Islamic Republic of Mauritania (Mauritania).

Africa (Western Africa).

Arabic.

3,162,338.

Abolitionist de facto.

1987.

Shooting.

Executions can be carried out by firing squad.

Stoning.

Stoning is the method of execution provided for adultery and homosexual relations only.

115.

There were 115 people on death row in Mauritania at the end of 2018.

(This question was last updated on May 30, 2019.).

No. While other states used the term “de facto moratorium” at Mauritania’s 2010 Universal Periodic Review, the Mauritanian government itself refrained from employing the term. Instead, Mauritania stated that it would “examine” the moratorium “as part of the current reform process”, that “possible alternatives would be considered”, and that “conclusions would be reached in accordance with the country’s penal policy.”

Under Article 13 of the Constitution, the “inviolability of the human person” is guaranteed by the State. The Constitution does not guarantee the right to life. In the National Report submitted for its 2010 Universal Periodic Review, the government of Mauritania affirmed that capital punishment was legal.

Aggravated Murder.

Planned or premeditated murder, parricide, poisoning, infanticide, murder of a judge or public official in the course of his duties, and murder committed in order to commit cannibalism.

Murder.

Where the perpetrator and the victim share the same religion, the Penal Code defines simple murder as a “qisas” or equivalent retaliation offense, which under Shari’a law (as applied) can mean application of the death penalty for intentional killing or killing that results from indifference to human life. Murder is therefore punished by death (except where one of the victim’s heirs grants clemency, either freely given or in exchange for payment of diyya, compensation).

Other Offenses Resulting in Death.

When they result in death, the following offenses are punishable by death: torturing a kidnapped or sequestrated person, kidnapping a minor, abandoning a child or an incapacitated person, assaulting a judge or public official in the course of his duties, arson (or destruction by explosive device), and the voluntary destruction of buildings, bridges, dams or roads.

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in Death.

The recent anti-terrorism legislation passed in July 2010 greatly expands the number of death-eligible offenses. Under the law, any terrorist act is punishable by death if it causes the death of one or more persons. The law sets out an exceptionally broad definition of what constitutes terrorism.

Any of 24 offenses set out in Articles 4 to 6, if committed with terrorist intent, is a terrorist offense. Terrorist intent, as defined in Article 3, is the intent to commit an act in order to seriously intimidate the population, compel the authorities to act in a certain manner, pervert society’s fundamental values, destabilize constitutional, political, economic or social institutions, or harm the interests of a foreign country or an international organization.

The 24 offenses cover a vast range of activities, including: endangering the security of the state; endangering the lives, bodily integrity, or freedom of persons; cyber-criminality; producing, transporting or using explosives or weapons; endangering the safety of air or sea navigation systems; money-laundering; receiving stolen goods; destroying infrastructure or transportation systems; interfering with the distribution of water, electricity, or telecommunications; spreading toxic substances; providing or receiving training to commit a terrorist act; participating in a group created to commit a terrorist act; assisting, supporting or funding a person or group to commit a terrorist act; inciting to terrorism; failing to inform authorities of any information relating to the preparation of a terrorist act; hijacking any means of transportation; or threatening to do any of the above.

The adoption of the 2010 anti-terrorism law was very controversial. Nearly one third of Parliament – including members of the presidential party – challenged the constitutionality of the law before the Constitutional Council. The Council deemed a dozen articles contrary to the Constitution, including Articles 3, 4 and 5 which define terrorism in terms that criminalized a long list of activities, and article 21, which provides for the death penalty.

Rape Not Resulting in Death.

Mauritania’s law sets forth the houdoud penalty for rape—death (without flogging) if the offender is married, and flogging and hard labor (as a substitute for exile) if the offender is unmarried. The rape of a child is punished in the same way as the rape of an adult.

Robbery Not Resulting in Death.

Armed robbery and attempted armed robbery (i.e. breaking into a dwelling at night or laying in wait on a public road at any time, while bearing a weapon, with the intent to forcefully take property, whether or not any property is actually taken) is punishable by death.

Arson Not Resulting in Death.

Arson (or destruction by explosive device) of inhabited dwellings or occupied vehicles is punishable by death.

Adultery.

