Mauritania

Mauritania bridges the Arab Maghreb and western sub-Saharan Africa.

Mauritanian society is rigidly caste-based. The Beidane, who are of Arab-Berber origin, are politically and socially dominant, while the Haratine remain the most economically and politically marginalized group[ref]https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mauritania/session_23_-_november_2015/unpo_upr23_mrt_e_main.pdf[/ref]. Many Haratine in Mauritania are enslaved, and those who are free face discrimination and are ostracized from politics and society. Other ethnic groups are of sub-Saharan origin, and include the Peulh and Toucouleur, Soninké, and Wolof peoples[ref]https://minorityrights.org/country/mauritania/[/ref].

Slavery is a major human rights issue and is socially justified with reference to an interpretation of Islam. Mauritania is a member of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is an established church or state religion
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Constitution and government
State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
There is an established church or state religion
Education and children’s rights
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Systemic religious privilege results in significant social discrimination
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Religious control over family law or legislation on moral matters
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Discriminatory prominence is given to religious bodies, traditions or leaders
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Concerns that secular or religious authorities interfere in specifically religious freedoms
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment
The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence
‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
image_pdfDownload this country entry as a PDF

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Grave Violations
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
Mostly Satisfactory
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The preamble of Mauritania’s 1991 Constitution[ref]https://adsdatabase.ohchr.org/IssueLibrary/MAURITANIA_Constitution.pdf[/ref] declares a “right to equality” and the “fundamental freedoms and rights of human beings”; Article 1 of the Constitution notes that, “the Republic guarantees equality before the law to all of its citizens without distinction as to origin, race, sex, or social condition”. However, the constitution and other laws and policies restrict freedom of religion or belief. The Constitution defines the country as Islamic, recognising Islam as the only religion of its citizens, with Islam as “the religion of the people and the state”.

The Constitutional Council, the High Council of Magistrates and the President are required, when taking an oath of office, to make a promise to God to uphold the law of the land in conformity with Islamic precepts.

The law and legal procedures of Mauritania are based on Sharia. Sharia crimes such as heresy, apostasy, atheism, refusal to pray, adultery and alcoholism are all contained in Mauritania’s Penal Code[ref]https://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/penal-code-of-mauritania/view (in French)[/ref]. The Code includes punishments of lapidation, amputation and lashings. Sharia norms are also reflected in Mauritania’s 2001 Personal Status Code (a legal code which regulates all matters related to marriage, divorce, family and inheritance issues). Article 311 states that for difficulties of interpretation as well as in cases where the Code is silent, reference should be made to Sharia[ref]http://www.justice.gov.mr//IMG/pdf/statutpersonnelarabe.pdf[/ref].

Education and children’s rights

Both public school and private secondary schools require students to attend four hours a week of Islamic instruction[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MAURITANIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref].

Family, community and society

Non-Muslims are restricted from having citizenship status. Muslims who convert from Islam lose their citizenship and property rights. Non-Muslims are only allowed to gather and worship (even in private) after they are granted permission to do so from the state[ref]https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/MAURITANIA-2019-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf[/ref].

Slavery

Despite a 1981 law abolishing slavery in Mauritania, and its criminalization in 2007, the Global Slavery Index estimates that two percent of the population, or 90,000 Mauritanians, are currently enslaved[ref]https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/2018/data/country-data/mauritania/[/ref]. Those in slavery come from the Haratine ethnic group, who were historically enslaved and “inherited” by slave-owning families from one generation to the next.

The government has been reluctant to admit that slavery exists in the country, let alone to seriously tackle it, as its persecution of anti-slavery activists demonstrates. There have only been two successful prosecutions of slave owners in Mauritania’s history[ref]https://www.antislavery.org/big-win-mauritania-slavery/[/ref] This is partly due to the requirement that former enslaved individuals (who are often illiterate and with no educational background) must file legal complaints themselves to trigger prosecution, and NGOs are not allowed to bring cases on their behalf[ref]https://unpo.org/members/13228; https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/mauritania/session_23_-_november_2015/unpo_upr23_mrt_e_main.pdf[/ref].

Cultural and systematic racism against Afro-Mauritanians is a major reason why the practice of slavery has survived for so long. Another factor is the centuries of tradition which justify the practice, and the influence of religion. Local Islamic leaders have historically spoken in favor of slavery, advocating for those who are enslaved to submit to their masters in order to ascend to heaven, in a distortion of the teachings of the Qu’ran[ref]http://www.glimpsefromtheglobe.com/regions/middle-east-and-north-africa/the-disastrous-implications-of-modern-day-slavery-in-mauritania/[/ref].

