Asia Death Penalty

Glimpse of Chan family pain

2011-06-19T20:51:00.003+10:00

Chan family appeal for Indonesian clemency
19 June 2011

AAP on The Sydney Morning Herald

The brother of Bali Nine ringleader Andrew Chan has appealed to the Indonesian president to give him "a second chance at life".

In an emotional appeal in Sydney on Sunday, Michael Chan said his parents were devastated at the news their son had lost his final appeal against his death sentence for his role in the plot to smuggle heroin from Bali to Australia.

"Mum and dad are finding it very hard and are struggling to come to terms with this
decision," Mr Chan said through his tears.

"Each day is harder to see the pain and anguish they suffer knowing their son is facing execution."

The Indonesian Supreme Court on Friday said it had rejected Chan's final appeal against a death sentence for his involvement in the 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.

A clemency appeal to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is the 27-year-old's last hope of escaping the firing squad.

When asked what message he had for the president, Mr Chan said his brother didn't deserve to be shot.

"If he's listening, (please) give him a second chance at life," he said.

Mr Chan said his parents, who live at Enfield in Sydney, had not been given the news officially, but they were assuming it was true.

He said he had spoken to his younger brother since the final decision and Chan was staying positive.

"He's really clear on one thing - he's just going to keep on doing his best to be a better person, lead a good life, whether he's got a short time or a long time to go."

Chan had made great efforts to turn his life around, and was studying theology, participating in church and teaching other inmates English and computer skills, Mr Chan said.

"When he made his mistake he was a kid, he's grown into an adult in the last couple of years ...

"Hopefully the president can see that change in him."

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd have both said the Australian government would support Chan's likely bid for clemency, but his brother said the family had had no contact with the government in the past few days.

Australian PM backs Chan clemency

2011-06-19T20:36:00.003+10:00

Gillard against Chan death penalty
By Petrina Berry
18 June 2011

AAP on The Brisbane Times

Prime Minister Julia Gillard hasn't ruled out appealing to Indonesia's president personally to have the death penalty against convicted Bali Nine ringleader Andrew Chan quashed.

Indonesia's Supreme Court has rejected Chan's final appeal against the death penalty.

His only chance now is a plea for clemency to Indonesia's president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Ms Gillard, ahead of her address at an ALP conference in Brisbane, said Australia does not support the death penalty and the government will do whatever it can to help.

Asked if she will talk to the president herself, she said: "I'll be happy to do whatever is necessary to put as much force as we can into the appeal for clemency, including personally involving myself.

She said the government was supporting the family and Chan's lawyers.

Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd, also in Brisbane for the party's annual conference, said the government would stand by Chan.

"We will do what we have done with any other Australians who have been convicted of a capital offence and that is to use every form of representation to government concerned in support of that person," Mr Rudd said.

Indonesia: Andrew Chan appeal lost

2011-06-17T20:46:00.004+10:00

Bali Nine ringleader loses final appeal
By Indonesia correspondent Matt Brown, wires

From: ABC Online, 17 June 2011

One of the Bali Nine drug smuggling ringleaders, Andrew Chan, has lost an appeal against his death sentence.

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were found guilty of organising a shipment of more than eight kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia in 2005 and sentenced to death.

Indonesia's supreme court has now rejected his final appeal.

The decision was made on May 10 but was only posted on the supreme court website this afternoon.

His lawyer, Todung Mulya Lubis, says he is shocked at the result and could not comment further until he has spoken with his client.

The supreme court judges reviewing Chan's appeal say they found no obvious error in the original decision to impose the death penalty.

But Chan's Balinese lawyer, Nyoman Gede Sudiantara, says the legal team is shocked because Chan was not caught with any of the drugs the Bali Nine planned to smuggle to Australia.

Chan's last chance for a reprieve would be an appeal for clemency to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The decision is a bad sign for Sukumaran, who is also waiting on the results of his appeal.

Chan and Sukumaran both launched final appeals in August last year.

The appeals rested on evidence that the men have been successfully rehabilitated and are role models inside prison.

Chan and Sukumaran had both been running education courses for fellow inmates inside Bali's Kerobokan prison as part of their efforts to rehabilitate.

Chan, 26, told the Denpasar District Court last year he knew he could not change the "stupid things" he did in the past.

"But I have genuinely changed my behaviour and I really want to focus on what I can do now and in the future," he said.

Chan, who has also been studying for a bachelor's degree in theology while in prison, said he hoped to become a minister or a counsellor so he could help others avoid his mistakes.

"I accept that I deserve to be punished for my crime but I beg the court that I not be executed," he said.

"I hope I am given another chance in life."

At the hearing, both men apologised for previously pleading not guilty, blaming bad advice from their previous legal team.

They also apologised for their behaviour at earlier court appearances, conceding they did not show appropriate respect.

A spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Kevin Rudd says the Government will vigorously support clemency for Mr Chan.

She says the Minister's thoughts are with Mr Chan and his family at this deeply distressing time.

A supreme court decision in May spared fellow Bali Nine death-row inmate Scott Rush the death penalty, instead sentencing him to life in prison.

Five other members of the drug smuggling plot - Martin Stephens, Matthew Norman, Michael Czugaj, Si Yi Chen and Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen - are also serving life sentences.

The final member of the drug ring, courier Renae Lawrence, is serving a 20-year sentence.

- ABC/AAP

EU regrets three Taiwan executions

2011-03-06T22:19:00.003+10:00

EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 4 March 2011

Statement by the High Representative, Catherine Ashton, on the executions in Taiwan

Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the Commission, made today the following statement:

"I deeply regret today’s executions in Taiwan, the first after the resumption of executions in Taiwan last year. The European Union had been encouraged by the de facto moratorium on executions that had been in place from 2006 until last year. Taiwan is now once again one of the very few industrial democracies to implement capital punishment.

"The European Union's strongly held view in favor of the abolition of capital punishment is well known. The European Union considers that the abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. It is the European Union's view that the death penalty does not serve as an effective deterrent, and that any miscarriage of justice, which is inevitable in any legal system, would be irreversible.

"I therefore urge Taiwan not to undertake further executions, but instead to put in place an immediate de facto moratorium on executions, pending legal abolition."

____________________
P R E S S
FOR FURTHER DETAILS:
Michael Mann +32 498 999 780 - +32 2 299 97 80 - Michael.Mann@ec.europa.eu
Maja Kocijancic +32 498 984 425 - +32 2 298 65 70 - Maja.Kocijancic@ec.europa.eu
COMM-SPP-HRVP-ASHTON@ec.europa.eu
www.eeas.europa.eu

Taiwan executions condemned

2011-03-06T22:05:00.003+10:00

ADPAN REGRETS YET MORE EXECUTIONS IN TAIWAN
4 March 2011
ASA 38/001/2010

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) says the latest executions of five men in Taiwan on 4 March 2011 calls into question the Taiwan government's stated intention to abolish the death penalty.

This brings the number of executions to nine since last year and goes against the global trend towards abolition.

The Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP), who are members of ADPAN, pointed out today that, "carrying out any executions at this point in time would violate both domestic and international law." Taiwan has legally committed itself to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2009, which includes the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence, and incorporated it into domestic law the same year.

The executions today of Wang Chih-huang, Wang Kuo-hua, Chuang Tien-chu, Kuan Chung-yen and Chong De-shu were carried out by shooting. None of the family members were informed before the executions took place.

The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is a cross-regional network made up of over 50 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 23 countries.

For more information:

- Lin Hsiny-Yi, Executive Director, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, (TAEDP)
+886-(0)930-019345
+886 (0)2 25218870 / FAX: +886 (0)2 25319373
BLOG: http://www.taedp.org.tw/ / E-MAIL: taedp.tw@gmail.com

- Louise Vischer, ADPAN Coordinator, louise.vischer@amnesty.org
+44 (0)207 413 5656

Pakistan Christians face death for 'blasphemy'

2010-12-12T17:39:00.003+10:00

Pakistani Christian Asia Bibi 'has price on her head'
By Orla Guerin
From: BBC News, Punjab province
7 December 2010

Ashiq Masih has the look of a hunted man - gaunt, anxious and exhausted.

Though he is guilty of nothing, this Pakistani labourer is on the run - with his five children.

His wife, Asia Bibi, has been sentenced to death for blaspheming against Islam. That is enough to make the entire family a target.

They stay hidden by day, so we met them after dark.

Mr Masih told us they move constantly, trying to stay one step ahead of the anonymous callers who have been menacing them.

"I ask who they are, but they refuse to tell me," he said.

"They say 'we'll deal with you if we get our hands on you'. Now everyone knows about us, so I am hiding my kids here and there. I don't allow them to go out. Anyone can harm them," he added.

Ashiq Masih says his daughters still cry for their mother and ask if she will be home in time for Christmas.

He insists that Asia Bibi is innocent and will be freed, but he worries about what will happen next.

"When she comes out, how she can live safely?" he asks.

"No one will let her live. The mullahs are saying they will kill her when she comes out.

"Asia Bibi, an illiterate farm worker from rural Punjab, is the first woman sentenced to hang under Pakistan's controversial blasphemy law.

'Old score'
As well as the death penalty hanging over her, Asia Bibi now has a price on her head.

A radical cleric has promised 500,000 Pakistani rupees (£3,700; $5,800) to anyone prepared to "finish her". He suggested that the Taliban might be happy to do it.

Asia Bibi's troubles began in June 2009 in her village, Ittan Wali, a patchwork of lush fields and dusty streets.

Hers was the only Christian household. She was picking berries alongside local Muslim women, when a row developed over sharing water.

Days later, the women claimed she had insulted the Prophet Muhammad. Soon, Asia Bibi was being pursued by a mob.

"In the village they tried to put a noose around my neck, so that they could kill me," she said in a brief appearance outside her jail cell.

Anarchy threat
Asia Bibi says she was falsely accused to settle an old score. That is often the case with the blasphemy law, critics say.

At the village mosque, we found no mercy for her.

The imam, Qari Mohammed Salim, told us he cried with joy when sentence was passed on Asia Bibi.

He helped to bring the case against her and says she will be made to pay, one way or the other.

"If the law punishes someone for blasphemy, and that person is pardoned, then we will also take the law in our hands," he said.

Her case has provoked concern abroad, with Pope Benedict XVI joining the calls for her release.

In Pakistan, Islamic parties have been out on the streets, threatening anarchy if she is freed, or if there is any attempt to amend the blasphemy law.

Under Pakistan's penal code, anyone who "defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet" can be punished by death or life imprisonment. Death sentences have always been overturned on appeal.

Human right groups and Christian organisations want the law abolished.

"It was designed as an instrument of persecution," says Ali Hasan Dayan, of Human Rights Watch in Pakistan. "It's discriminatory and abusive."

'Hanging sword'
While most of those charged under the law are Muslims, campaigners say it is an easy tool for targeting minorities, in this overwhelmingly Muslim state.

"It is a hanging sword on the neck of all minorities, especially Christians," says Shahzad Kamran, of the Sharing Life Ministry, which ministers to prisoners, including Asia Bibi.

"In our churches, homes and workplaces we feel fear," he says.

"It's very easy to make this accusation because of a grudge, or for revenge. Anyone can accuse you.

"Even our little children are afraid that if they say something wrong at school, they will be charged with blasphemy.

"Asia Bibi's story has sparked a public debate in Pakistan about reforming the law, but it is a touchy - and risky - subject which many politicians would prefer to ignore.

Campaigners fear that the talk about reform of the blasphemy laws will amount to no more than that.

Beheading threat
When Pakistan's Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, raised the issue six months ago, he was threatened with death.

"I was told I could be beheaded if I proposed any change," he told us.

"But I am committed to the principle of justice for the people of Pakistan. I am ready to die for this cause, and I will not compromise".

Mr Bhatti, himself a Christian, hopes that Asia Bibi will win an appeal to the High Court, or be pardoned by Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari.

He says she is one of dozens of innocent people who are accused every year.

"I will go to every knock for justice on her behalf and I will take all steps for her protection".

But even behind bars Asia Bibi may not be safe.

Several people accused of blasphemy have been killed in jail.

Thirty-four people connected with blasphemy cases have been killed since the law was hardened in 1986, according to Pakistan's Justice and Peace Commission, a Catholic campaign group.

The death toll includes those accused, their relatives, and even a judge.

In a neglected graveyard by a railway track in the city of Faisalabad, we found two of the latest victims of the blasphemy law.

'Electric shock'
They are brothers, buried side by side, together in death, as they were in life.

Rashid Emmanuel was a pastor.

His brother, Sajid, was an MBA student. They were gunned down in July during their trial - inside a courthouse, in handcuffs and in police custody.

Relatives, who asked not to be identified, said the blasphemy charges were brought because of a land dispute.

After the killings, the extended family had to leave home and move to another city. They say they will be moving again soon.

"We don't feel safe," one relative told us.

"We are shocked, like an electric shock. We are going from one place to another to defend ourselves, and secure our family members.

"Once a month they come to the cemetery to pray at the graves of their lost loved ones.

They are too frightened to visit more often.

They bow their heads and mourn for two men who they say were killed for nothing - except being Christian.

Taiwan justice minister willing to hang

2010-11-28T10:29:00.002+10:00

New justice minister faces up to death penalty controversy

From: Focus Taiwan News Channel
22 March 2011

Taipei, March 22 (CNA) Taiwan's new justice minister Tseng Yung-fu, who entered office Monday under pressure to address a recent controversy over the death penalty, said enforcing capital punishment would not violate United Nations human rights conventions.

Former Justice Minister Wang Ching-feng was forced to resign on March 11, after her insistence on not signing off on the executions of 44 inmates currently on death row sparked outrage from victims' families and some legislators.

The furor died down while acting Minister Huang Shih-ming temporarily held the post, but public pressure remained to name a new justice minister who would be willing to see the executions through, even if the country has not carried out an execution of a death penalty inmate since late 2005.

Asked if carrying out the death penalty would not violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) , which Taiwan has signed into law, Tseng said the covenant only hopes that countries reduce the use of capital punishment.

That has happened in Taiwan, Tseng said, citing the reduction in the number of death sentences meted out and the elimination of laws in which the death penalty is the only punishment option.

"Carrying out a death penalty cannot be considered as violating the treaties," Tseng said.

He indicated that there was no deadline binding the minister of justice to sign the execution orders of the 44 death row inmates but said those who were sentenced to death for the most heinous of crimes would have their cases reviewed first.

Despite the controversy, a ministry task force on studying ways to abolish capital punishment will hold its first meeting Tuesday as scheduled, and the ministry will conduct a survey every six months to gauge public opinion on the issue.

At Monday's handover ceremony, acting Minister Huang praised Wang for her enthusiasm and lauded her as an official who stood up for principles.

"It was to everyone's regret that she left," Huang said.

Meanwhile, Tseng also pledged that he would promote a mechanism during his tenure that would make it possible to dismiss incompetent judicial personnel.

"He who laughs at crooked men better walk very straight, " he stressed.

Tseng, 67, a former deputy justice minister, has served as chief prosecutor in Taipei and Tainan cities and Taitung, Yunlin and Chiayi counties as well as the outlying island of Kinmen.

He has also served as the chief prosecutor with the Public Prosecutors Office for the Taiwan High Court and as the Ministry of Justice's chief secretary.

(By An Chi-hsien and Elizabeth Hsu)

Indonesia: Australian faces capital charge

2010-11-27T21:28:00.001+10:00

Australian man faces death penalty
November 26, 2010
From: TheAge.com.au

AUSTRALIAN man Michael Sacatides faces the death penalty in Indonesia after being formally charged with drug importation offences yesterday.