Adultery is defined under Islamic law as voluntary sexual relations without the substance of a legal right, whether or not the adulterer is married. A Muslim person who commits adultery is punished by death if he or she is married or divorced. Stringent rules of evidence apply: adultery must be proved by 4 witnesses, a confession, or, for women with no legal partner, pregnancy.

Apostasy.

Apostasy by word or by deed is punished by death, unless the defendant repents. In particular, refusing to pray despite acknowledging prayer’s obligatory nature is punished by death, if one persists in this refusal until the end of a set period.

Consensual Sexual Relations Between Adults of Same Sex.

Sexual relations between Muslim men are punished by death.

Treason.

Treason, attempted treason, provocation or offer to commit treason and other crimes against the security of the state are punishable by death. As of December 2010, we were unable to locate the legislation defining military offenses, which is reported also to impose the death penalty for treason.

Espionage.

Espionage and provocation or offer to commit espionage are punishable by death.

Other Offenses Not Resulting in Death.

- Repeat offenses: a repeat offender who was previously sentenced to forced labor for life and who commits a second offense carrying the same penalty is punishable by death. If the first sentence was handed down by a military court, the first offense must also be punishable under civil criminal law in order to trigger the repeat offender rule.
- Torture: Committing acts of torture or barbarous acts in the course of committing a crime is punishable by death.
- Perjury: Perjury and intentional mistranslation of documents or speech, leading to another’s death sentence, is punishable by death.
- Accomplice: An accomplice to a crime receives the same sentence as the person who committed the crime. An accomplice to a death-eligible crime is thus punishable by death, unless the law specifically provides otherwise. Any person who furnishes a known criminal with a place to live, to rest or to meet is considered an accomplice.

Article 59 of the Penal Code establishes that the Code dictates whether discretion may be exercised in sentencing—if the Code permits it, the Code is the ultimate authority. However, Article 437 of the Penal Code, describing universally applicable discretionary sentencing, limits the application of discretionary sentencing to offenses carrying correctional penalties. Offenses carrying houdoud or qisas penalties (as outlined by Article 1 and referenced throughout the Code) are thus unaffected by Article 437. The penalties designated as houdoud or qisas throughout the code are mandatory penalties, and include the mandatory death penalty.

Aggravated Murder.

Planned or premeditated murder, parricide, poisoning, infanticide, murder of a judge or public official in the course of his duties, and murder committed in order to commit cannibalism are punished by a mandatory death penalty.

Murder.

Where the perpetrator and the victim share the same religion, the perpetrator will only be spared the death penalty if one of the victim’s heirs grants clemency, either freely given or in exchange for payment of diyya, or compensation.

Rape Not Resulting in Death.

Rape is punished by the houdoud penalty (death) if the rapist is married. The statute does not explicitly demand the evidentiary requirements traditionally applicable for authorizing the houdoud punishment. It is unclear to us whether the evidentiary requirements mentioned in another article apply, or whether some rapes are punished with a discretionary death penalty. The rape of a child is punished in the same way as the rape of an adult.

Adultery.

Adultery (zina) is defined under Islamic law as voluntary sexual relations without the substance of a legal right, whether or not the adulterer is married. A Muslim person who commits adultery is punished by death if he or she is married or divorced. Stringent rules of evidence apply: adultery must be proved by 4 witnesses, a confession, or, for women with no legal partner, pregnancy.

Apostasy.

Apostasy by word or by deed is punished by a mandatory death sentence, unless the defendant repents. In particular, refusing to pray despite acknowledging prayer’s obligatory nature is punished by death, if one persists in this refusal until the end of a set period.

Consensual Sexual Relations Between Adults of Same Sex.

Sexual relations between Muslim men are punished by death, but we are unsure whether this penalty is houdoud (and therefore mandatory):

The Penal Code describes the offense of zina (a sexual offense that includes adultery, fornication, rape and homosexual conduct in most schools), and imposes the traditional evidentiary requirements of a confession, testimony of four witnesses, or (when applicable) pregnancy. The penalty for zina is a houdoud penalty, mandatory death. In a separate article, the Code assigns the death penalty for sexual relations between men, without explicitly requiring the elements of zina. More precisely, the Code does not require that the offenders be married, does not appear to limit the offense to sodomy, and does not state evidentiary requirements. Under the Maliki school (Mauritania is a Maliki-influenced jurisdiction), the houdoud penalty can apply whether or not the participants in homosexual relations are married, but the other elements of zina should still apply.

