Africa-Press – South-Sudan. Legal expert Monyluak Aguer has explained that the legal basis for blood compensation, known as Diya, is firmly rooted in the Constitution and the Penal Code. These laws establish the legal foundation for claiming compensation in murder cases.
According to Aguer, a demand for blood compensation typically arises after the court has issued a conviction but before a death sentence is executed. This occurs once the court confirms that the accused has violated Article 206 of the Penal Code. At this stage, the court grants the family of the deceased, referred to as the “guardians of the blood,” the right to choose between three options: execution (qisas), blood compensation (diya), or forgiveness.
If the family opts for blood compensation or forgiveness, the death sentence is suspended. The punishment is then converted to “public right,” which results in a term of imprisonment. Aguer clarified that the public right belongs to the state, not the family. Therefore, even if blood compensation is accepted, the state retains its right to prosecute and impose a prison sentence.
He added that if the family forgives the offender or agrees to compensation at any stage before execution, the death penalty is abolished. Even if the offender has already served a significant prison sentence, the court can still recognize the act of forgiveness or compensation and officially cancel the death sentence.
In cases of intentional murder, the death penalty remains the standard application. However, in cases of semi-intentional or unintentional killing, the court rules directly on blood compensation under Article 210, without offering the option of execution. In such instances, the court may impose a prison sentence, usually ranging between seven and ten years.
Aguer emphasized that blood compensation is not an exemption from punishment, but rather a legal penalty prescribed by law. Failure to pay this compensation may result in continued imprisonment until the payment is made, in accordance with the principle of reconciliation. Reconciliation, he explained, is a constitutional right that must be carried out voluntarily, without pressure, and in the presence of a judge. The judge is responsible for ensuring the family’s decision is made freely before it is officially recorded.
The public prosecutor continues to represent the state’s interests and may seek to reduce, but never eliminate, the public penalty. Blood compensation does not cancel the state’s right to uphold justice.
Furthermore, Aguer stressed the constitutional principle of equality before the law, noting that political or social status should not influence the outcome of justice. He pointed out that penalties may even be more severe for officials or influential individuals, as their crimes often have a greater impact on society.
He noted that while the President of the Republic may grant a pardon from execution, such an act does not eliminate the underlying criminal conviction. These decisions are carefully coordinated between the Ministry of Justice and the Presidency.
Finally, Aguer called for a comprehensive review of the 2008 Penal Code. He stated that because it was enacted under a different constitutional framework, it must be updated to reflect the current legal and social realities of South Sudan.
For More News And Analysis About South-Sudan Follow Africa-Press