Sacatides, 43, was caught with 1.7 kilograms of methamphetamine in his luggage at Bali's airport last month.

He maintains his innocence.

Bali police handed a dossier of evidence to prosecutors yesterday, who charged Sacatides with importing drugs, an offence that carries a maximum penalty of death by firing squad.

Sacatides is a kickboxing instructor who hails from Sydney but lived in Bangkok for several years.

He was moved to Kerobokan prison on October 27 and will join three other Australians on death row for drug offences.

Scott Rush, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have legal appeals in train.Sacatides is expected to front a Denpasar court next month.

He has previously told police a man who gave him the bag containing the drugs was a former business associate.

TOM ALLARD

Pakistan: "Extreme" blasphemy laws need reform

2010-11-27T21:20:00.003+10:00

An instrument of abuse?
by annie on 11 26th, 2010
From: Dawn.com

The death sentence handed down to Pakistani Christian woman Aasia Bibi by a court in Punjab province's Nankana district has once again brought attention to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. And while the 45-year-old mother of five awaits a review of the verdict against her, questions are being raised regarding the intent behind and utility of the said laws.

While the Constitution of Pakistan criminalises "deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage" the religious sentiments of "any" community, the blasphemy laws, in the form of additions to Sections 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), proceed to recommend much more exacting penalties, including death, if the accused is found to be either disrespectful toward or critical of the Quran, Prophet Mohammad, Islam’s caliphs and other important figures mentioned in the statutes. These particular laws therefore do not stand up for religions other than Islam thereby rendering defenceless other religious communities. Moreover, the laws' provisions pertaining to the Ahmedi community in many ways constrain them from practicing their religion. Forbidden from calling themselves, or "posing" as, Muslims, the legislation makes abundantly clear, albeit circuitously, that their faith should not be what it is.

It was in the early 1980s and during the regime of former military dictator Ziaul Haq that committing blasphemy was made a penal offence under the PPC. In its current state, the law prescribes a jail term for anyone found disrespectful toward the Quran and death penalty for anyone found to be reproachful of Prophet Mohammad. Oddly enough, while the question of intent is not considered when it comes to the latter offence, it continues to remain punishable by nothing short of the death penalty. The blasphemy laws also prescribe a fine and a prison term with regard to penal offences associated with the Ahmedi community.

Having survived for nearly three decades in its current and extreme form, the blasphemy laws have so far escaped all reform due to opposition from religio-political groups. At the same time, other, essentially secular, political groups have been succumbing to these hardline forces mostly out of fear of losing clout in regions with conservative leanings and where religious organisations seem to enjoy a considerable degree of influence. Even at this point, with the international community ramping up pressure on the government to pardon Aasia and to eventually repeal the blasphemy laws, certain otherwise antagonistic clerics from the Barelvi and Deobandi schools of thought have come together to caution President Asif Ali Zardari over going ahead with the pardon saying the move may lead to "untoward repercussions".

While the sentencing of Aasia has led to much international uproar, hers is just one of the many cases which have led to blasphemy convictions by the courts. Moreover, many of the blasphemy accused – mostly from the unprotected religious minority groups – have been targeted and sometimes killed by lynch mobs. The still recent killing of two Christian brothers in Faisalabad, the case of Zaibunnisa who remained incarcerated for 14 long years on blasphemy allegations and the violence that targeted Christians in Gojra in 2009 are just some of the recently reported instances which clearly depict how such laws have effectively abandoned the country's religious minorities and emboldened extremists.

These and similar other incidents have inevitably led to questions pertaining to the rationale behind the laws as well as to their outcome in terms of greater social good. And while the laws are frequently used to blackmail and victimise Pakistan's miniscule religious minorities, they also come in handy by those wanting to settle personal scores, sort business rivalries and tackle land disputes with other Muslims. Rights groups have continually demanded that the laws be repealed and have referred to the statutes as fundamentally unjust and discriminatory in nature.

Moreover, legal experts and analysts have frequently termed the text of the laws as vague and even flawed in ways that make it a ready instrument of abuse. Incompatible with the universally accepted human rights charter, the laws and their application also stand in clear violation of the Constitution of Pakistan which guarantees every citizen the "right to profess, practice and propagate" his/her religion and in fact forbids the state from making "any law which takes away" the citizens' fundamental rights.

Given the fact that the blasphemy laws have only served to fuel disharmony and strife in society, a thorough review of the legislation, followed by significant changes to it, can be the first small step toward countering the culture of exploitation that has become all-too-synonymous with these laws.

Qurat ul ain Siddiqui is the Desk Editor at Dawn.com

China claims one tenth overturned

2010-11-27T20:54:00.003+10:00

China: 10 percent of death sentences overturned
Fri, Nov 26, 2010
From: China Daily/Asia News Network

Beijing - China's top court has overturned, on average, 10 percent of all death sentences nationwide since 2007 when it took back the right of final review from lower courts, a senior court official said.

Hu Yunteng, head of the research department under the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said regaining the review "played an obvious role" in reducing the number of executions.

"It has ensured that the death penalty can only be applied for the most serious crimes," he told China Daily.

But Hu declined to specify the number of death sentences carried out each year.

In 1981, to tackle rising crime, the highest court granted provincial courts the authority to pass death sentences.

The practice, widely criticized following reports of miscarriages of justice, ended on Jan 1, 2007, when the SPC was again given the sole power to review and ratify death sentences.

Hu said death sentences were overturned mostly for lack of evidence, procedural flaws or for an inappropriate penalty.

"The SPC will not tolerate any mistakes regarding evidence or procedure and will thoroughly investigate" questionable judgments, he said, adding that the quality of local courts' handling of death penalty cases is improving.

"We must make sure the use of the death sentence is accurate and free of mistakes to respect and protect the convicts and their rights."

Earlier, Zhang Jun, SPC vice-president, told judicial departments to only impose a death penalty for the most heinous crimes.

The SPC also increased its criminal tribunals from two to five to better examine all death sentences passed, Hu said.

The SPC also ordered that all cases that carried a possible death penalty must be heard at a court session, with the defendant or defendants in attendance, he added.

The move "prevents unjust, false or invalid cases on the one hand and, on the other hand, respects the rights of defendants", he said.

About 90 percent of death sentences passed are for serious crimes ranging from intentional homicide, robbery, serious injury, rape, drug trafficking to kidnapping, according to Hu.

In August, the National People's Congress, the top legislature, dropped the death penalty for 13 economy related, non-violent crimes in the latest amendment to the country's Criminal Law.

Hu said the SPC "strongly supports" the move as it has sent "a positive signal for strictly controlling the imposition of a death penalty".

Despite these moves, he said, the final review still faces challenges, including the use of torture as well as poor standards among some rural judges.

In one of the country's most notorious forced-confession cases, Zhao Zuohai, after serving 11 years in prison, was released in early May after the man he was alleged to have murdered turned up alive.

The Henan farmer said the police tortured him into making a confession.

Zhao Bingzhi, head of the criminal law research committee under the China Law Society, said it's essential for the SPC to classify and summarize cases where the death penalty has been overturned and then release them to guide lower courts.

"What's more, the SPC should go beyond only examining evidence, and establish rules to better define serious crimes where the death penalty is applicable to ensure its appropriate use," he said.

-China Daily/Asia News Network

Japan: Lay judges sentence 'minor' to death

2010-11-27T20:45:00.002+10:00

Lay judges choose ultimate penalty for minor
From: The Yomiuri Shimbun
27 November 2010

A panel of three professional and six lay judges at the Sendai District Court on Thursday sentenced to death a minor who killed two women and seriously injured a man earlier this year.

"Considering the brutality of his crime and the gravity of the harm he caused, we have no option but to choose the ultimate penalty," presiding Judge Nobuyuki Suzuki said.

This is the first death sentence handed down to a minor under the lay judge system since it began last year. Many consider the ruling to be in keeping with the recent trend to toughen punishments for juvenile offenders.

It will likely affect future rulings in lay judge trials dealing with similar cases.

Because the defendant, a former demolition worker, pleaded guilty to the charges against him, the focal point of his trial became what punishment was appropriate. In other words, the judges had to decide whether to rule that he could be rehabilitated and thereby avoid capital punishment, or to give weight to the brutality of his crime and impose the death penalty

Ultimately, the ruling condemned the defendant for committing his crimes in a "relentless, ruthless and particularly atrocious" manner.

Furthermore, the court decided that the defendant's statements of apology were "superficial" and "shallow." It said he has an "extremely low possibility of rehabilitation," and the court could find no reason not to hand down the death sentence.

The crimes took place in February in Ishinomaki, Miyagi Prefecture. The defendant, who was 18 years and seven months old at the time, broke into his former girlfriend's house and tried to abduct her. When her elder sister and a friend tried to stop him, he killed them with a butcher knife.

The defendant also seriously injured a man who was present. At the time, he was on probation for injuring his own mother.

===

Tougher penalties sought
The Juvenile Law, which has as its basic principles the sound growth and protection of juveniles, was revised in 2000. The changed law made charges of deliberate murder by minors aged 16 or older subject to criminal trials, in principle, because the frequent occurrence of heinous crimes committed by minors has heightened public calls to toughen punishments for juvenile offenders.

The change in the sentence given to a minor who killed a young mother and her baby daughter in Hikari, Yamaguchi Prefecture, in 1999 symbolizes the trend toward harsher penalties for juvenile criminals.

The Hiroshima High Court handed down a ruling of life imprisonment to the defendant, who committed the murders at the age of 18, but the Supreme Court rejected this sentence and sent the case back to the high court.

In its second trial on the murders, the high court sentenced the defendant to death.

In the Miyagi case, the ruling said the defendant's age was not a decisive reason to avoid meting out capital punishment. This reflects the Supreme Court's thinking on the ruling in the mother-daughter murder case.

===

Lay judge 'almost crushed'
According to a survey compiled by the Supreme Court in 2006, more than 90 percent of professional judges said they would commute a sentence if a defendant was a minor. But half of ordinary citizens polled replied they would neither toughen nor commute a sentence against a juvenile defendant.

Only one-quarter said they would commute a sentence for a juvenile offender.

The results appear to illustrate the public's harsh view on juvenile crimes.

"I was almost crushed under the heavy pressure," said one of the lay judges, who agreed to be questioned at a press conference after the ruling in the Miyagi case. "I want the court to provide mental care for lay judges for as long as necessary."

These are serious problems the court faces every time lay judges have to hand down a heavy sentence.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Nov. 26, 2010)
(Nov. 27, 2010)

Indonesia: Bali prosecutors claim deterrence

2010-11-20T17:59:00.002+10:00

Push for Bali nine execution
Tom Allard DENPASAR
November 20, 2010
From: The Sydney Morning Herald online

INDONESIAN prosecutors yesterday urged that the Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran be executed, saying the punishment was just, supported by the Indonesian people and would act as a deterrent.

The prosecution argument concluded the hearings of the final legal appeal by the members of the so-called Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate against the death penalty.

Chan and Sukumaran, who were not in court, have asked for their sentence to be commuted to a 20-year prison term, citing their rehabilitation in prison and that the crime was not serious enough to warrant the death sentence given Indonesia's recognition of the sanctity of life.

But the prosecutors argued: "Every human has the right to live but upholding this right doesn't mean they are allowed to violate someone else's rights… Sentencing is not only to rehabilitate, but also to deter."

Chan and Sukumaran can expect to hear the verdict in about six months, after the evidence from the Bali hearings has been sent to Jakarta and considered by a panel of judges.

The prosecutors agreed with the defence, that only the most serious crime should receive the death penalty, but said arranging the export of more than eight kilograms of heroin fitted into that category.

The prosecution's assessment was not unexpected. It is required to defend the decision of the previous court and the duo has been consistently handed the death sentence in each court case so far.

In the Australians' favour is that executions have not been carried out in Indonesia in the two years since a Constitutional Court ruling found the punishment should be used sparingly and those on death row should be given the chance to rehabilitate.

Indonesia: Bali prosecutors argue for death

2010-11-20T17:45:00.002+10:00

Prosecutors urge death penalty for Bali 9 ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
From: AAP (in The Australian online)
November 19, 2010 4:45PM

INDONESIAN prosecutors have called on the country's supreme court to uphold the death sentences of Bali Nine ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

Prosecutor Siti Sawiyah said today that death by firing squad was the appropriate punishment for the Sydney drug traffickers and that their final appeal - known as a judicial review - should be thrown out of court.

"These man have committed a crime that was organised, with a neatly arranged plan, it was orderly and secretive," Ms Sawiyah told the Denpasar District Court.

"The Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta, which will examine this case should ... reject the judicial review."

Fellow prosecutor Ida Ayu Sulasmi said the death penalty was necessary to deter others from committing similar crimes.

"The Indonesian people and society, especially the people of Bali, consider Bali a tourist destination and illegal distribution of narcotics is a serious threat that could alter the image of Bali tourism," she said.

Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were two of nine Australians convicted over a 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.

Their judicial review seeks to have their death sentences reduced to 20 years' prison.

Appeal hearings have been held in the Denpasar court, but the case will now be sent to the supreme court for a verdict.

The appeal rests in large part on evidence the men have been successfully rehabilitated and are now role models inside prison.

It also argues previous rulings against the men erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs, even though they were caught before exportation actually occurred.

If the appeal fails, the pair will be forced to seek clemency from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who generally takes a dim view of drug smugglers.Fellow Bali Nine death row inmate Scott Rush's judicial review is also currently before the supreme court.

Five other members of the drug smuggling plot - Martin Stephens, Matthew Norman, Michael Czugaj, Si Yi Chen and Tan Duc Than Nguyen - are serving life sentences.

The final member of the drug ring, courier Renae Lawrence, is serving a 20-year sentence.

Appeal: End death penalty in East Asia

2010-11-20T15:36:00.004+10:00

The Centre for Prisoners' Rights and Amnesty International Japan continue to appeal for people to sign their petition and distribute it widely, calling for the abolition of the death penalty in East Asia.

Please print and sign the petition available here. The text of the petition is copied below.

Citizens’ Appeal for an Abolition of the Death Penalty in East Asia
December 2009

To:
People’s Republic of China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, State of Mongolia, Taiwan

(CC: Republic of Korea, Republic of the Philippines, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China)

In 2008, most of the executions in the world were carried out in Asia. 11 countries in Asia as a whole, and five countries in East Asia, namely, China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and Vietnam, continue to have the death penalty.

China alone accounts for about three quarters of the executions in the world and at least 1,718 death sentences were carried out.

In China, statistics on the death penalty and executions are a state secret, so the actual number is considered to be significantly higher than that.

In Vietnam, the death penalty is stipulated as the maximum sentence for a total of 29 offences defined in the criminal code, including illicit drug trafficking. Executions are by firing squad.

In Japan, there are currently more than 100 death-row inmates awaiting their executions. Executions by hanging in Japan are carried out secretively and the death-row inmates are notified of their execution only immediately before they take place.

In the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea, executions are either by firing squad or by hanging. Executions are conducted secretively but there is an indication that public executions are conducted for the purpose of making an example to the people.

In Mongolia, executions are a state secret and official statistics, such as the numbers of death sentences, executions, and death-row inmates, are not disclosed. Executions are conducted secretively. The family members of the death-row inmate are not notified of the execution beforehand. After the execution, the body is not returned to the family.

On the other hand, as of 2009, 139 states in the world have abolished the death penalty. In Asia as a whole, 27 states, such as the Philippines and Cambodia, have abolished the death penalty either de jure or de facto.