The Code might be interpreted as requiring the elements of zina for application of the death penalty as houdoud, the Code might be interpreted as authorizing a ta’zir (corrective) penalty for all homosexual conduct, or the Code might be interpreted as authorizing a houdoud or ta’zir death penalty for homosexual conduct, depending on the circumstances. In cases of ta’zir (corrective) penalties, Article 437 (allowing discretionary sentencing for crimes receiving corrective penalties) might technically apply.

Comments.

There are cases where it is unclear whether a penalty applies as hudud, potentially preventing application of Article 437 (allowing discretionary sentencing for offenses receiving corrective penalties). If considered hudud, the offenses would carry the mandatory death penalty. Armed robbery might be considered to carry the death penalty as hudud, although the statute did not specify. (We did not classify this offense as carrying the mandatory death penalty.)".

Individuals Below Age 18 at Time of Crime.

In 2008, the Mauritian government stated to the Committee for the Rights of the Child that Mauritian law excludes the application of the death penalty to minors. This is in conformity with Mauritania’s international human rights obligations as a party to the ICCPR and to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit the execution of individuals for crimes committed while under the age of 18.

We note, however, that while Mauritanian law clearly excludes minors aged less than 15 years from the death penalty, it is not clear whether children aged between 15 and 18 may be sentenced to death. The 2005 Code on the Judicial Protection of Children [Ordonnance portant protection pénale de l’enfant] sets out the reduced sentencing scheme applicable to minors aged less than 15 years. Under the Ordinance, children aged between 7 and 15 may only be sentenced to “protective measures”, which excludes imprisonment in adult jails and presumably the death penalty. The Ordinance makes no mention of minors older than 15 years.

Pregnant Women.

Pregnant women may not be executed before they have given birth to their child. This is in conformity with Mauritania’s international human rights obligations under the ICCPR, which prohibits the execution of pregnant women."

Women With Small Children.

Mauritania has ratified the Protocol on the Rights of Women to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, which respectively exclude nursing mothers from execution and prohibit the imposition of a death sentence on mothers of infants and young children.

Mentally Ill.

A person who was insane at the time of the offense is not criminally liable.

Comments.

No individual has been executed in Mauritania since 1987.

As of December 2010, we had not found any significant published cases concerning the death penalty in Mauritanian courts.

Under Article 80 of the Constitution, ratified treaties and agreements have an authority superior to that of national laws as soon as they are published. In the Constitution’s Preamble, the Mauritanian People proclaims its attachment to Islam and to the principles of democracy as they have been defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter of Human and Peoples Rights, as well as by the other international conventions to which Mauritania has subscribed.

Mauritania should have submitted its national report under the ICCPR in February 2006, but had not yet done so by late March 2011.

U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

In November 2008, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention expressed concern about the following facts following its mission to Mauritania:

- shortcomings, in particular related to the interpretation of sharia rules in the Criminal Code and the new Code of Criminal Procedure;
- the gap between practice and the laws in force;
- the ineffectiveness of the prosecutor’s oversight of police activity in general, and police custody in particular;
- the difficulties related to access to counsel and legal aid;
- the overall perception that it is first and foremost the members of certain population groups who are affected by detention, and that other people, who are protected by their families or their ethnic groups, are able to avoid it.

Universal Periodic Review

Mauritania’s last review by the U.N. Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review took place in November 2010. During its review, Mauritania emphasized that no executions had been carried out for 23 years. However, Mauritania declined to characterize the situation as a moratorium, stating instead that it would “examine” a moratorium option, consider “possible alternatives”, and reach conclusions “in accordance with the country’s penal policy”. The Mauritanian delegation also announced that “death penalty sentences were commuted”, but we found no reports confirming this assertion. Mauritania also rejected France’s recommendation that it immediately repeal the criminal provisions that punish homosexuality with death.

At the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council, in March 2011, Mauritania rejected the recommendations to abolish the death penalty that emerged from its Universal Periodic Review. It “reaffirmed its de facto abolitionist position”, but refrained once again from employing the term moratorium.