Even when freed, Haratines face ongoing discrimination and marginalization across Mauritanian society, and are often denied access to education, jobs, and political representation[ref]https://unpo.org/members/13228[/ref].

Gender equality and harmful traditional practices

Traditional and harmful practices, including early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM) continue to be used against women and girls in Mauritania, especially in remote areas in the south of the country[ref]https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/54bce7604.pdf[/ref].

A lack of laws on gender-based violence and of institutions to provide assistance to victims, along with social pressures and stigma, act as barriers to women enjoying their rights. For example, women who report rape to the police can be prosecuted and charged for “zina” (or adultery),[ref]https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/09/05/they-told-me-keep-quiet/obstacles-justice-and-remedy-sexual-assault-survivors[/ref] which is punishable by the death penalty under Article 306 of Penal Code[ref]https://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/penal-code-of-mauritania/@@download/file/Mauritania%20Penal%20Code%201983.pdf[/ref]. The Mauritanian Association for the Health of the Mother and Child reports that adultery offences are the most common cause of incarceration for women in Mauritania, with most of these women in fact being victims of rape themselves[ref]https://fr.reuters.com/article/us-mauritania-women-sexcrimes-idUSKCN1N40FU[/ref].

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Freedom of expression both for individuals and for the press are severely compromised in Mauritania.

Apostasy, blasphemy, “adultery”, and homosexuality are among the capital crimes in Mauritania, as well as terrorism.

Mandatory death for “apostasy” and “blasphemy”

Article 306 of the Mauritanian Penal Code, stipulates apostasy as a crime punishable by death[ref]https://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/penal-code-of-mauritania/@@download/file/Mauritania%20Penal%20Code%201983.pdf[/ref].

Until 2018, anyone found guilty of converting from Islam was supposed to be given three days to repent and so receive a lesser sentence or be released without conviction. If they did not repent, an individual might face confiscation of their property, or the death sentence. However, despite “repenting”, Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkheitir (see “Highlighted cases” below) was found guilty of “apostasy” and sentenced to death, in a one-day trial in late December 2014. His case has been a major focus of Islamist demands and debate within Mauritania since 2014.

The case also appears to have brought about a change in the law – for the worse.

In 2018, Mauritania enacted a law which makes the death sentence for apostasy compulsory, as well as upgrading blasphemy to a capital offence and making that compulsory as well.

The amendment to Article 306 of the Penal Code now states that the death penalty will be applied to “every Muslim, man or woman, who ridicules or insults Allah”, his messenger, his teachings, or any of his prophets, “even if [the accused] repents”[ref]aljazeera.com/news/2017/11/mauritania-strengthens-blasphemy-law-blogger-case-171122163349451.html[/ref].

The law also provides for a sentence of up to two years in prison and a fine of up to 600,000 Ouguiyas (approximately EUR 13,804) for “offending public indecency and Islamic values”, or “breaching Allah’s prohibitions” or assisting in their breach.

There appears to have been a moratorium on the death sentence since 1987. However, at the end of 2019, at least 123 individuals in Mauritania remained on death row[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5018472020ENGLISH.PDF[/ref].

“Spreading atheism”

It has been observed that the charge of “spreading atheism” has been used not only to silence writers and activists but for political means also. A number of left-wing activists and writers have highlighted what they see as a systematic campaign which accuses them of spreading atheism. In 2014, it was reported that the Supreme Council for Fatwa and Grievances had issued a statement calling on activists on social media to “stop offending Islam and the Prophet and spreading atheism”[ref]https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture/2014/01/mauritania-religious-crisis-accusations-apostasy.html#[/ref].

Press freedom and harassment of activists

Press freedom is guaranteed by the constitution. However, in reality, privately run newspapers face closure for publishing material considered offensive to Islam or threatening to the state. Self-censorship is also practised by journalists to some degree, when they cover issues relating to Sharia or slavery, for example, and activists against slavery have been frequently harassed and persecuted[ref]iheu.org/iheu-calls-on-un-to-do-more-to-protect-mauritanian-anti-slavery-campaigners/[/ref].

The government uses repressive legislation that includes criminal defamation, broad definitions of terrorism and “inciting racial hatred” to censor and prosecute human rights defenders, activists, bloggers, and political dissidents[ref]https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/statement-report/upr-submission-mauritania-2020[/ref]. The 2016 Cybercrime Law[ref]http://www.ictpolicyafrica.org/fr/document/a74yc6lf0v?page=1[/ref] provides for prison sentences and fines for disseminating politically sensitive content over the internet, and is used in practice to censor government critics.