In the 20th century, many lives were taken in East Asia by the state or because of ideology. The death penalty has been used to impose the will of the state and as a tool of political repression. The state is still taking away the lives of the citizens by way of the death penalty. To put an end to this situation, East Asian states should renounce the state-sponsored violence known as the death penalty.

There are no empirical data verifying that the death penalty has a deterrent effect on heinous crimes. On the contrary, it is pointed out that the death penalty promotes violence.

In any country, those that are sentenced to death are skewed to vulnerable groups in the society, such as those in poverty and minorities. What gives rise to crimes in many cases is often poverty and social discrimination. Removing offenders from society by the death penalty does not solve the problem.

Having recognized the issues inherent in the death penalty system, we the signers below are petitioning for the realization of an East Asia without the death penalty.

We hereby request that:
* the taking of lives not be used as a means of punishment;
* the innocent not be killed;
* information be disclosed so that we can think for ourselves whether the death penalty is necessary;
* those that have erred not be cast away; and
* a society with few crimes be created without relying on the death penalty.

We the citizens hope for a truly peaceful society. We the citizens hope for a society without the death penalty. We the citizens hope for a tolerant society. Please heed our voices, the voices of the citizens.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the adoption by the United Nations of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Taking note of the significance of the 20th anniversary, we call on the East Asian states that retain capital punishment to abolish the death penalty system.

Signature:
Message:

The petition organized and collected by:

The "We Can Do Without the Death Penalty" Campaign
Joint Secretariat:
Center for Prisoners' Rights Japan and Amnesty International Japan
Kyodo Bldg. 4F, 2-2 Kandanishiki-cho, chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan 101-0054
E-mail: petition_adp@amnesty.or.jp
Fax +81-3-3518-6778
HP: http://www.abolish-dp.jca.apc.org/

The “We Can Do Without the Death Penalty” campaign was launched in 2008 in Japan, aiming to raise a voice and to think together about what is wrong with the death penalty, setting aside various differences. The Center for Prisoners’ Rights Japan and Amnesty International Japan serve as the joint secretariat and various other organizations, individuals, and networks participate in this campaign.

Urgent appeal: Pakistani woman sentenced to death

2010-11-20T15:17:00.002+10:00

URGENT ACTION
UA: 241/10 Index: ASA 33/011/2010
Date: 18 November 2010

PAKISTANI CHRISTIAN WOMAN SENTENCED TO DEATH
Aasia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman, has been sentenced to death under the country’s blasphemy laws.

On 8 November, the 45-year-old mother of five children was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to death under Section 295B and 295C of Pakistan’s Penal Code, for insulting the Prophet Muhammad, by a court in Nankana, around 75km (45 miles) west of the city of Lahore in Punjab province.

Aasia Bibi, a resident of Ittanwali, was arrested in June 2009. She was working as a farm labourer and was asked by a village elder’s wife to fetch drinking water. Some other female Muslim farmhands reportedly refused to drink the water, saying it was sacrilegious and “unclean” to accept water from Aasia Bibi, as a non-Muslim. Aasia Bibi took offence, reportedly saying: “are we not human?” which led to an argument between them. The women allegedly complained to Qari Salim, the local cleric, that Aasia Bibi had made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Muhammad. The cleric informed local police who arrested and charged her with insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Aasia Bibi denies the allegations and her husband, Ashiq Masih, claims her conviction was based on “false accusations”. However, the trial judge, Naveed Iqbal, “totally ruled out” the possibility of false charges and said that there were “no mitigating circumstances”. Aasia Bibi has now filed an appeal against the judgment in the Lahore High Court. She has been detained in prison and held in isolation since June 2009. She has claimed that she has not had access to a lawyer during her detention and the final day of her trial.

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English, Urdu or your own language:
* calling on President Zardari to commute the death sentence use his powers under Article 45 of the Constitution;
* calling for the immediate release of Aasia Bibi, unless she is charged with internationally regognizable offences and tried in proceedings and under laws that meet international human rights standards;
* calling on the authorities to take immediate measures to guarantee the safety of Aasia Bibi and her family;
* expressing concern that the blasphemy laws are used indiscriminately against religious minorities and Muslims alike, and urging the government to amend or abolish laws, particularly section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code which carries the death penalty for anyone found guilty of blasphemy;
* calling on the Supreme Court of Pakistan to take Suo Moto notice of the case;
* urging the government to fulfil its pledge to review and improve “laws detrimental to religious harmony”, announced by Prime Minister Giliani in August 2009; and
* calling for an immediate moratorium on all executions in the country, in line with the worldwide trends to abolish the death penalty with a view to an eventual abolition of the death penalty.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 29 DECEMBER 2010:
President Zardari
Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9207458
E-mail: publicmail@president.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear President Zardari

Dr. Zaheeruddin Babar Awan
Federal Minister
Ministry of Law, Justice & Parliamentary Affairs
Room 305, S-Block, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92 51 9202628
E-Mail: minister@molaw.gov.pk
Salutation: Dear Minister

Copies to:
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Chief Justice of Pakistan
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan
Fax: +92-51-9213452
Salutation: Dear Chief Justice Chaudhry

Copies to (for letters from Australia):
Her Excellency Miss Fauzia NASREEN
High Commissioner
High Commission for Pakistan
4 Timbarra Crescent
O'Malley ACT 2606
Fax: (02) 6290 1073
Email: parepcanberra@internode.on.net
Salutation: Your Excellency

Please check with urgentaction@amnesty.org.au if sending appeals after the above date.

Japan: Lay judges give first death sentence

2010-11-18T20:00:00.001+10:00

Lay judge duty takes a heavy toll / Concern over psychological cost of participating in death penalty cases
Fumio Tanaka and Eiji Kaji / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writers
From Daily Yomiuri Online

The first death sentence under the lay judge system was handed down Tuesday at the Yokohama District Court. It is hard to imagine how much anguish and mental stress the panel of citizen judges experienced in deciding a man who killed two others deserved capital punishment.

Hiroyuki Ikeda, 32, was sentenced to death after being convicted of robbery, murder and abandoning the bodies of the victims.

At a press conference held after the court handed down the sentence, a man in his 50s who served as a lay judge in the trial was asked whether the three-day period of deliberations had been sufficient.

"It's hard to say," he said, declining to give a definite answer.

Court deliberations on cases in which prosecutors demand capital punishment generally continue for more than one year before a sentence is handed down.

"I kept looking at the accused, thinking over and over whether a death sentence really was appropriate," said Fumio Yasuhiro, 66, a former senior judge at the Tokyo High Court. "The lay judges had to make a grave decision in a short period of time. They had a hard task."

Just before concluding the proceedings, presiding Judge Yoshifumi Asayama made an unusual remark to the condemned man, saying, "The court recommends you appeal the ruling.

"During the trial, Ikeda said he would accept any punishment, so the judge's final remark was read by some observers as an expression of the lay judges' desire that the death sentence not be finalized based on their judgement alone.

A senior prosecution official was critical of the judge's remark, saying, "[The nine judges] should take responsibility for the conclusion they came to after extended discussion.

"Yasuhiro, though, thought the judge's action was understandable.

"The fact that there are opportunities for appeal probably does lessen the burden on the lay judges. There will probably be similar remarks made by judges in the future," Yasuhiro said.

Under the jury trial system in the United States, a 12-member panel is in principle tasked merely with deciding whether the accused is guilty. In many states, however, juries also assess criminal culpability in cases where the prosecution requests the death penalty.

Surveys taken in the 1990s of people who had served on U.S. juries that decided in favor of the death penalty found many had suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder, insomnia and headaches.

In death penalty cases heard by juries in the United States, the criteria and procedures for assessing culpability are stipulated in detail. In Texas the process is particularly clear-cut, with jurors instructed to base their decision on just three criteria, one of which is "whether the accused would be a continuing threat to society."

Futoshi Iwata, professor of law at Sophia University, said that while such a simplified system "is designed to leave little room for anguish" for jurors, it also has demerits.

"Giving the death penalty can only be justified if a jury has reached that conclusion after truly grappling with the case. The issues involved are not so simple that they can be addressed with standardized procedures," Iwata said.

===Requirements for a decision

In a statement issued after Tuesday's ruling, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations said, "It is time to discuss how verdicts should be reached in cases where prosecutors demand the death penalty.

"In Japan, a majority of the nine-member panel--three professional and six lay judges--is required for the death penalty to apply.

In the United States, the death penalty cannot be applied without the unanimous support of the 12-member jury, a system some experts believe places a lesser psychological burden on jurors.

A veteran Japanese judge said the emotional and psychological impact on lay judges involved in handing down a death sentence would be less if the decision was made unanimously.

"Cases need to be discussed thoroughly, until all [nine] judges agree. If I were involved as a [professional] judge, I'd try as much as possible to avoid handing down a death penalty when opinion was split," the veteran judge said.

Keiko Kiyohara, mayor of Mitaka, western Tokyo, was a member of the governmental study panel that devised the lay judge system.

"Initially I asserted that, considering the possibility of mental stress, lay judges should handle a relatively lighter case before being involved in a death penalty trial," she has said.

As the panel's discussions progressed, however, she changed her mind.

"It is particularly important that the sensibilities of members of the public should be reflected in trials that decide whether a person lives or dies," Kiyohara said.

At Tuesday's press conference, the same man who served as a citizen judge in the Ikeda trial expressed his support for lay judges' participation in death penalty trials.

"I've learned a great deal by serving as a lay judge. For the purpose of fairly assessing culpability, it's a good thing."

(Nov. 18, 2010)

Malaysia: Legal questions over death penalty

2010-11-17T20:00:00.004+10:00

Death penalty losing appeal
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

From The Star online
Wednesday 17 November, 2010

The trend worldwide is to move away from the death penalty, acknowledging that the quality of our civilisation is judged as much by how we honour our heroes as by how we treat the worst in our midst.

DURING question time in the Dewan Rakyat on Nov 9, Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz, our articulate Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, in replying to MP Karpal Singh, defended the existing law on death penalty by pointing out that the Malaysian position is consistent with Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

Under this celebrated Covenant, there is no absolute ban on death sentences. However, the "inherent right to life" is recognised and the death sentence may be imposed "only for the most serious crimes".

There must be a right of appeal to the higher courts and the right to apply for pardon. The death sentence should not be imposed on pregnant women and those below 18.

In a spirit of openness, the minister welcomed further discussion on the issue. This must be commended. At the same time, we must alert the Government that on several scores Malaysian law is out of sync with a growing body of international law on capital punishment.

The trend throughout the world is to move away from the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by 57 states, commits itself to total abolition.

European and American Conventions have also moved in that direction. The UN Commission on Human Rights by Resolution 2004/67 has called for a moratorium on executions.

According to Amnesty International, 87 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Eleven countries have abolished it for all but exceptional crimes such as war-time betrayals. Twenty-seven countries retain the death penalty but have not carried out any execution for the past 10 years.

This makes a total of 125 countries that have moved away from the death penalty in law or practice. However 71 other countries – including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the US, Malaysia and Singapore – retain, and use, the death penalty.

It is also notable that even for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide triable by the International Criminal Tribunals created by the United Nations Security Council for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the maximum penalty is life imprisonment.

In most countries of the world, drug offences are not regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant a death penalty. However, drug trafficking carries the mandatory death sentence under section 39B of our Dangerous Drugs Act.

Under Section 37, a number of crushing presumptions apply. For example, a person in the care or management of a premises is deemed to be the occupier of the premises.

A person in possession of 15 grammes of heroin or morphine, 1000 grammes of opium, 200 grammes of cannabis and specified amounts of other dangerous drugs shall be presumed to be a trafficker. The burden of proof is on him.

Reprehensible though drug possession and trafficking are, a clear fact is that people who get caught are often not involved in the high ranks of the supply chain. The main players are neither apprehended nor deterred.

A further objectionable feature of our death penalty laws is that for the crimes of murder, drug trafficking, unlawful possession of firearms and attempt by a life-convict to murder if hurt is caused, capital punishment is mandatory and the court has no choice but to impose the penalty of death.

All mandatory punishment laws compel the courts to treat the many accused as alike even though there may be substantial differences in the facts of the case.

For example, if a woman has been raped and the culprit is, for whatever reason, either not apprehended or acquitted, and the ravished victim then takes the law in her own hands and kills the accused, she may be convicted of cold-blooded murder with only one penalty: mandatory death.

Surely the judge should have discretion in such a case to impose the lighter sanction of imprisonment. To the extent that unlike cases have to be treated as alike, mandatory sentences are a violation of the constitutional ideal of equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Mandatory sentences are also an indirect interference with judicial independence and the right of a judge to tailor the penalty to suit the crime; to temper justice with mercy and to be fair to all sides – the victim of the crime, the accused and society at large.

Many judges in their private moments have spoken with remorse of the death sentences they had to impose even though there were extenuating circumstances.

There is overwhelming evidence that as long as the death penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated. For example, in the US, since 1973, 123 prisoners have been released after evidence emerged of their innocence of crimes for which they were sentenced to death.

Their sentences were based on prosecutorial or police misconduct, forced confessions, unreliable witnesses and inadequate defence representation.

The argument that the death penalty deters is not supported by sufficient scientific studies. This is specially so in relation to murder, which is often a crime in the heat of the moment when consequences are farthest from contemplation. Further, UN studies indicate that abolitionist countries do not show any upsurge in crime.

There is a fair amount of social data that, around the world, the death penalty is unequally administered. It tends to apply disproportionately to the poor, marginalised and the minorities.

In support of capital punishment, one could argue that no known legal system exhibits an unconditional and absolute reverence for life.

Everywhere there are laws on private defence of person and property, euthanasia, abortion and police powers that permit the extinguishing of life in certain circumstances. The Charter of the UN permits some types of wars.

Society must take a tough stand against violent crimes and must exact revenge or retribution. It is submitted that this attitude must be balanced with an equally compelling ethical issue that as God gives life, only He should take it away.

The death penalty is a form of legalised murder. It reflects primordial instincts of violence. It perpetuates a vicious cycle of brutality.

I think Malaysia should rethink its extensive provisions for death penalty. At the moment, the penalty can be imposed for a large number of offences – waging war against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, offences against a Ruler or Governor, abetting mutiny in the armed forces, murder, abetment of suicide, attempt by a life-convict to murder if hurt is caused, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, hostage taking, gang robbery with murder, drug trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms.

Even if total abolition is not seen as desirable because of the age of terrorism in which we are living in, a narrowing down of the offences for which the death penalty is imposed can be considered. The mandatory nature of the penalty could be lifted and judicial discretion restored.

We must remember that the quality of our civilisation is judged as much by how we honour our heroes as by how we treat the worst in our midst.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Professor Emeritus at UiTM and Honorary Legal Advisor to USM

Pakistan: Pope appeals for blasphemy accused

2010-11-17T20:00:00.001+10:00

Pope calls for release of Pakistani Christian woman sentenced to death
By Sarah Delaney
Catholic News Service, 17 November 2010

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI called for the release of a 37-year-old Christian woman who faces the death penalty in Pakistan after being convicted on charges of blasphemy.

"I express my spiritual closeness to Asia Bibi and her family and ask that she soon regain her full liberty," the pope said at the regular weekly general audience in St. Peter's Square Nov. 17.

Bibi was convicted Nov. 14 by a Pakistani court for an alleged offense to the Islamic prophet Mohammed, news reports said.

The pope said, "the international community is following the difficult situation of Christians in Pakistan with great concern."

He also said he prayed "for all those who find themselves in similar situations" and asked "that their human dignity and fundamental rights are fully respected."

In an interview Nov. 17 with Vatican Radio, Peter Jacob, executive secretary of the National Commission for Justice and Peace of the Pakistani Bishops Conference, said, "the death sentence has shocked the civil society here," which he added, "is very active."