Mauritanian law provides for the free legal representation of indigent people facing capital charges. The indicting chamber may not put a defendant on trial before the Criminal Court without appointing him a lawyer, if he has not retained one already. Moreover, the president of the Criminal Court must assign counsel to the defendant if he appears before the court without one.

However, in practice, as reported by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, assistance provided by court-appointed attorneys is “provided only during the hearing before the investigating judge and the reading of the judgment; the presence of counsel is mostly a mere formality.” With regard to political prisoners, however, the Working Group was informed that “the bar has always organized and provided free defense for all prisoners of conscience.”

The U.N. Working Groupalso reported that “legal assistance from a court-appointed attorney, when provided, is mostly ineffective, as it is not remunerated.”This is particularly worrying when one considers that most detainees are dependent on legal aid.

According to Amnesty International, a number of prisoners under sentence of death claimed in 2008 that “their trials had been unfair, asserting that they were not allowed to defend themselves properly or that they did not have a lawyer.”

In March 2010, the President of the National Bar Association requested that a proper legalaid system be put in place.

As of December 2010, we found no legislation or official information pertaining to the legal aid system before the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

However, in practice, as reported by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, assistance provided by court-appointed attorneys is “provided only during the hearing before the investigating judge and the reading of the judgment; the presence of counsel is mostly a mere formality.” With regard to political prisoners, however, the Working Group was informed that “the bar has always organized and provided free defense for all prisoners of conscience.”

The U.N. Working Group also reported that “legal assistance from a court-appointed attorney, when provided, is mostly ineffective, as it is not remunerated.” This is particularly worrying when one considers that most detainees are dependent on legal aid.

According to Amnesty International, a number of prisoners under sentence of death claimed in 2008 that “their trials had been unfair, asserting that they were not allowed to defend themselves properly or that they did not have a lawyer.”

In March 2010, the President of the National Bar Association requested that a proper legal aid system be put in place.

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention reported that “legal assistance from a court-appointed attorney, when provided, is mostly ineffective, as it is not remunerated.” This is particularly worrying when one knows that most detainees are dependent on legal aid in Mauritania. A lawyer appointed by a court may not refuse his mandate. Trainee lawyers may be appointed as defense counsel, although they are not yet authorized to practice without supervision in any other situation.

The Working Group also mentioned that “while persons accused of a crime do receive assistance from a court-appointed attorney, in practice such assistance is provided only during the hearing before the investigating judge and the reading of the judgment; the presence of counsel is mostly a mere formality.”

In 2005, Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort interviewed one of the lawyers representing the 184 persons accused of organizing a coup and put on trial in January 2005. He reported that the defense lawyers had received daily threats and that one of them had been arrested on the pretext of being in contempt of court and detained for three days, 200km away from the proceedings.

As of January 2009, there were only 264 lawyers in Mauritania.

The Criminal Courts try capital cases. Appeals are lodged before the Courts of Appeal. The Court of Appeal’s decisions can in turn be appealed before the Supreme Court, but on matters of law only. The Supreme Court must give priority to capital cases and hand down its decision within three months. If the Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Court of Appeal, the defendant will be retried either by another Court of Appeal, or by the same Court of Appeal but composed of different judges. The Court entrusted with the retrial must issue its decision within a month.

In 2008, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention observed during a visit to Rosso that “convicted persons did not receive a complete copy of their sentence, which effectively nullifies their right (…) to have the guilty verdict and the sentence reviewed by a higher court.”

Collateral review is also provided for by the Code of Penal Procedure. There are four situations in which the prosecutor, the defendant or the defendant’s family may ask the Supreme Court to review the case and give it a full retrial. All four relate to the appearance of new facts or evidence calling into question the guilt of the death-sentenced person.

As of December 2010, we were not able to locate the legislation governing the trial of military offenses.

When a death sentence is final, the Public Prosecutor communicates the information to the Minister of Justice. No execution may take place before clemency has been denied.

The president has the power to grant pardons and commutations of sentences.

Persons convicted of murder, a qisasor equivalent retribution crime, may be granted clemency by one of the victim’s heirs, either freely given or in exchange for payment of diyya, compensation. Persons convicted of some aggravated murders cannot benefit from such clemency according to the Penal Code, although it might be unlikely in practice that a court would ignore the wishes of a victim’s family.

