the severance of the organ described in the verdict, by means of the appropriate sharp tool, at the joint or boundary where such organ terminates,” unless the doctor considers this would put the defendant’s life at risk; emergency medical treatment must be provided following the punishment (art. 491).
Flogging should be inflicted with “a single soft strap, without any knots at its end”, in the presence of witnesses. Men may sit or stand, women must sit. The lashing proceeds from the foot to the neck, avoiding the head, and is more severe in cases of adultery. The flogging must be supervised by a medical doctor, who must ensure that it will not lead to death (Criminal Procedure Code, art. 492).
The Government accepted the first of these recommendations but rejected the other two.
“The Committee, while welcoming the State party’s efforts to implement the Committee’s concluding observations of 2005 on the State party’s third periodic report (CRC/C/15/Add.267), notes with regret that some of the recommendations contained therein have not been fully addressed.
“The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to address those recommendations from the concluding observations of the third periodic report under the Convention that have not been implemented or sufficiently implemented, particularly those related to the definition of the child, corporal punishment, harmful practices, education and administration of juvenile justice.
“The Committee notes that the Ministry of Education issued Decree No. 426 (2012) prohibiting corporal punishment in schools. However, it is concerned at the challenges to the effective implementation of this decree, such as the lack of adequate monitoring mechanisms, the teachers’ preconceptions regarding corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure and the lack of accountability mechanisms. It remains concerned that corporal punishment continues to be widely used within the family, in alternative care settings and as a sentence for a crime.
“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.
c) 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.
“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.
“The Committee is concerned about the legality of corporal punishment as a form of criminal sanction, which includes flogging, amputation and stoning. The Committee is also concerned about reports of corporal punishments against children outside judicial spheres such as within the family and in schools (arts. 6, 7 and 24).
“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 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 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 remains concerned that certain criminal sanctions (or hadd penalties) such as floggings, beatings and even amputation of limbs are still prescribed by law and practised in the State party, in violation of the Convention. The Committee is also concerned at reports that courts across the country impose sentences of flogging almost daily for alleged alcohol and sexual offences, and that such floggings are carried out immediately, in public, without appeal. It is also concerned at the wide discretionary powers of judges to impose these sanctions and that they may be imposed in a discriminatory way against different groups, including women (arts. 1, 2 and 16).
b) the nature of some criminal sanctions, in particular flogging and amputation of limbs, which may be in breach of the Convention….
“The Committee notes with concern that corporal punishment of children may be applied as a penalty in criminal proceedings, and that it is lawful and widely used in the home and alternative care settings as a disciplinary method (art. 10).
Research involving caregivers and teachers of 1,196 randomly sampled 7-10 year olds found harsh corporal punishment is very common in Yemen: more than half of rural caregivers and about a quarter of urban caregivers reported using harsh corporal punishment (hitting children with implements, tying them up, pinching them, or biting them). The research found harsh corporal punishment to be significantly associated with poor school performance and both behavioural and emotional difficulties.
A study carried out in 2010, which involved 1,066 12-17 year olds from 8 schools, found that 55.7% had been slapped on the face, beaten on the head or shoulder, punched, kicked, pinched, had their hair pulled, had their ears twisted, had their hands crushed, had an object thrown at them, been forced to stand in a painful position or to stand in the sun and/or had food taken away from them by a teacher or other staff at school. Teachers were the most common perpetrators. The most common physical punishments were forcing children to stand in a painful position (experienced by 40%), twisting their ears (34.4%) and forcing them to stand in the sun (33.9%).
A 2007 study found that children in schools usually experience verbal violence when they do not do their homework, misbehave in class or do not follow school regulations, with words like “stupid”, “donkey”, “troublemaker”, etc used to insult them.

References: art. 11
 art. 13
 art. 12
 art. 434
 art. 484
 art. 492