He said there were "a number of appeals going on -- signature campaigns -- to make the authorities, the prime minister and parliament aware of people's sentiment that this injustice is not acceptable to the people of Pakistan."

Vatican Radio said that the charges against Bibi had been lodged following an argument with some Muslim women.

Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference, reported that Bibi's family had appealed to the high court in Lahore, Pakistan, hoping to overturn the sentence determined by a lower court in the district of Nankana Sahib.

Avvenire said that it was the first time a woman had been sentenced to death under the blasphemy law.

Local Catholics have said in news reports that the law is often abused and Avvenire said it is often used against religious minorities in the Muslim country.

Bishop Rufin Anthony of Isalamabad-Rawalpindi told the missionary news service, AsiaNews, that "the law is abused and manipulated for petty reasons and it is time to repeal it to make Pakistan a modern country."

Avvenire quoted Faisalabad Bishop Joseph Coutts as saying that in asking for the abrogation of the law against blasphemy "we don't want to encourage disrespectful acts toward the prophet." But, he said, "we deplore its application when used to hurt an adversary or an enemy."

Pakistan: Filthy Business

2010-11-16T20:00:00.006+10:00

by Ali Dayan Hasan
Human Rights Watch

Published in: Dawn

November 15, 2010

WHAT on earth did Aasia Bibi do to merit the dubious distinction of becoming the first woman in Pakistan to be sentenced to death for blasphemy? Basically, she, a Christian, and a peasant to boot, had the gall to feel insulted.

Why? Because Aasia's fellow workers, all daily wage farmhands from the village of Ittanwali in Sheikhupura district, claimed that the water she served was ‘unclean' because of her faith.

Aasia Bibi dared express her outrage at this act of brazen prejudice, maintained that her faith was as good as any and refused to convert to Islam. Up to that point, this was a minor altercation brought on perhaps by a combination of ignorance and blazing tempers due to excessive, underpaid toil in the blistering summer heat.

But little did Aasia Bibi know that life was never going to be the same again after the events of that day in June 2009. A few days later, her perfectly sane reaction resulted, as is often the case, in a frenzied mob led by a local mullah attempting to attack her for blasphemy and the police taking her into ‘protective custody'. And depressingly, as is the case equally often, once in their custody, the police found it expedient to charge Aasia under the heinous Section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code otherwise known as the blasphemy law rather than hold accountable those who threatened her life.

Thereafter, Aasia rapidly made the journey from police lockup in Nankana to under-trial prisoner at Sheikhupura District Jail.Aasia Bibi's case is so unremarkable, so commonplace, so routine in its casually callous violation of basic rights that it did not even register in the public consciousness. And, of course, it is no secret that the belief that Christians, and non-Muslims in general, are ‘unclean', though not propagated by any known school of Islamic thought, has widespread currency, particularly in Punjab. In all likelihood, the police felt the mob was justified. There is a thin line between faith-based lack of hygiene and blasphemy goes this logic. And it is crossed if you refuse to view your faith as filth.

But Pakistan's lower-level judiciary managed through a shockingly bigoted judgment passed on Nov 7 to bring Aasia Bibi's case to centre stage. In sentencing Aasia Bibi to death under Section 295 C, Judge Naveed Iqbal of the Sheikhupura district and sessions court "totally ruled out" any chance that Aasia was falsely implicated and said there were "no mitigating circumstances". Apparently, the court thought that it is absolutely fine to argue that Christians are simply unclean and if they respond by accusing the allegers of bigotry, they are guilty of blasphemy.

The Sheikhupura district and sessions court judgment highlights to the world what anyone who has ever traversed the muddy waters of Pakistan's law-enforcement and judicial system knows all too well: the investigative capacity of the police is virtually non-existent and the police habitually caves in to Islamist-inspired mobs in the name of ‘preserving public order', particularly when it comes to vendettas against religious minorities. Too often, the lower-level judiciary lacks the training to adjudicate within the framework of the law and frequently brings its own political and social prejudices to bear in its approach to the law.

It is a sobering thought that, in contrast to the two-year training programme offered to civil servants, district judges receive barely a fortnight of orientation. These judges are meant to dispense justice without any training in judicial ethics and conduct, interpretation and application of the law, or even the basics of judgment writing. And there are complaints that they lack the staple of a proper judiciary: the capacity to dispense justice devoid of personal prejudice.

While Pakistan's independent judiciary engages in constitutional nit-picking with the legislature and the executive, it has singularly failed to meaningfully address what should be its highest priority - putting its own house in order to ensure that there is meaningful justice delivered where it is most urgently needed, at the local level.

And finally, there is the issue of Section 295 C itself. It is ironic that the jurisprudence in favour of the controversial provision has uniformly argued that Section 295-C achieves the declared objective of preventing vigilante justice. The argument suggests that the blasphemy law prevents private citizens from killing blasphemy suspects because it offers them legal routes to carry out the persecution they intend. This argument is fallacious, morally reprehensible and seeks through legalised discrimination to relieve the state of its duty as non-partisan guarantor of the citizens' security.

Not only is 295 C in violation of both international norms and the fundamental rights' provisions of the Pakistani constitution, its vague all-encompassing wording allows it to be used as an instrument of political and social coercion and discrimination against some of the most disempowered sections of society - religious minorities, heterodox Muslims and the poor.

The obscene consequences of the blasphemy laws have been evident for decades now through the continued criminalisation and persecution of those the state ought to actually be protecting. Human Rights Watch has long argued that Sections 295 and 298 of the Pakistan Penal Code ought to be repealed in totality. Failure to repeal makes successive governments, and the state itself, complicit in heinous discrimination and egregious human rights abuse."

So long as the state continues to act as a sectarian, partisan actor and the judiciary continues to uphold discriminatory laws and provide legal justifications for the misplaced values they enshrine, there will be many more victims like Aasia Bibi silently suffering in the shadows.

The writer is Senior South Asia Analyst for the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

Pakistan: Family condemns blasphemy sentence

2010-11-16T20:00:00.002+10:00

Family leads outcry at blasphemy death penalty
Anger at Pakistan's 'discriminatory' laws grows as the Christian Asia Bibi appeals against sentence for insulting Mohamed

By Andrew Buncombe, Asia Correspondent
From: The Independent, Tuesday, 16 November 2010

Campaigners in Pakistan say the case of Asia Bibi – the first woman to be sentenced to death for blasphemy – highlights the need for urgent reform of laws that are routinely used to persecute minorities and settle grudges.

The 45-year-old Christian, who has at least two children, was sentenced to death by a court in Sheikhupura, near Lahore, after prosecutors accused her of insulting the Prophet Mohamed and promoting her own faith. Her family have rejected the allegations and launched an appeal. "We have never ever insulted the Prophet or Islamic scripture, and we will contest the charges," said her husband Ashiq Masih.

While Mrs Bibi may be the first woman to be sentenced to death, Pakistan's blasphemy laws – particularly section 295C of the penal code, introduced by the late dictator Zia ul-Haq – are commonly used against both non-Muslims and Muslim minorities.

Earlier this year, police reinforcements had to be called to Faisalabad when two Christians charged with blasphemy were shot dead outside the court. In 1998, John Joseph, the then Catholic Bishop of Faisalabad, committed suicide to protest against the treatment of Christians.

The campaign to confront the country's blasphemy laws has existed for some years but activists say the movement is hampered by the danger of being accused of undermining Islam. Because of fear of religious conservatives, some of those who would like to see the laws scrapped feel compelled to call for reform rather than repeal.

Human Rights Watch is among the groups that have called for sections 295 and 298 to be scrapped. "Asia Bibi's case should serve as a wake-up call to Pakistan's independent judiciary which urgently needs to address bigotry and incompetence in its ranks and to the government that needs to find the political will to repeal," said the group's Pakistan spokesman, Ali Dayan Hasan.

"The laws are discriminatory and intended as such and are used for precisely that purpose. So, the issue is not of their misuse but of the laws being on the statute books at all. Vague all-encompassing wording allows the laws to be used as an instrument of political and social coercion, legal discrimination and persecution."

Veteran human rights campaigner Asma Jahangir, who was recently elected head of the country's powerful Supreme Court Bar Association, is among those who have defended people accused of blasphemy, most famously in the case of a 14-year-old boy, Salamat Masih, who was accused of writing blasphemous words on the wall of a mosque. After Ms Jahangir successfully defended the teenager on appeal, the judge who acquitted him was murdered.

"At first these laws were used against minorities but now a number of Muslims have also been victimised. Once someone is accused of blasphemy you have to be very strong to defend yourself," she said. "Every time something like this [case] happens, there is a loud noise about reform. There is a draft reformed law that is with the government but the government is sitting on it. It's such a tricky issue because of the noise made by the extreme right."

The precise details of Mrs Bibi's case are unclear. Reports say the woman, who lives with her family in the village of Ittanwali, west of Lahore, had been working in the fields in June last year when she was sent to fetch water. When she returned, some Muslim women refused to drink it, saying it was unclean because it had been carried by a Christian. The women then fought.

At that point the other women went to a local cleric, Qari Salim, and several days later he filed a legal complaint with the police. When the case was eventually concluded last week, in addition to being sentenced to death, Mrs Bibi was also ordered to pay a fine of 300,000 Pakistani rupees (£2,180).

Last night, Mrs Bibi's husband told The Independent: "My wife was picking phalsa in the fields when she had a fight with her other workers over some triviality. The other three got together and accused my wife of desecrating the Holy Koran It was not even a men's fight in the village, but a trivial tussle between women."

Campaigners say many of the blasphemy cases that come to court are the result of personal grudges or disputes that have ended with one side or the other resorting to the powerful legislation to settle the issue.

While no one has yet been executed for blasphemy, the laws carry severe punishments. Earlier this year Pakistan's Supreme Court released a woman who had been held in jail for 14 years for blasphemy.

The court said the woman, Zaibunnisa, 60, from Rawat, near Islamabad, had been held even though "no evidence" had been found against her.

Indonesia: Chan and Sukumaran speak

2010-11-15T20:00:00.001+10:00

Bali Nine pair speak out
15 November 2010 07:02:23AM
Source: AAP/SBS Dateline (World News Australia)

Two Australians on death row for their role in the Bali Nine drug smuggling operation have revealed exclusively to Dateline on SBS ONE why they gambled with their lives and how they are trying to make amends.

Myuran Sukumaran, 29, and Andrew Chan, 26, have not spoken before about the bungled attempt to smuggle 8.3kg of heroin out of Bali five years ago or about their lives inside "Death Row Tower", the super-max section of Kerobokan Prison.

The men are making a final bid to get their death sentences overturned, with a final hearing expected to be held in Bali on Friday before their appeals are sent to Indonesia's Supreme Court for a verdict.

Sukumaran told Dateline reporter Mark Davis he gets a "a lot" of hate mail from Australians who tell him that he deserves to die.He also revealed he joined the Bali Nine because he didn't want to work in a mailroom for the next 50 years of his life.

"I thought, nup, can't do this, and then you see all these people in, like, nightclubs with nice BMWs and nice Mercedes and, you know, there's always chicks there and you know they're always buying drinks for everybody and you think, f***, you know, how do you do this on a mailroom salary?"

Chan told Dateline he is a pastor in the prison church, is studying religion and has fallen in love with a Balinese woman. He also apologises for his role in the Bali Nine operation.

"I'm thankful that every day I actually get to wake up.

"I'm studying and a lot of people might see that and say oh, you know, there's probably no use towards that but I believe that if you want to try to build yourself up to something, you know, you gotta start somewhere.

"You gotta start today, you know? Maybe tomorrow I won't exist. (It) makes me want to become a better person today and not tomorrow."

Watch the episode or read the transcript here.

Pakistan: Repeal Pakistan's blasphemy law

2010-11-13T20:00:00.001+10:00

From: The Guardian online

If Pakistan is serious about freedom of speech its blasphemy law must go
Michael Nazir-Ali
The Guardian, Saturday 13 November 2010

Asia Bibi, a 45-year-old mother of five, is the first woman to have been convicted under Pakistan's notorious blasphemy law. But numerous Christians like her and others have been victims of it, either because they have made a comment which has been construed as critical of the prophet of Islam or as a way of settling property and business disputes. Now she has become the first person to be sentenced to death under it.

Did she blaspheme Muhammad? It seems more likely that she angered her tormentors in a theological discussion about the relative merits of Christianity and Islam. Such debates take place all the time among adherents of different faiths. Whichever it may have been, the law has created intolerable injustice for often powerless people and quite unacceptable restrictions on freedom of speech to which the state of Pakistan is committed.

In undivided India, the British had laws which were meant to prevent incitement to religious hatred (yes, that is where this approach was first tried). The penalties, however, were generally moderate and proportional to the offences. Increasing Islamisation in Pakistan has made these laws more and more draconian. Thus there is now a mandatory life sentence for desecrating the Qur'an and a mandatory death sentence for blaspheming the prophet.

We need to know urgently from our Muslim friends whether these laws are really Islamic. The different formal schools of medieval sharia were unanimous that anyone who insults the prophet is to be put to death and differ only about the method of execution. It is this unanimity which has led the federal shariat court to rule that the death penalty is mandatory and left the judges with little discretion in particular cases.

Against this, the Qur'an only threatens those who insult God or the prophet with a curse and a humiliating punishment in this life and the next. It is claimed sometimes that the execution of poets, such as Ka'ab ibn al-Ashraf, for insulting the prophet is a precedent for executing blasphemers. On the other hand, it is said that they were put to death not for blaspheming but for sedition. The Hadith also tells us that while some were punished, others were freely pardoned by Muhammad himself. The question is, which of these attitudes is to prevail in Muslim nations and communities today?

It may be that a country like Pakistan needs laws to prevent religiously aggravated hatred discrimination. Such laws would be very different from the present ones and would protect religious minorities equally with Muslims.

How can Asia Bibi and others be saved from the gallows? The blasphemy law is a bad law enacted under pressure from extremists who threaten violence if the government does anything to lessen its impact or to ameliorate the lot of those who have fallen victim to it. A bad law will always come back to haunt us and that is why our ultimate aim must be its repeal.

Pakistan is a signatory to international agreements which prohibit cruel and degrading punishment. It is time for it to honour its commitments and to stand up to extremist purveyors of hate, if it is to have a respected place in the family of nations. The international community, the UN, the Commonwealth and the EU must do everything they can to make sure this vulnerable woman does not suffer the extreme penalty and that others, like her, are not subjected to months and even years of harassment, imprisonment and anxiety as they await a final verdict on their cases.

Indonesia: No deterrence, more arrests

2010-11-07T20:00:00.001+10:00

Dealing Out Death to the Indonesian Drug Dealers
By Ulma Haryanto, Heru Andriyanto, Made Arya Kencana & Arientha Primanita
November 07, 2010
From: Jakarta Globe

Jakarta. Does the death penalty truly deter drug couriers and traffickers? Both criminologists and the National Narcotics Agency said no, even as Indonesian airport authorities on Sunday announced yet another arrest of a woman attempting to smuggle crystal methamphetamine into the country by stuffing packets of the drug into her vagina.

Indonesian jails, Jakarta Police Chief Insp. Gen. Sutarman said on Friday, are heaving from the growing population of drug users, couriers and traffickers, and the country continues to pay a very costly price as jail wardens and police fail to stop convicts from managing to run drug businesses from behind Indonesian jails, via cellphones.

"Traffickers should really be put to death. Even the threat of a death sentence is actually no deterrent," Sutarman had said.