The Criminal Courts, which have jurisdiction over capital cases, are each composed of three professional magistrates and two jurors.

The 2005 Code on the Judicial Protection of Children provides that special criminal courts are to be established to try juvenile offenders aged 15 and older who are charged with felonies. Juvenile offenders before these courts are to be tried by three judges and two jurors chosen from among childhood experts. As of December 2010, we were unable to determine whether the special criminal courts were functional.

As of December 2010, we had not been able to locate the legislation governing military offenses. It is unlikely, however, that jurors sit on military courts.

The legal system of Mauritania is a mix of French civil law and sharia law. In the 1980s, the judicial system was transformed by the state policy of arabisation and islamisation. A 1983 law abolished the distinction between Islamic and modern courts and replaced it with a unified court system that was to apply Sharia law. Islam is constitutionally recognized as “the religion of the people and of the State”, and the Constitution’s Preamble affirms that Islam is “the only source of law”. However, according to one commentator, “this theoretical predominance of Sharia law has not fundamentally altered the Civil Law foundation upon which the legal system has been developed”.

The use of torture is pervasive within the police and penitentiary system. Following an investigation conducted in September / October 2010, Amnesty reported that “[t]orture continues to be used as a method of investigation and repression against all types of detainees in Mauritania, men and women, alleged Islamists and people arrested for common-law offences.” In fact, Amnesty observed that torture was the only means of investigation employed by the security forces in the last two decades, and concluded that torture is “deeply anchored in the culture of the security forces, which act with complete impunity” and “condoned by state authorities at the highest level.” Reports abound of “confessions” being obtained under torture.

The judiciary lacks independence. In 2005, one of the lawyers representing those accused of organizing a coup reported that while the defendants were being tortured, and their families and lawyers threatened and arrested, the judges sitting on the case were “standing to attention,” at the executive’s disposal. One of these judges refused to consider allegations of torture. According to a 2009 report published by the International Federation of Human Rights, there are no independent judges in Mauritania, and the number of politically motivated cases keeps growing. The President of the National Bar Association spoke out against this problem in March 2010, denouncing the unacceptable grip of the executive on the judiciary, and expressing concern about the increase of arbitrariness in the Mauritanian judicial system.

In addition, there are concerns about the judiciary’s competence and about a shortage of judges. Shortcomings in judges’ training “can result in a sometimes limited knowledge of procedural rules.” A shortage of judges is another problem plaguing the effectiveness of the Mauritanian legal system. A 2007 report revealed that there were 173 judges in the country. In 2006, the Minister for Justice deplored that some 20 courts had no judges.

Returning from its last mission to Mauritania in 2008, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention summarized the situation as follows: “while the Government has undertaken far-reaching judicial reform with very positive results, the legacy of the authoritarian system is still making itself felt. The delegation points to certain shortcomings in the legislation, but above all emphasizes the gap between the legal instruments currently in force and actual practice. During its visit, the cases of arbitrary detention that were observed stemmed mainly from dysfunctions in the administration of justice, as reflected in a failure to respect the time limit for police custody, violations of the right to a fair trial - in particular restricted access to counsel - ineffective judicial oversight of the police and gendarmerie, corruption and inconsistent interpretations of sharia.”

In 2008, death-sentenced prisoners were reported to be “held together with other prisoners in six prisons, including Dar Naïm and Nouadhibou prisons.”

As of October 2019, we did not find any specific information about death row conditions in Mauritania. However, the conditions of Mauritanian prisons in general have been reported to be extremely poor. In 2018, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, in its second periodic review of Mauritania noted with concern that 11 out of the 18 detention centers in Mauritania are located in residential houses converted into prisons, which do not contain appropriate facilities for detainees, and that 7 of the 18 are overcrowded. Moreover, the report expressed concern about “unhealthy living and sanitary conditions, poor quality food, restrictions on access to water and family visits, including as a collective punishment, and inadequate access to the open air.” The report further noted inadequate access to health care, especially for seriously ill prisoners, and lack of psychiatric treatment. The above information seems to have been contributed to the CAT Committee by the Mauritania National Prevention Mechanism—a body of independent experts charged with visiting prisons, created by the Mauritanian government to uphold its obligations under OP-CAT.