Following the presidential elections in June 2019, large scale opposition protests were repressed, and the Interior Ministry announced that security forces had arrested 100 protesters[ref]https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/mauritania[/ref]. Protesters were accused of being foreign agents with intentions of destabilising the country[ref]https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/mauritanie-l-opposition-denonce-un-etat-de-siege-26-06-2019-2321266_24.php[/ref], and the government imposed an internet blackout for 11 days after the election to shut down online political commentary on the election[ref]https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/AFR3806942019ENGLISH.pdf[/ref].

The government makes use of arbitrary arrests in order to intimidate, harass and instill fear of reprisal against human rights activists. In July 2019, the government arbitrarily arrested and detained the following individuals, amongst others:  Ahmedou Ould Wediaa (a prominent anti-slavery activist, journalist and member of the opposition party (Tawassoul), he was arbitrarily detained for 12 days), Camara Seydi Moussa (journalist known for his criticism of the government, released after being arbitrarily detained for one week by police), Yahya Sy (human rights activist detained for 6 days without charge), Cheikhna Mohamed Lemine Cheikh (anti-slavery campaigner, arrested on June 24 and released on 2 July), Moussa Camara (journalist, arbitrarily detained for one week after being accused of questioning the election result), and Samba Thiam (politician and anti-discrimination activist who was arrested and detained for a week following a Facebook post where he questioned “the fairness of the electoral process” and commented on the mobilization of the Afro-Mauritanian community. He was forced to sign a statement that he would “cease activities leading to extremism and violence”)[ref]https://minorityrights.org/2019/07/15/mauritania-crackdown-activists/; https://www.ecoi.net/en/document/2028282.html[/ref].

Highlighted cases

In late December 2014, Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkheitir was sentenced to death for “apostasy”. As a 28-year-old blogger, he had been arrested in January 2014, for allegedly publishing an article seen by some as insulting Muhammad and constituting an act of apostasy. His writing in fact sought to highlight the indentured servitude in Mauritanian society, often socially justified with reference to national cultural identity and in particular to Islamic tradition.[ref]iheu.org/iheu-condemns-death-sentence-for-apostasy-handed-to-writer-in-mauritania/[/ref]

Following Mkheitir’s initial arrest, there were a number of protests condemning his writing. There were numerous calls, including by imams, scholars and professors, for his execution. One preacher, Abi Ould Ali, offered EUR 4,000 to anyone who killed Mkheitir. The Mauritanian government and opposition parties supported the protests. President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz said, “We will apply God’s law on whoever insults the prophet, and whoever publishes such an insult.”

After his death sentence was handed down in December 2014, there were again popular celebrations. Jemil Ould Mansour, leader of Mauritanian Islamist party Tawassoul, welcomed the conviction, saying that Mkheitir had got “the fate he deserves”[ref]bvoltaire.fr/philippe-franceschi/peut-sauver-mohamed-cheikh-ould-mkheitir,149711[/ref].

In early November 2017, Mkheitiir’s sentence was reduced by an appeals court in Nouadhibou, to two years imprisonment. Having already served four years he was due to be released. The re-sentencing was followed once again by riotous demonstrations calling for Mkhetitir’s execution[ref]washingtonpost.com/world/africa/mauritania-blogger-sentenced-to-death-is-released-on-appeal/2017/11/09/00573942-c565-11e7-9922-4151f5ca6168_story.html?utm_term=.5d2f6adbd727; aa.com.tr/en/africa/security-disperse-protests-in-mauritanian-capital/962148[/ref].

Despite the reduction of his sentence, it was not until July 2019, in the final days of the presidency of Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, that Mkheitir was actually freed from detention and was enabled to flee abroad[ref]humanists.international/2019/08/mohamed-cheikh-ould-mkhaitir-freed-after-6-years-in-detention/[/ref].

In February 2020, 14 human rights defenders were arbitrarily detained after hosting an “unauthorised meeting” in a guesthouse. 10 activists were subsequently accused of ‘belonging to a group that promotes secularism’ and three of the activists – Outhmane Boubacar, Abderahmane Haddad and Ahmed Mouhamed Moukhtar – were charged with ‘blasphemy’ under article 306 the Penal Code and remain in detention[ref]https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/case/arbitrary-detention-ten-human-rights-defenders; https://www.civicus.org/documents/MauritaniaUPRSubmission.EN.2020.pdf[/ref].