Criminologist Muhammad Irvan Olii agreed that the death penalty is not something that strikes fear into the hearts of traffickers and producers, considering it hardly affects the international drug trade.

"If a dealer or trafficker is sentenced to death, he or she is simply replaced," Irvan told the Jakarta Globe.

Criminologist Erlangga Masdiana agreed with Irvan.

"Issuing the death penalty is related to the legal philosophy behind the sentence. When someone has caused tremendous damage to society, a lesser sentence than death is deemed not enough, but this has nothing to do with curbing the growth of international drug syndicates," Erlangga said.

"Because when you are really poor, becoming a drug mule is an option many people will consider."

Customs authorities at the Ngurah Rai International Airport in Bali announced the arrest of Thai national Jurnporn Ampar, 29, for attempting to smuggle 208 grams of crystal methamphetamine in her vagina.

The drugs were packaged tightly in condoms.

"She seemed so nervous and in such a hurry. A body search revealed the condoms," said Customs official Bagus Endro Wibowo, adding that they had great difficulty attempting to remove the condoms from her body.

"One of them broke inside her, which caused bleeding. She later told us she was paid US$500. Her mother has cancer and the money was for hospital treatment."

Saturday's bust comes two days after Jakarta Police announced the arrest of a veiled Malaysian woman who had also stuffed packets filled with crystal meth into her vagina.

The suspect, Noor Rohman, had managed to get past customs and immigration officers at the Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, but was arrested at a Central Jakarta hotel.

The National Narcotics Agency, or BNN, said the only way the death penalty for drug crimes in Indonesia could have a deterrent effect was if executions of those on death row were carried out speedily.

BNN spokesman Sumirat Dwiyanto said this was not the case.

Sumirat said just five drug dealers had been executed in 2008, of the 72 sentenced to death.

The last time the Attorney General's Office ordered an execution was in 2008, when 10 inmates were put in front of a firing squad, including three militants convicted for the 2002 bombings in Bali.

He added that a court doling out the death penalty was one matter, but seeing to its actual execution was quite another.

Acting Attorney General Darmono said over the weekend that only one out of 101 inmates on death row had now exhausted all available legal avenues.

However, the inmate's execution was impeded by the convict’s "maneuvering" — seeking a doctor's prescription because he was sick, Darmono said.

“We grant inmates the opportunity to use their legal rights to the fullest, because people cannot die twice.”

According to BNN records, over 28,300 cases of drug abuse were recorded in Indonesia last year, with 35,300 people arrested for those crimes.

And this year, of all people sentenced by the court for drug use, only 20 entered rehabilitation centers.

Sumirat said that most of the suspects arrested were above 30 years of age.

"However, 102 suspects were below the age of 15, while nearly 1,600 of them were between the ages of 16 and 19," he pointed out.

More than half of the death row inmates are convicted drug dealers, a majority of whom are foreigners.

Under Indonesian law, capital punishment applies to such crimes as drug trafficking, terrorism, premeditated murder, treason and, in extraordinary cases, corruption.

A list of drug cases reported just in the last week:
Nov. 7: Bali airport authorities arrest a woman carrying crystal methamphetamine-filled condoms inside her body.

Nov. 5: Jakarta Police seize more than Rp 150 billion ($16.8 million) worth of crystal meth in two separate North Jakarta raids.

Nov. 3: Police in West Java seize two tons of marijuana from a warehouse in Cianjur. Separately, police announced the arrest of two Malaysians for smuggling crystal meth.

Nov. 2: Customs officers at Selaparang-Mataram Airport in West Nusa Tenggara arrest a Malaysian man for possession of Rp 6 billion worth of crystal meth.

Nov. 2: Bogor Police seize 400 kilograms of marijuana from two drug couriers.

Other reported drug smuggling cases:
Sept. 21: Two Chinese nationals arrested at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport for attempting to smuggle in 2,110 grams of crystal meth.

April 8 : Two Malaysian nationals arrested with three kilograms of crystal meth wrapped around their waists.

Jan. 7: Three Nigerians arrested carrying capsules filled with ecstasy, crystal meth and heroin inside their bodies.

Dec. 28, 2009: Two Iranians arrested for attempting to smuggle in crystal meth in capsules they had swallowed.

Nov. 10, 2009: An Iranian arrested at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport after crystal meth discovered hidden inside a prosthetic leg.

Pakistan: Rights commission urges abolition

2010-11-05T20:00:00.001+10:00

HRCP urges Pakistan to vote against death penalty
Statement issued on 4 November 2010

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has called upon the government of Pakistan to vote in favour of a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) demanding a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The resolution is to be considered at the 65th session of the UNGA later this month.

Lahore, November 4: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has called upon the government of Pakistan to vote in favour of a resolution in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) demanding a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The resolution is to be considered at the 65th session of the UNGA later this month.

In a letter to President Asif Ali Zardari, the Commission welcomed the informal moratorium on executions in place in Pakistan since November 2008 and added, "We believe that the forthcoming resolution on moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the 65th session of the UNGA shares the commitment shown by the government of Pakistan in suspending executions. In sync with HRCP's long-standing demand, the resolution also urges to progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed." Copies of the letter were also sent to the prime minister and the federal ministers of law and foreign affairs.

Calling upon Islamabad to vote in favour of the resolution, HRCP urged the president: "If it is impossible to consider a positive vote on this resolution, we encourage you to abstain at the vote and not to sign any statement of disassociation from the resolution. Such a stance by Pakistan will reaffirm the country's commitment to a moratorium on executions and to eventual abolition of the death penalty."

Two previous UNGA resolutions on moratorium on the use of the death penalty—resolution 62/149 adopted in 2007 and resolution 63/168 in 2008—reaffirmed the commitment of the UN towards the abolition of capital punishment, calling upon states that still retained the death penalty to, inter alia, respect international safeguards guaranteeing the rights of those facing the death penalty, reduce the number of offences for which this punishment may be imposed and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. HRCP hoped that the adoption of a third UNGA resolution on a moratorium on executions by an increased majority of UN Member States will demonstrate that the trend towards abolition was steadily increasing.

Pakistan has one of the highest rates of conviction to capital punishment in the world. HRCP has consistently opposed the application of the death penalty in Pakistan, mainly on account of the critical deficiencies of the law itself, of the administration of justice, police investigation methods, chronic corruption and the cultural prejudices affecting women and religious minorities. The Commission has highlighted that the safeguards against miscarriage of justice are weak or non-existent, and possibility of innocents being executed remains frighteningly high. As a first step, HRCP has urged the government to restrict the number of offences carrying the death penalty to the most serious crimes only, and refrain from adopting new crimes entailing capital punishment.

Dr Mehdi Hasan
Chairperson

Australians must confront death penalty

2010-10-22T20:00:00.002+10:00

Looking away from the death penalty abroad is collusion
By Brigid Delaney
From: Sydney Morning Herald, 22 October 2010

Globalisation has swept the world, but the mediaeval remedy remains.

Poor Colin Campbell Ross. The 29-year-old Victorian was hanged in 1922 for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl. It was later found that they got the wrong man.

On Monday, Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls formally returned Ross's cremated remains to his family.

In 1981, France's Justice Minister abolished the death penalty, saying it was untenable as it depended on the impossible premise of "totally responsible guilty parties" and "absolutely infallible judges".

French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy said recently, with a note of Gallic exasperation, "To think we still have to argue against the death penalty".

In the case of the Bali nine, Scott Rush, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are literally arguing for their lives. They may have admitted various levels of culpability in their roles after the April 2005 heroin bust, and it is proper they should be brought to account, but the great injustice here is that the punishment does not fit the crime. Moreover, the punishment should be regarded as a crime.

It's interesting watching Australian politicians on this matter - their responses speak somehow to character, like a low tide revealing water marks; the Christian who thinks that only God has the power to take life, the humanist who recoils at such awesome power invested in the state, and the diplomat who believes state sovereignty is sacred.

The narrative that engulfs death row cases flows on regardless: the grainy footage of the arrests, the shock and denial of the accused, the deep distress to the families and friends. The introduction into their lives of the media. The organisation of legal teams. The diplomatic approaches, the hearings and appeals, the religious awakening in prison, the vigils of supporters, the masses, the pleas for clemency, the prayers and the petitions.

Towards the end there is, as there was with Australian Nguyen Tuong Van (executed almost five years ago in Singapore for drug trafficking), a sort of public turning. Compassion for the prisoner, sorrow for his family, an acknowledgment that perhaps people can change. Then a lump in the throat, or sudden tearfulness watching the evening news when you hear he has been hanged.

But the central, unmovable thing in all this activity is the legal system that supports the death.

It is before such a legal system that many objections wilt, where we answer our own disquiet about the death penalty with a fey "well, it's their law, so we have to abide by their punishment", as if the legal systems of others were beyond critique. As if they never get it wrong.

Sovereignty is the trump card and for many our inner diplomat speaks louder than our inner Christian or humanist. But what if you believe that the immovable thing, the thing at the centre of it all, is not the legal system but the sanctity of life?

While globalisation has swept the world and continues to radically transform cultures and economies, the barbaric, mediaeval ''remedy'' of the death penalty remains like a recessive gene in a body that has successfully evolved and adapted to modern life.

You wouldn't recognise parts of Shanghai or Beijing, so modern have they become, yet China executes unreported thousands (sending the bill for the single bullet to the families). In December 2009, in great secrecy, they executed Akmal Shaikh, a mentally ill Briton accused of drug smuggling.

You may go to Singapore to buy the most advanced electronic gear (and so cheap) - yet that is where they killed 25-year-old Nguyen with a noose, where he went dignified and prayerfully to his death.

You may go to Bali for an Eat, Pray, Love experience when down the road is Kerobokan prison and the young men are in sweaty little rooms with their lawyers and their hopes.

And the US, where 3000 men and women are waiting in dread (maybe after a while in a kind of toxic boredom) to be put to death by the state. Why do we tolerate the continued existence of this?

Anyone like me who studied humanities at a university in the '90s had it drilled into them not to assume your legal system is better or more enlightened than theirs.

But what is this triumph of cultural relativism in the face of the great opportunity that exists for everyone of personal transcendence? That is the unforgettable lesson Nguyen taught us, and repeated in the Kerobokan transformations of Sukumaran and Chan - the computer and art classes they are teaching the other prisoners, their faces more open and luminous with each court appearance.

How is it possible to accept the sovereignty of countries where the legal "remedy" is death?

There are some things so fundamentally abhorrent that to cough politely and look away is uncomfortably close to collusion, at one remove from some baying mob in Tehran gathered at the scaffolding in the square.

Brigid Delaney is a former lawyer, journalist and author of This Restless Life.

Punjab may oppose Pakistan abolition

2010-10-04T20:00:00.001+10:00

Punjab to oppose death penalty abolition
Monday 4/10/2010
From: Gulf Times

The government in Pakistan’s Punjab province has decided to oppose the conversion of capital punishment into life imprisonment, contending that it would create lawlessness, lead to frequent occurrence of heinous crimes and proliferation of hired assassins.

Ending the death penalty, the provincial government claims, is also against Islamic injunctions, a Punjab home department official says. Executions were put on hold till December 2010 by President Asif Ali Zardari after he took over as the head of state in September 2008. The last condemned prisoner - a former soldier who had killed a colonel and his family - was hanged in November, 2008.

Indonesia: Australian police appeal for mercy

2010-09-16T20:00:00.001+10:00

Aussie Cops Seek Mercy for Bali 9 Drug Smuggler
Made Arya Kencana & AFP
September 16, 2010
From: The Jakarta Globe

Denpasar. The former Australian Federal Police commissioner who passed on intelligence to Indonesian police that helped doom the so-called Bali Nine drug smugglers, asked a court here on Thursday to spare the life of one of the smugglers.

Testifying at the appeal of 24-year-old Scott Rush, Mick Keelty, the former AFP commissioner, told the court that Rush was a "small-time player" and did not deserve his sentence of death by firing squad.

"His [Rush's] role was minimal. He was a courier," Keelty said during the hearing at the Denpasar District Court.

Keelty told the court that as the AFP's top-ranking officer in 2005, he had given the green light on two occasions for information to be passed on to his Indonesian counterparts about the nine Australians who conspired to smuggle 8.2 kilograms of heroin from Bali into Australia.

The Australian, a daily newspaper, reported in August that the AFP asked the Indonesian police in April 2005 to "attempt to keep the group under surveillance, identify the source of the drugs and obtain as much evidence and intelligence as possible to help the AFP nail the organizers in Australia."

The newspaper also reported that four days later, the AFP sent Indonesian authorities another letter containing the "dates, times and flight details of the Bali Nine's return to Australia."

Keelty told the court that the AFP, which was tipped off about the plan by a lawyer working for Rush's father, included intelligence on Rush's "minimal role" and his young age at the time of the foiled drug run.

Rush, whose original life sentence was changed to death on appeal by prosecutors, was 19 years old when he was caught with heroin strapped to his body at Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport.

"This young man had just gone to Indonesia for the first time. In fact, it was the very first time he ever got out of Australia," Keelty told the court.

Michael Phelan, the current AFP deputy commissioner, told the court that Rush did not have a criminal record in Australia and because it was his first drug offense he would face "less than 10 years" if convicted of the same crime at home.

The hearing was adjourned until Sept. 26.

Rush was not in court on Thursday but last month he publicly apologized to the court and begged for forgiveness. Two other Bali Nine members, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, have also launched appeals against their death sentences.

Pakistan: Asian rights group calls for abolition

2010-08-27T20:00:00.000+10:00

PAKISTAN: Government urged to commute all death sentences and abolish the death penalty
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 26, 2010
ALRC-CWS-15-08-2010

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fifteenth session, Agenda Item 3

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status

The Asian Legal Resource Centre welcomes the discussion by the Human Rights Council during its 15th session concerning the report of the Secretary General on the question of the death penalty. In light of this discussion, the ALRC is hereby submitting information pertaining to the death penalty in Pakistan. The government of Pakistan has failed to abolish the death penalty in spite of the pledge it made in 2008 to commute death sentences to life imprisonment. According to estimates, there are around 7400 prisoners on death row1, the largest number in any country in the world. This number constitutes around one third of the death row prisoners in the world. It must be noted that the government has not carried out judicial executions since September 2008, which are typically carried out by hanging in Pakistan, but condemned prisoners remain seriously concerned for their future, as do their family members, while the death penalty remains in place. Many among them have already spent more than 10 years in prison. The ALRC recalls that prolonged detention on death row is at the very least cruel and inhuman treatment and therefore constitutes a violation of these persons' rights in of itself.

Prior to the present hiatus to executions, Pakistan was amongst the countries in the world which executed the highest number of persons each year. To date 128 countries have abolished the death penalty, and of those that have not, only around half carry out executions. Pakistan voted against a United Nation General Assembly resolution for a moratorium on the death penalty in December 2007.

The government of Pakistan has promised since June 21, 2008 to commute death sentences on several occasions, but little action has been taken to put this into effect. Reports have indicated that in some prisons, prisoners sentenced to death have been moved from death row cells to other barracks, but remain separated from other prisoners. Pakistan’s death penalty has been commuted before. Former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and founder of the current ruling party, the Pakistan People's Party, commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment but he was later executed by the military.

The country's parliamentary bodies - the national assembly and senate - in mid-April 2010 approved the eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan, deleting the majority of the amendments made by past military rulers, but the parliament has not touched the amendment made to the constitution by General Zia Ulhaq comprising the death penalty. In the 1970s, the government led by the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto raised the minimum term of a life sentence from 14 to 25 years with the idea that capital punishment would be abolished in the years to come. However, this did not materialize and General Zia, the country's military ruler from 1977 to 1988, kept both the death penalty and the increased life sentence intact through an ordinance which was later incorporated in the Constitution. Mr. Bhutto was later hanged in 1979. Former President Musharraf did nothing to alter either the death sentence or the minimum term.

