the increasing rate of executions in the country raises concerns that this may change in the near future. Bahrain's execution process lacks transparency and predictability, creating an environment of uncertainty for death row prisoners who face execution without proper notice. Once a death sentence has been con rmed and rati ed by the King, there is no legal timetable for when the execution will take place. Some have remained on death row for two to four years after the nal con rmation of their death sentence by the Court of Cassation, while others have been executed as early as 16 days after exhausting all appeals. Data presented by Reprieve & BIRD (2021) suggests a pattern of human rights violations in Bahrain, particularly in relation to individuals on death row accused of terrorism-related offences. The majority (83%) of those executed since 2011 were convicted of terrorist offences, in contrast to the previous decade, when no such convictions were made. Each of these men claimed to have been tortured in custody. This trend continues among those currently awaiting execution, 46% of whom have been convicted of terrorism-related offences. Almost all (92%) of these individuals claim to have been tortured by the Bahraini authorities, with some (27%) even claiming that their confessions were falsely obtained through torture. fi fi fi fi fi fi Moreover, these cases appear to be linked to political opposition, all of them related to dissent against the Bahraini regime. In its 2017 review, the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concerns about Bahrain's compliance with the Convention Against Torture, to which it is a signatory. They highlighted de ciencies in both the Ombudsman and the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), suggesting that these bodies could not conduct adequate torture investigations in line with Bahrain's international obligations. This view was echoed by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT) in their 2020 review of a death penalty case, nding the investigations conducted by the Ombudsman and the SIU to be inadequate, ineffective and biased and called for the verdict to be overturned.