Older reports stated that “the deplorable situation that prevails in places of detention of Mauritania … appears to be less the consequence of a lack of human and material resources and more the result of deliberate action designed to humiliate detainees, or of serious negligence on the part of the authorities.” Other reports have indicated that torture is used as a method of investigation and repression against all types of detainees in Mauritania, men and women, alleged Islamists and people arrested for common-law offences. At least two prisoners have died in prison as a result of torture since 2009.

(This question was last updated on Oct. 21, 2019.).

Yes. As of 2016, at least eleven foreign nationals were reported to be under sentence of death in Mauritania.

(This question was last updated on Oct. 21, 2019.).

Three Nigerians, two Guineans and one Gambian were sentenced to death in June 2010.

As of December 2010, we found no reports of women currently under sentence of death in Mauritania.

As of December 2010, we found no reports of individuals currently under sentence of death who may have been under the age of 18 at the time the crime was committed.

As of December 2010, we found no information regarding specific discriminatory sentencing practices in capital cases. However, in a 2008 report, the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention noted that “social inequality and racial disparities sometimes undermine the principle of equality before the law, which is a matter of concern in a country with as much ethnic and cultural diversity as Mauritania. Many of the people interviewed by the delegation maintained that it was above all the members of certain population groups who were in detention, and that others, protected by their families or ethnic groups, were able to avoid it.” The judiciary is not representative of the ethnic, linguistic, or social composition of the country’s population. There is only one female judge in the country. Persons who do not speak Arabic find themselves excluded from the arabized judicial system.

In a 2009 report, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, concluded that“while there are no manifestations of legally endorsed or State-approved racism in the country, Mauritanian society has been deeply marked by continuing discriminatory practices of an ethnic and racial nature, rooted in cultural traditions and pervasively present in social structures, the principal institutions of the State, in particular the armed forces and justice system, and attitudes. (…) The pervasiveness of a culture of racism and discrimination is the greatest obstacle to the establishment of democracy and respect for human rights in Mauritanian society.” The state’s language policy gives priority to Arabic and excludes the black Mauritanian languages. This discriminatory policy is particularly clear in the education system, the judicial system and the media.

Mauritania’s last execution took place in 1987, but courts still issue death sentences. but courts still issue death sentences. but courts still issue death sentences. In 2007, Mauritania voted against the U.N.G.A. Moratorium Resolution and signed the Note Verbale of Dissociation. The following year, it abstained both from voting on the Resolution and from signing the Note Verbale.

At its 2010 Universal Periodic Review, Mauritania emphasized that no executions had been carried out for 23 years. However, Mauritania declined to characterize the situation as a moratorium, stating instead that it would “examine” a moratorium option, and consider “possible alternatives…in accordance with the country’s penal policy”.

At the 16th Session of the Human Rights Council, in March 2011, Mauritania rejected the recommendations to abolish the death penalty that emerged from its Universal Periodic Review. It “reaffirmed its de facto abolitionist position”, but refrained once again from employing the term moratorium.

Coalition mauritanienne contre la peine de mort (Mauritanian Coalition Against Death Penalty)
Mr. El Hacene Mahmoud Mbareck
President
Avenue Boutique Djimbo, Secteur 1, lot No 256, Dar -Naim
Nouakchott, Mauritania
Tel: + 222 245 60 82
Fax: + 222 500 35 87
abdah67@yahoo.fr.

Reprieve
PO Box 72054
London EC3P 3BZ
United Kingdom
Tel 020 7553 8140
Fax 020 7553 8189
info@reprieve.org.uk
http://www.reprieve.org.uk.

Selected decisions of the Supreme Court and all the decisions of the Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) are published in the Official Gazette in Arabic.

Amnesty Intl., Mauritania Submission to the UN Universal Periodic Review, Ninth session of the UPR Working Group of the Human Rights Council, November-December 2010, AFR 38/001/2010, Apr. 12, 2010.

Amnesty Intl., Mauritania, Torture at the heart of the state, AFR 38/0092008, Dec. 3, 2008.

Reports published by Alkarama:http://en.alkarama.org/

U.N.G.A. Human Rights Council, Promotion And Protection Of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social And Cultural Rights, Including The Right To Development, Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Addendum, Mission To Mauritania, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/10/21/Add.2, Nov. 21, 2008.

None.