Pakistan’s legislators also did not attempt to commute the death sentence in the eighteenth amendment, allegedly because of pressure by Islamic fundamentalist parties. The federal cabinet decided on July 2, 2008 to commute the death sentence, but due to pressure from Muslim fundamentalists and a Suo Moto action from the then-Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Abdul Hameed Dogar, who had been appointed by former president General Musharraf during the state of emergency, the government avoided issuing a formal notification commuting death sentences.

When Pakistan was founded 63 years ago, only murder and treason carried the death penalty. Now the death penalty can be handed to persons found guilty of 27 'crimes' including blasphemy, stripping a woman in public, terrorist acts, sabotage of sensitive installations, sabotage of railways, attacks on law enforcement personal, spreading hate against the armed forces, sedition, and many more.

Although the Pakistan Juvenile Justice System Ordinance was extended to apply nationwide in 2004, implementation remains limited. This is the case notably as, also in 2004, the High Court in Lahore revoked this ordinance, which exempted those under the age of 18 years from execution. An appeal is still pending. Pakistan is one of just five countries in the world to have executed a minor/juvenile offender in recent years. In one such case, Mutabar Khan was hanged on June 13, 2006 for a crime committed when he was 16, and the authorities of another jail, Mach Central Jail, have acknowledged holding two juvenile offenders on death row. Often, after years of trial defendants will have trouble convincing the judge that they were actually underage when they broke the law.

The country's two parallel judiciary systems, one secular and other one based on Shariah laws, creates a situation in which the death penalty has been handed out in ways that do not satisfy the requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Pakistan ratified on June 23, 2010. The Islamic Shariah Courts are quick to hand out death sentences following trials that do not meet the internationally accepted standards of fair trial. The judicial bodies in the country follow Islamic injunctions and are a significant hindrance to the abolishment of the death penalty.

Pardons concerning death sentences can only be given by the victims. Death sentences are usually settled after a blood money payment called diyat and courts will often urge family members to resolve matters out of court. Human rights NGOs have branded this the 'privatisation of justice' and it tends to give the wealthy impunity. Because of diyat payments it is suspected that death penalties are dealt out more freely, because judges assume a settlement will be found.

Many among the 7,400 on death row are there as a result of the blasphemy law, under which crimes carry an obligatory death sentence, but for which evidence is often tenuous or involves personal vengeance. Section 295C of Pakistan's Penal Code provides the death penalty for "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of The Holy Prophet (Peace be Upon Him)".

This law is vague and open to abuse, notably against non-Muslims in Pakistan. It represents a severe limitation on religious freedom, as it effectively targets religious minorities. The law is also used by Muslim fundamentalist groups against liberal Muslims. The law has also often been used by those with personal grudges, as well as against Muslims who have converted to Christianity. When Pakistan's former president, General Musharraf, considered amending the law to limit such potential abuses, pressure from Islamic hardliners caused him to abandon these amendments, so the law remains, with all its flaws. An accusation of blasphemy commonly subjects the accused, as well as police, lawyers, and judges involved in the case, to harassment, threats and attacks. An accusation is sometimes the prelude to vigilantism and rioting.

Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in April 2010, which was signed by the President in June. While these steps are welcome, the ALRC believes that it is imperative for the government to also take immediate steps to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Recommendations: As stated above, Pakistan currently has around one third of the world’s death row prisoners, so any discussion of the issue of the death penalty must address this situation. The Asian Legal Resource Centre urges the Council to take all necessary steps to ensure that the government of Pakistan:

i. Provides immediate guarantees that none of the estimated 7400 death row prisoners will be executed.
ii. Commutes all death sentences to life imprisonment.
iii. Without delay abolishes the death penalty.
iv. Ratifies the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, bringing domestic legislation into line with its international obligations and ensuring the full implementation of this legislation.
v. Repeal the Blasphemy law and free all persons being detained pursuant to this law.

------------

1 According to ALRC sources as well as reports by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan# # #

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

Posted on 2010-08-26

Bangladesh death penalty dangerous, corrupt

2010-08-24T20:00:00.001+10:00

BANGLADESH: Death penalty continues despite a flawed criminal justice system
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 23, 2010
ALRC-CWS-15-02-2010

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Fifteenth session, Agenda Item 4, General Debate

A written statement submitted by the Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), a non-governmental organisation with general consultative status

1. The Asian Legal Resource Centre welcomes the discussion by the Human Rights Council during its 15th session concerning the report of the Secretary General on the question of the death penalty. In light of this discussion, the ALRC is hereby submitting information pertaining to the death penalty in Bangladesh. Bangladesh acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) on September 6, 2000, but has not yet ratified the Optional Protocols to the ICCPR and also does not comply with the international law aiming to the abolition of death penalty. The country has not only executed its citizens for decades, but officials, including Ministers, Parliamentarians and Judges also advocate publicly in favour of this practice, which denies people's right to life, often as the result of trials that do not meet the internationally recognized standards of fair trial.

2. The Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC) has learned from a reliable Home Ministry source, who requested anonymity, that there are around 407 convicts currently being detained in prisons across the country that face execution in the upcoming periods. Among the convicts, around 107 are being detained in Dhaka Central Jail, with the rest being detained in the country’s other main prisons. The high profile cases of execution to have taken place in Bangladesh include the death by hanging of five convicts on 28 January 2010 for the assassination of Bangladesh’s founder, President Sheikh Muzibur Rahman, who was killed by members of the Bangladesh Army along with almost all of his family members on 15 August 1975. In another case, six members of militant groups were hanged after being sentenced to death for the killing two judges in suicide bomb attacks in Jhalkathi district in 2005. Since its establishment in 1971 the Bangladeshi State has executed by hanging over 250 convicted criminals.

3. The country's Penal Code-1860 has several provisions that allow for capital punishment: Section 121: waging war against Bangladesh; Section 132: abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed; Section 194: giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence; Section 302: murder; Section 305: abetment of suicide of child or insane person; Section 307: attempted murder by life-convicts; and Section 396: robbery with murder.

4. There are several other laws in Bangladesh that also provide for the death penalty. The draconian Special Powers Act-1974, provides the death penalty for the offences of sabotage under Section 15, counterfeiting currency notes and Government stamps under Section 25A, smuggling under 25B, and adulteration of, or sale of adulterated food, drink, drugs or cosmetics under Section 25C. It is evident from the above that the death penalty is awarded for crimes that do not meet Bangladesh’s obligations under the ICCPR's Article 6(2) to ensure that death sentences "may be imposed only for the most serious crimes."

5. The Nari o' Shishu Nirjaton Daman Ain-2000 [Women and Children Repression (Prevention) Act-2000] further provides for the death penalty to be awarded as punishment for offences or attacks committed using corrosive, combustible or poisonous substances that cause burns or physical damage leading to the death of the victim, under Section 4; for trafficking of women and children, as per Sections 5 and 6 respectively; for ransom, according to Section 8; for sexual assaults resulting in the death of any woman or child who dies consequently, as per Section 9(2); causing death for dowry, in Section 11; and maiming or mutilation of children for begging, under Section 12. The Acid Crime Control Act-2002’s Section 5 (KA) also includes the death penalty for acid attacks on women if the victim's eyes, ears, face, chest or sexual organs are fully or partially damaged.

6. The legislative authorities of Bangladesh argue that the death penalty is necessary for maintaining control over serious crimes in the country and to transmit a message to potential offenders that committing murder will ultimately incur the death penalty. Pro-death penalty advocates in the country claim that the death penalty helps the nation to establish peace and justice in its society as part of upholding the rule of law. This alleged deterrent is shown to not be working effectively, as incidents of serious crimes rise each year. For example, according to the statistic contained in the website of the Bangladesh Police, there were 3592 murders during 2005 and 4219 murders in 2009.

7. The ALRC opposes the death penalty under all circumstances as a cruel practice that is shown to be an ineffective deterrent and open to serious abuse. No legal system in the world functions well enough to guarantee that errors in awarding the death penalty can be totally avoided, and in countries with deeply flawed criminal justice systems such as Bangladesh and most others in the Asian region, the use of the death penalty gives rise to serious travesties of justice and arbitrary, unjust and irrevocable violations for the right to life.

8. Bangladesh's criminal justice system has manifold problems:

a. There is an absence of fairness and transparency in its complaint mechanism. The police arbitrarily control the complaint mechanisms, which are subverted by political interference and a chain of command dominated by corruption from the bottom to the top, resulting in abuses of power and injustices in determining who will be charged and for what crime. The fabrication of cases by the police officers for the purpose of extorting money from targeted persons and/or in order to set the real offender free is a common practice. The police deliberately distort facts related to crimes at the time of recording of complaints, which obstructs the already limited avenues available to the victims seeking justice and redress.

b. Criminal investigations are conducted by the police using primitive methods without acceptable levels of professionalism and efficiency. As a corrupt and political subservient entity, the police force is mostly used as hired gunmen of the ruling political and other authorities and elites.

c. The prosecutorial system is politicised, inefficient, disposable by nature, and incapable of assisting the judiciary to establish justice at the end of the trial. Every political party recruits their own activists cum lawyers as prosecutors, based on their loyalty to the ruling authorities rather than their knowledge of the law, jurisprudence and commitment to the rule of law.

d. The judiciary does not enjoy independence as far as the administration of justice is concerned in terms of logistics, manpower, integrity and the adjudication of the cases. Besides, there is a serious lack of judicial competence and commitment to upholding the rule of law among many judicial officers.

e. The country’s medico-legal system remains archaic and far off internationally acceptable standards and modern methods required to effectively assist the judicial process in determining rights or wrongs and forensic evidence accurately.

f. The legal profession is degraded and consists mainly of persons hunting cases to make the maximum money for their professional practices, rather than to assist the judicial procedures to ensure justice to both victims and the defendants in trials in the country’s courts.

g. The State's entrenched system designed to protect the perpetrators of gross human rights abuses through and extensive culture of impunity, creates serious grievances and a loss of faith in the justice institutions for victims of, for example, illegal arrests, arbitrary detention, custodial torture, extra-judicial killings and disappearances, as well as for their and the wider public who also live in a climate of fear.

h. The absence of interpersonal respect for each other and adequate cooperation among professionals, including the police that register the complaint, investigators, prosecutors, lawyers, medico-legal experts and supporting staff of the judiciary seriously hamper the effective and timely conduct of trials and administration of justice.

i. Inadequate remuneration and facilities for relevant professional experts as well as their supporting staff, poor infrastructure for maintaining material evidence, and the failure to recruit persons with the required educational, moral and ethical background, or to provide adequate training contributes to the further deterioration of the criminal justice system.

9. The reality regarding the criminal justice system must be understood to evaluate how dangerous the use of the death penalty can be in Bangladesh. Realistic policies followed by prompt actions must be in place in order to reduce the recurrence of crimes that are currently punished by the death penalty instead of continuing with this failed deterrent.

10. Bangladesh's constitution's Article 35 (5) prohibits "torture, cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment or treatment". There can hardly be any debate that the death penalty does not amount to cruel punishment, which is prohibited in the country's supreme law. In fact, such cruel punishment comprises a violation of the Constitution by undermining the natural dignity of human beings.

11. The Asian Legal Resource Centre urges the government of Bangladesh to abolish the death penalty immediately and to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and bring its domestic legislation and practices in line with obligations under this instrument. The Bangladeshi authorities should immediately initiate thorough reforms of the country’s criminal justice system, in order to establish the rule of law and the enjoyment of rights, justice and peace in its society.

About the ALRC: The Asian Legal Resource Centre is an independent regional non-governmental organisation holding general consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. It is the sister organisation of the Asian Human Rights Commission. The Hong Kong-based group seeks to strengthen and encourage positive action on legal and human rights issues at the local and national levels throughout Asia.

Posted on 2010-08-23

Bali appeals with Indonesian court

2010-08-14T20:00:00.001+10:00

Two Bali Nine convicts lodge death sentence appeals
Desy Nurhayati, The Jakarta Post, Denpasar
Sat, 08/14/2010 9:46 AM

Two Australian drug convicts on death row have formally launched final appeals on Friday, seeking to have their sentences commuted to 20 years in prison.

Attorneys for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, members of the so-called "Bali Nine" syndicate of heroin smugglers, lodged the appeal to the Supreme Court via the Denpasar District Court.

Attorneys Todung Mulya Lubis said the appeal was not filed on the basis of new evidence, but due to a misapplication of the law by the judges.

"We filed the appeal as we consider this case violates the right to life. It is a basic right guaranteed in our Constitution," he said, adding that the death sentence would not discourage people from committing crimes and violated human rights.

He said that according to the UN, the death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious crimes, which excludes drug-related crimes.

"It's true they should be punished, but they don't deserve the death penalty. We are seeking to have it reduced to a 20-year prison term."

Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were convicted for an attempt in 2005 to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.

In the appeal, both argue that they had been successfully rehabilitated and were now teachers and role models for fellow inmates at Kerobokan Prison.

"The judges should take into consideration that both convicts have changed a lot. They teach their fellow inmates skills such as operating computers and painting."

The appeal also argues that previous rulings against the pair erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs. It said the pair should have been given more lenient sentences because while they attempted to export the drugs, they did not succeed in doing so.

"Technically speaking, there was no export of the drugs. An attempt to export is not the same as exporting," Todung said. attorneys Nyoman Sudiantara said the pair’s legal team would request that both men be present at the appeals hearing.

Four witnesses will be called to testify at fresh hearings, likely to begin next month. They a prominent Australian psychologist from Monash University Paul Mullen, prominent Ireland-based human rights law expert William Schabas, Kerobokan Prison head Siswanto and former Indonesian Supreme Court justice Yahya Harahap.

Chan and Sukumaran are launching their appeal less than a month after fellow death row inmate Scott Anthony Rush launched his own. If this final appeal fails, the three men will be left with one last chance to avoid the death sentence — clemency from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Five other members of the drug smuggling plot are serving life sentences in Bali’s Kerobokan Prison.

Of the remaining two, Martin Stephens’ judicial review is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, while courier Renae Lawrence is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Indonesia: remorse appeal for life

2010-08-13T20:00:00.002+10:00

Bali nine pair admit guilt in bid to avoid firing squad
Tom Allard
From: The Sydney Morning Herald
August 13, 2010

Sydneysiders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have, for the first time, admitted their role in the Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate, but asked to be handed a 20-year prison term as they launch their final judicial appeals to avoid the firing squad.

The admission of guilt, contained in documents submitted to a Denpasar court today, follows repeated pleas of not guilty at three previous trials.

The two were arrested with seven other Australians in 2005 for trying to smuggle eight kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.

Chan and Sukumaran were found guilty of smuggling the drugs and sentenced to death at the three other trials, accused of being the ringleaders of the plot.

The appeal requests the Indonesian Supreme Court consider their efforts to rehabilitate themselves and take on leadership roles in Kerobokan prison by training other prisoners in skills to prepare them for life outside the prison walls.

Both Chan and Sukumaran acknowledge that what they did had been harmful to the community and themselves, but that they had vowed to be "better" men.

Their court submissions argue both have "changed radically" since being imprisoned.

As for their lack of previous co-operation with authorities, Chan and Sukumaran apologise and put it down to an "inability to think clearly".

Sukumaran's submission argues he was traumatised by the arrest in a foreign country and had "poor advice from a certain party".

As required by law, the judicial review is based on legal argument that previous rulings made manifest errors, including not properly considering that the two had been rehabilitated and a finding by Indonesia's constitutional court that the death penalty should only be used sparingly as a "special and alternative punishment".

Sukumaran's submission also argues that Indonesia has signed the UN convention of civil and political rights, a treaty which underpins a body of international law that explicitly rejects the use of the death penalty for narcotics crimes.

Evidence from other members of the Bali nine needs to be treated with caution, it says. It also cites the Indonesian constitution's recognition that all people have a basic right to life.

A key argument is that previous rulings had mistakenly found them guilty of exporting drugs. As the drug mules were arrested before they left Indonesia's customs area at Denpasar airport, the judicial review argues that the act of exporting did not take place.

Rather, they had only attempted to smuggle the heroin to Australia.

"An attempted crime is usually subject to a more lenient sentence compared to one that has been completed. This is because of the consequences that arise differ between the two crimes," the judicial reviews say.

"The narcotics did not reach its users."The fact that the crime was only an "attempt", and that Chan and Sukumaran had made strong efforts, with the assistance of prison officials, to rehabilitate themselves warranted a 20-year sentence, they argue.

The trial of Chan and Sukumaran is likely to begin in a couple of weeks and a verdict handed down before the end of the year.

The other Bali nine member facing the death penalty, Scott Rush, launched his final appeal last month. Rush's first hearing before the court is on Wednesday.

Tom Allard is the Herald's correspondent in Indonesia.

Victims call on Taiwan: End death penalty

2010-07-08T21:30:00.004+10:00

Victims rights activists urge Taiwan government to reconsider death penalty
By Dennis Engbarth
Taiwan News, Staff Reporter
3 July, 2010

A group of murder victims from the United States and Japan are holding a series of lectures in Taipei and other cities this weekend to support calls by local activists for a cessation of capital punishment in Taiwan.

Under the theme of "Don't Kill in My Name," four members of the U.S. - based "Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights" arrived Friday for a four day visit during which they will hold four public lectures and meet with Kuomintang government officials, murder victim support groups and persons and organizations both supporting and opposing abolition of the death penalty.

Participants in the MVFHR Asia Speech Tour in Taiwan program include Robert Meeropol, the son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were executed in New York's Sing Sing prison in June 1953 on charges of atomic weapon - related espionage for the Soviet Union; Aba Gayle, whose daughter Catherine was murdered at 19 years of age; MVFHR Executive Director Renny Cushing, whose father was murdered and who became an advocate of victims rights; and Toshi Kazama, a photojournalist and victim of a violent crime who initiated the "Ocean" victims support group in Japan.

During a news conference held at the National Taiwan University Alumni Association Friday morning to announce the program for the "Victims, We Care!" speaking tour, Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty Executie Director Lin Hsin-yi related that "many people in Taiwan tell advocates of abolition of the death penalty that victims of murders and other violent crimes support the death penalty and that advanced countries like the United States also still have the death penalty."

Lin stated that the MVFHR members "have come to South Korean, Japan and Taiwan "to share their views and experiences on why they as survivors or relatives of victims oppose the death penalty."

Cushing, who is one of the founders of the MVFHR which was formed on Dec. 10, 2004, said "we have all had members of our families murdered but we oppose the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and as a form of torture."

Given Taiwan's past history of "white terror" in which thousands were subject to state sanctioned killings, Cushing said that "we are particularly saddened to see the government of a democratic Taiwan going back to the policy of killing prisoners."

Referring to his experience and thoughts after seeing his father shot before his eyes, Cushing said that "if we let those who kill turn us into killers, then evil will triumph and we will all lose."

"As a survivor, I oppose the death penalty because I do not want to live in a world where governments kill people and I look forward to discussing in Taiwan why we should not kill people in the name of the victims," the MVFHR executive said.

Kazama, who planned the Asian speaking tour and who has photographed execution sites in the Taipei and Kaohsiung detention centers in 2005, stated that "we should hate crime and violence, but not hate yourself or hate those people."

"If you support the death penalty, you should realize that it means that you must have the guts to have a gun in your hand and shoot someone in the name of justice," said Kazama.

"Can you pull the trigger?" asked the Japanese photojournalist, a resident of New York City since 1980, who related that "I have met many executions who suffer emotionally because they have had to kill people like that."

Aba Gayle, a MVFHR member whose daughter Catherine was murdered in 1980 at the age of 19, stated that she learned after 12 years of "a dark time" that "I have a choice about how to live and I chose to stop being a victim."

Gayle related that "I got stuck in anger and rage" for eight years but said that she "realized that anger and rage is detrimental to our health and can destroy us."

"When I heard the letter drop in the mailbox, all the anger, rage and ugliness I had kept in my body for 12 years vanished and I was filled with inner peace and I knew at that moment that I did not need to have anyone executed for me to be healed," Gayle said.

In addition to lectures in Hsinchu City and Taichung City Saturday, the MVFHR group will hold a seminar and concert program Sunday afternoon at the Eslite Hsinyi Bookstore featuring the themes of "Victims of the State Machine?" and "Civic Movements to Protect Victims."

Before leaving Monday, the delegation will also hold private meetings with Justice Minister Huang and victims support groups, human rights organizations and personages and organizations both for and against the death penalty.

Taiwan: Activists' plea for abolition

2010-06-05T19:00:00.000+10:00

Government must clarify death penalty policy: activists
Focus Taiwan News
2 June, 2010

Taipei, June 2 (CNA) Disappointed anti-death penalty activists said Wednesday that they will stop pursuing a constitutional interpretation on capital punishment after the Justices of Constitutional Court rejected a petition last week on halting the death penalty.

However, they urged President Ma Ying-jeou to live up to his pledge to end the practice in the future.

Accusing Ma of duplicity, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) , along with over 50 supporters from the medical, environmental, religious and legal sectors, complained that while the president has vowed to abolish the death penalty, he continues to allow the Ministry of Justice to execute people.

In April, Taiwan ended a four-year de facto moratorium on capital punishment by executing four of its 44 death row inmates.

Justice Minister Tseng Yong-fu, who was appointed after his predecessor resigned for refusing to sign off on executions, has been vague on the eventual plight of the remaining 40, saying only that he will respect the decision of the Constitutional Court.

According to the court, the government's adherence to its death penalty policy does not go against the two U.N. covenants -- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights -- signed by the president in late March.

Human rights lawyer Wellington Koo lamented the court's decision, saying the rejection means the group has exhausted all legal means of swaying the government and that "all we can do now is to plead with the government to hear us out."

According to the TAEDP, Taiwan is one of 18 countries, including the United States and China, that continue to enforce capital punishment.

"The president and the justice minister have publicly vowed to end the death penalty but yet they continue to sign off on death warrants. Their actions make us highly dubious of their true intentions, " said TAEDP Chairwoman Chiu Hei-yuan, urging Ma to clarify his stance.

Another of the activists, Catholic Archbishop John Hung, said that "it has been proven over and over again that the death penalty is not an antidote for reducing violence in society." (By Jenny W. Hsu) ENDITEM/J

Drugs and death: Major new study released

2010-05-18T20:37:00.002+10:00

IHRA launches 'The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010' report
17 May 2010

The International Harm Reduction Association released a study on the death penalty for drug offences today on the opening day of the 19th session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, taking place in Vienna. The report, titled ‘The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2010’, finds that hundreds of people are executed for drug offences each year around the world, a figure that very likely exceeds one thousand when taking into account those countries that keep their death penalty statistics secret.

The report is the first detailed country by country overview of the death penalty for drugs, monitoring both national legislation and state practice of enforcement. Of the states worldwide that retain the death penalty, 32 jurisdictions maintain laws that prescribe the death penalty for drug offences. The study also found that in some states, drug offenders make up a significant portion – if not the outright majority – of those sentenced to death and/or executed each year.

Direct link to the report. (Please note 2.42MB file.)

Singapore: Appeal against hanging of Yong Vui Kong

2010-05-16T18:19:00.003+10:00

Amnesty International has issued the following Urgent Action appeal, calling for people to write to the Singapore government urging it not to execute Malaysian man Yong Vui Kong. Details of the latest appeal are above, with background on his case below.

URGENT ACTION
22-YEAR-OLD DUE TO BE HANGED IN SINGAPORE
14 May 2010

A Malaysian man is at immediate risk of execution in Singapore. On 14 May, the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against a mandatory death sentence, which violates fair-trial rights.

Yong Vui Kong was sentenced to death in January 2009 for trafficking 47 grams of diamorphine (heroin), a crime committed when he was 19 years old.

Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act makes the death penalty mandatory for trafficking more than 30 grams of heroin, leaving judges no discretion to consider issues such as mitigating circumstances or to hand down alternative sentences. The law presumes trafficking in all cases involving the possession of over 2 grams of heroin, which shifts the burden of proving that no trafficking was involved from the prosecution to the defendant. This violates the core human right to be presumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty.

The President of Singapore rejected Yong Vui Kong's petition for clemency on 1 December 2009. On 2 December 2009, the High Court postponed Yong Vui Kong’s execution (which had been set to take place on 4 December) to allow the Court of Appeal time to hear an application for a stay.

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English or your own language:
- Urging President Nathan to reconsider Yong Vui Kong's clemency petition and commute his death sentence;
- Calling on the president to introduce an immediate moratorium on all executions, with a view to complete abolition of the death penalty;
- Reminding Law Minister Shanmugam, that the Misuse of Drugs Act violates international human rights law and standards concerning fairness of prosecutions and trials;
- Urging the Law Minister to recommend that Parliament revoke the mandatory death penalty for drug-trafficking and all other offences.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 25 JUNE 2010 TO:

President
His Excellency SR Nathan
Office of the President
Orchard Road, Istana
Singapore 0922
Fax: +65 6735 3135
Email: s_r_nathan@istana.gov.sg
Salutation: Your Excellency

Minister for Law
The Honourable K Shanmugam
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Phoenix Park
28 Irrawaddy Road
Singapore 329560
Fax: +65 6258 0921
Email: k_shanmugam@mlaw.gov.sg
Salutation: Dear Mr Minister

And copies to:
Editor-in-Chief
The Straits Times
1000 Toa Payoh North
News Centre
Singapore 318994
Fax: +65 6319 8282
Email: stonline@sph.com.sg

Also please send copies to Singapore's diplomatic representatives in your country.

This is the third update of UA 296/09. Further information:
www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA36/004/2009/en
www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA36/005/2009/en
www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ASA36/007/2009/en

Background - from Amnesty International Urgent Action appeal 269/09, 3 November 2009
Index: ASA 36/004/2009 Singapore

URGENT ACTION
malaysian man facing execution in singapore
Yong Vui Kong was sentenced to death for drug trafficking in January 2009. He had exhausted his appeals by October, and can now escape execution only if the president grants clemency.

Yong Vui Kong was arrested in June 2007, when he was 19, by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau. He was charged with trafficking 42.27 grams of heroin, and then sentenced to death in January 2009.

He had been working as a messenger for a man in Malaysia who often asked him to collect money from debtors or deliver packages as "gifts" to people in Singapore and Malaysia. At his trial, Yong Vui Kong said he had not known what was in the packages, and when he asked, he had simply been told not to open them. The judge, however, ruled that Yong must have been aware of their contents, saying in his written summation, "I found that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption against him. I am of the view that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and I therefore found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer death."

Yong was convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which provides that anyone found guilty of illegally importing, exporting or trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin will automatically receive a mandatory death sentence.

Governments need to address crimes, including drug trafficking, but there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other forms of punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions stated in his 2005 report that the "mandatory death penalty, which precludes the possibility of a lesser sentence being imposed regardless of the circumstances, is inconsistent with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." To date, 139 countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice.

Taiwan: Asian human rights criticism

2010-05-08T19:43:00.002+10:00

TAIWAN: ADPAN Appeals for Taiwan to continue to Take a Lead
Statement by ADPAN

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) joins others around the world in regretting that the Presidential Office of Taiwan accepted the resignation of former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng on 11 March amid political pressure against the moratorium of the death penalty. ADPAN urges the Taiwanese government to maintain the moratorium and to take a lead towards abolition among Asian countries.

In 2001, the Taiwanese Government announced a policy to gradually abolish the death penalty. The number of executions every year since then had been on the decline. In 2006, mandatory death sentences were eliminated, and no executions have been carried out since the same year. This is in keeping with the global trend toward abolition evident in UN General Assembly resolutions in 2007 and 2008 calling for a global moratorium on executions as a first step toward abolition.

On 14 March, President Ma Ying-jeou pointed out that the general public of Taiwan needs to engage in open discussion on the death penalty and that Taiwan cannot afford to ignore this international trend toward abolition.

ADPAN appeals to the Taiwanese government to do everything within its power to continue its efforts toward abolition, and that any future Minister of Justice shall take all necessary measures to lead Taiwan towards abolition, including ensuring the life of all 44 prisoners currently on death row.

More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. World opinion and practice is shifting inexorably towards abolition.

Representing a regional voice for abolition, ADPAN welcomes the steps taken thus far by the Taiwanese government towards abolition, but urges the Taiwan government to ensure that it does not fall behind other countries in the region that have abolished or are restricting the use of the death penalty: Mongolia’s president announced an official moratorium in January, South Korea has not executed anyone for over 12 years, the Philippines and the Cook Islands respectively abolished the death penalty in 2006 and 2007.

ADPAN is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries mainly from Asia and the Pacific.

Taiwan: International condemnation for hangings

2010-05-08T19:38:00.004+10:00

Taiwan carries out first executions in five years
Statement by Amnesty International, 4 May 2010

Amnesty International has condemned the execution of four prisoners by the Taiwanese authorities, the first since December 2005.

Chang Chun-hung, Hung Chen-yao, Ko Shih-ming and Chang Wen-wei were executed in prisons in Taipei, Tainan and Taichun on the evening of 30 April.

The executions come just two weeks after new Minister of Justice Tseng Yung-fu was reported as saying that his ultimate goal is the abolition of the death penalty.

"These executions cast a dark shadow on the country's human rights record, and blatantly contradict the Justice Minister's previously declared intention to abolish the death penalty," said Catherine Baber, deputy director of Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific programme.

The resignation of Wang Ching-feng as Minister of Justice last March sparked international attention over the issue of the death penalty in Taiwan. Wang Ching-feng had refused to sign execution orders because of her opposition to the death penalty.

"The world was looking to the Taiwanese authorities to choose human rights, and to show leadership on the path towards abolishing the death penalty in the Asia-Pacific. Today's executions extinguished that hope," said Catherine Baber.

The Taiwanese Alliance to End the Death Penalty has raised concerns over the legality of the executions.

The Taiwanese authorities stated today that they are still considering alternatives to the death penalty, but such commitments are of little value while executions continue.

139 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Amnesty International calls upon the Taiwanese authorities to immediately establish a moratorium on executions and take all the necessary steps to abolish the death penalty in the country.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, as a violation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

Amnesty International believes that the death penalty legitimizes an irreversible act of violence by the state.

Research demonstrates that the death penalty is often applied in a discriminatory manner, being used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities. The death penalty is often imposed after a grossly unfair trial.

But even when trials respect international standards of fairness, the risk of executing the innocent can never be fully eliminated – the death penalty will inevitably claim innocent victims, as has been persistently demonstrated.

Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.

Two resolutions, calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, were adopted at the United Nations General Assembly in December 2007 and 2008 by an overwhelming majority of states.

Taiwan: Human rights protest over executions

2010-05-08T19:32:00.003+10:00

Protest Against The Ministry of Justice’s Illegal Executions
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) Press Release May, 1st, 2010

Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP), Judicial Reform Foundation (JRF), Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), Amnesty International Taiwan (AI Taiwan), Taiwan Labor Front, Human Rights Committee of the Taipei Bar Association, Regional Tibetan Youth Congress Taiwan, Taiwan Green Party and Humanistic Education Foundation together handed a letter of protest to the Ministry of Justice on May, 1st to remonstrate with the Minister of Justice, Tseng Yung- Fu, about the cursory order to execute four death row prisoners. Amnesty International (AI) published a news release to denounce the Taiwanese government for resuming executions and stated that this move has seriously damaged Taiwan’s human rights record.

The Minster of Justice, Tseng Yung-Fu, signed the orders for the executions, killing the four death row inmates, Chang Chun-Hong, Chang Wen-Wei, Hong Chen Yeow, and Ke Shi-Ming, in the space of just over an hour on April 30th. Their families weren’t informed and they were not able to meet the four men for the last time before they died.

We are shocked and enraged at these so-called "executions according to law". Below are our responses to the reasons for the executions given by the Ministry of Justice:

Illegal Execution of Chang Chun-Hong
On behalf of the 44 death row inmates, TAEDP asked 7 lawyers to demand a constitutional interpretation from the Grand Justices of the Judicial Yuan. But due to time constraints, legal letters of authorization were not obtained in time from Chang Chun-Hong, Chang Wen-Wei, Hong Chen Yeow, and Ke Shi-Ming. Nevertheless, concerning the procedural items, the Department of Clerks for the Justices of the Constitutional Court sent letters to the 7 lawyers to asking them to provide these document within ten days (up to May 3rd, 2010). Besides, at the same time, it also tried to reach the four death row inmates in different prisons to learn their wills regarding the constitutional interpretation.

TAEDP contacted the four death row inmates after receiving the letter. Chang Chun-Hong then sent the letter of authorization with his signature on April 26th. He showed his willingness to appoint TAEDP’s lawyers to demand a constitutional interpretation. Therefore, Chang’s demand was without question totally legal.

In accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s "Implementation Guidelines of The Review of Death Penalty Cases," the first rule of the first item of the second article states that, for cases pending constitutional interpretation, the highest court cannot send the orders of executions to the Minister of Justice. It is a shame that the Minister, however, ignored the demand, signing the orders for the executions illegally and said that they acted in accordance with the law.

Unknown Will of Ke
While Chang Wen-Wei and Hong Chen Yeow directly refused to approve the demand for constitutional interpretations, the fourth death row inmates Ke Shi-Ming didn’t actually reply. TAEDP sent representatives to the Tainan prison to meet Ke in person, but the staff replied that Ke was banned from meeting anyone. They could not tell the representatives of TAEDP if Ke received TAEDP’s letter and if he was able to write letters freely. Thus, we had no idea whether Ke refused to approve the demand for constitutional interpretations.

No Fair Trial
Three of the death row inmates executed didn’t have any defense lawyers when they receiving the final rulings upholding the death penalty from the highest court. According to the International Covenant of the Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified by President Ma, any death row inmates should have defense lawyers in any stage of the trial as legitimate legal procedures. However, Article 388 of the Criminal Procedure Law in Taiwan violates the ICCPR. Given the opportunity, the Grand Justices might have a chance to uphold this basic right recognized by the international society and might rule the death penalty unconstitutional. The Minster of Justice Tseng, nonetheless, intentionally and recklessly ignored this and acted before the decisions of the Grand Justices. The Ministry of Justice exceeded its powers over the mandates of the Judicial Yuan, claiming its action was "in accordance with the law," treating human life as if it were worthless. It proves that the Ministry of Justice’s promises to be cautious regarding execution were nothing but lies. Therefore, the Minister of Justice needs to shoulder the political responsibility.

Blindness to the ICCPR
On March, 29th, TAEDP also helped the 44 death row inmates demand pardons (the commutation of the penalty) from the President. President Ma didn’t refuse and stated that he had received the demand and asked the Ministry of Justice for further discussions. Nothing about this was mentioned in the press release of the Ministry of Justice. It could be seen as blindness to the ICCPR and overstepping its authority. If the government really wants to "administer in accordance with the law," it should make it clear how they processed the demand for commutation of the death penalty.

The Indignation of Men and Gods?
The Minister of Justice claimed that he would exercise his power carefully. Beside the original procedures, Tseng said another consultative group would be formed for circumspect consideration of the cases "arousing the indignation of men and gods." But now the only standard we can see is "the right to seal and authorize." After the handling of the letter of authorization in this case, the Minister of Justice should announce the names of the members of this consultative group and related information for public scrutiny.

The TAEDP feels deeply distressed that the 4 year and half moratorium on the death penalty was destroyed in one day and firmly appeals to the general public to rethink the death penalty. While there is still controversy over the death penalty, without careful procedures, the Ministry of Justice speeded up the executions instead of reexamining related laws and rules. It is again another manifestation of how the government signed the ICCPR with one hand and broke it with the other.

In the press release of the Ministry of Justice, it was said that "as for the 40 people demanding constitutional interpretations, the Ministry of Justice would see how it develops and act in accordance with the law." Consequently, we request the passage of legislation concerning commutation and an immediate stop to executions.

Amnesty appeal to Taiwan

2010-04-03T19:00:00.005+10:00

Amnesty renews its call for Ma to end capital punishment
By Shelley Huang
STAFF REPORTER
31 March, 2010, Page 3
Taipei Times

Amnesty International yesterday renewed its call on President Ma Ying-jeou to abolish the death penalty.

Speaking at a press conference in Taipei to mark the group’s annual report on executions, Roseann Rife, deputy program director for Amnesty’s Asia-Pacific office, said: "Amnesty International reiterated to President Ma Ying-jeou that we look to Taiwan to also be a leader in the region and help influence China and Japan to take similar steps."

Amnesty International secretary-general Claudio Cordone wrote to Ma earlier this month to make a similar appeal.

Rife’s appeal came as the nation looks likely to execute the first of its 44 inmates on death row later this year. There has not been an execution since late 2005.

The issue of whether to abolish the death penalty resurfaced recently after minister of justice Wang Ching-feng was forced to resign because of reactions to a statement in which she made clear her support for the abolition of the death penalty and refused to sign off on outstanding execution orders.

Her successor, Tseng Yung-fu, said he would have no problem signing execution orders once all procedures have been completed.

At the press conference yesterday, Rife said that in many countries, death sentences are often the result of flawed legal procedures.

Many defendants are too poor to hire attorneys and court-appointed lawyers are often inexperienced or have heavy workloads, which is unfair to the defendants.

The rights group also urged Ma to follow the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights — which was signed by him last year and is now in force — to protect human rights by abolishing the death penalty.

In its annual report, Amnesty said that China, which uses the death penalty as a political weapon, had the highest number of executions last year.

The report shows that as of last year, 95 countries abolished the death penalty.

Although 58 countries have yet to abolish the death penalty, only 18 performed executions last year.

This was the first year Amnesty disregarded official information published by the Chinese government, which does not release exact figures because "executions are still kept as state secrets in China," Rife said.

The rights group alleges that the actual number of executions in China last year — estimated to be in the thousands — far exceeds the official figures released by Beijing.

ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY CNA

How many does China execute?

2010-04-03T19:00:00.004+10:00

The details of the executions of thousands of people a year is a state secret – and it could be worse than Amnesty fears
30 March 2010
The Guardian - Comment is free

You might have heard it said that China executes more people than all other countries in the world put together. Not just a handful, but thousands and thousands of people every single year. This, broadly, is true.

But suppose you actually wanted to find out exactly how many people the People's Republic executes annually. Any chance of getting this information? No. Try asking the Chinese authorities, and you'll get a stern "it's a state secret" rebuff. If you happened to get hold of some solid information (from lawyers in China, for example) you'd then be in possession of a state secret which it would be illegal to make public. It's basically as if there's a super-injunction on the information – not just on the actual information, but anything relating to it.

Amnesty's new report on the death penalty worldwide does its best to cut through the secrecy by estimating that there were "thousands" of executions in China in 2009. Based on sources – which we can't, for safety's sake, reveal – this seems reasonable. But it's still a rough and ready guesstimate. Amazing, given the seriousness of the topic.

China likes to have it both ways. It's been boasting that it has reformed its capital punishment system and that execution numbers are down. But it won't give any figures.

One thing we know – more or less – is that there are approximately 68 offences in China for which you can receive a death sentence. Many are not for lethal crimes – as we saw with the shocking execution of the British man Akmal Shaikh in December for alleged drugs offences. China's capital crimes reportedly include reselling forged VAT receipts, causing damage to public property, and cattle rustling. Three years ago a man was sentenced to death for selling overpriced ants.

However, I don't think a full list exists. That would be far too open for the Chinese authorities. If a proper source ever comes to light, it will be interesting to see if "revealing a state secret, including information about the People's Republic of China's use of capital punishment" is included as a capital crime. It wouldn't surprise me – this Catch 22-like paradox would suit China's secretive use of the death penalty down to the ground.

But here's an ominous thought. State secrets are normally things like defence matters or intelligence issues. What, then, is China so keen to hide on the death penalty?

Could it be that the numbers of people in China going to their deaths before firing squads and in mobile lethal injection chambers is actually far higher than we already feared?

Taiwan: Amnesty renews appeal

2010-03-19T20:00:00.001+10:00

OPEN LETTER ON DEATH PENALTY IN TAIWAN
18 March 2010

President of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Ma Ying-jeou
Office of the President
No. 122, Sec. 1, Chongqing S. Rd
Zhongzheng District
Taipei City 100
Taiwan (R.O.C)

18 March 2010

Your Excellency

OPEN LETTER ON DEATH PENALTY IN TAIWAN

Amnesty International has noted the recent debate on the death penalty sparked by former Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng's open support for a moratorium on executions and her subsequent resignation. We write to ask you to ensure that Taiwan remains firm in reaching for its stated goal of abolition of the death penalty.

We welcomed the assurances you gave us and other groups at our meeting on 18 June 2008, that Taiwan's de facto moratorium would remain in place. We urge you not to waiver from this stance. The lives of the 44 inmates on death row must not be compromised because of the current political controversy.

We look to Taiwan as a leader in the region on progress toward abolition. We hope that Taiwan's support for a moratorium, along with Mongolia's, where President Elbegdorj formally announced a moratorium in January 2010, will influence the governments of Japan and the People's Republic of China to take similar steps themselves.

As you stated during your meeting with the Prosecutors' Association on 15 March 2010, Taiwan must increase the public debate and education about the death penalty. We see the public attention surrounding the nomination of a new Minister of Justice as an opportunity to highlight the death penalty as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, one that runs the risk of irrevocable error, fails to provide restorative justice to victims' families, and has not been proven to have any special deterrent effect. The current public debate presents an opportunity to promote the global trend towards abolition, as now more than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, and to urge public support to this trend ahead of the United Nations General Assembly vote on a global moratorium scheduled for December 2010.

In a time of heightened political debate, we urge you to demonstrate leadership and continue on the path toward abolition.

Yours sincerely
Claudio Cordone
Secretary General (ad interim)

Interview with Australian Attorney-General

2010-03-12T19:00:00.000+10:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP

INTERVIEW
ABC NEWS RADIO DRIVE WITH JOHN BARRON
FRIDAY, 12 MARCH 2010

[....]

BARRON: Now, on a separate issue while we have you Attorney-General, the Federal Parliament late yesterday, passed a law which - the way it's being reported is saying that it's kind of outlawed the death penalty for all time, stopping it being reintroduced. What actual change came about yesterday on that?

McCLELLAND: Well, we have introduced legislation at a Federal level that will prevent the death penalty from being introduced in a State or Territory. And certainly unless or until a Federal Parliament subsequently overturned the law that was passed yesterday, there will be a prohibition on the death penalty being introduced in Australia.

So it was an historic day in many ways, if only to declare to the rest of the world as a nation, indeed each and every member of Parliament who spoke from both sides spoke in favour of prohibiting the death penalty. So that was a significant thing and a reflection of the views of modern Australian representatives.

BARRON: Has there been any suggestion or pressure to bring it back, particularly with the possibility of maybe terrorist trials, that kind of thing?

McCLELLAND: No, I think the bipartisan attitude around Australia has been that we don't want the death penalty to be part of our criminal justice system, and that's been reflected in the views which have been very constructive.

[....]

BARRON: Good to talk to you. Thanks very much.

McCLELLAND: That's my pleasure.

[Ends]

Australia: Laws passed to outlaw death penalty, torture

2010-03-11T19:00:00.000+10:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP
11 March 2010

PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION TO PROHIBIT TORTURE AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, today welcomed the passage of legislation through Parliament which prohibits the use of torture and ensures that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009 implements a specific Commonwealth offence of torture into the Commonwealth Criminal Code which will operate concurrently with existing State and Territory offences.

"Introducing a specific Commonwealth offence of torture will fulfil Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture to ban all acts of torture, wherever they occur," Mr McClelland said.

The Bill also amends the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 to extend the application of the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to State laws.

This amendment will safeguard Australia's ongoing compliance with the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires all necessary measures be taken to ensure that no one is subject to the death penalty.

"Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty. The passage of this Bill will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future."

These reforms demonstrate the Australian Parliament's fundamental opposition to acts that are contrary to basic human values and underline the Rudd Government’s ongoing commitment to meeting our international human rights obligations.

Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, today welcomed the passage of legislation through Parliament which prohibits the use of torture and ensures that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.

The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009 implements a specific Commonwealth offence of torture into the Commonwealth Criminal Code which will operate concurrently with existing State and Territory offences.

"Introducing a specific Commonwealth offence of torture will fulfil Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture to ban all acts of torture, wherever they occur," Mr McClelland said.

The Bill also amends the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 to extend the application of the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to State laws.

This amendment will safeguard Australia's ongoing compliance with the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires all necessary measures be taken to ensure that no one is subject to the death penalty.

"Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty. The passage of this Bill will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future."

These reforms demonstrate the Australian Parliament's fundamental opposition to acts that are contrary to basic human values and underline the Rudd Government's ongoing commitment to meeting our international human rights obligations.

Japan: UK MP condemns death row tragedy

2010-03-10T20:00:00.001+10:00

UK MP says 'world's longest-serving' death row prisoner is scar on Japan's conscience
From: Amnesty International UK
9 March 2010

The Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael has spoken out over the plight of a prisoner on death row in Japan, dubbing the case of Hakamada Iwao “a tragedy and a scar on the conscience of Japan”.

Mr Hakamada, a former professional boxer sentenced to death in 1968, is believed by Amnesty International to be the world’s longest-serving death row prisoner. In 1968 he was arrested and questioned for 20 days without a lawyer and later found guilty of murder based partly on confessions allegedly coerced from him by police interrogators.

Alistair Carmichael, MP for Orkney and Shetland, has taken up Hakamada’s case in his role as Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, and last year he visited Japan to lobby for his release. Tomorrow (Wednesday 10 March) Hakamada will be 74 and Mr Carmichael will accompany Amnesty delegates to the Japanese embassy in London to press for a retrial or full release of Hakamada.

There are longstanding doubts about the fairness of Hakamada’s trial and one of the original trial judges has himself said he firmly believes Hakamada is innocent. Meanwhile, Amnesty is stressing that conditions on death row in Japan are extremely harsh and, along with numerous other death row inmates, Hakamada now suffers from a mental illness, not least after spending 28 years in solitary confinement.

Alistair Carmichael said:

"No-one should be sentenced to death in this day and age and it's mind-boggling to think that Hakamada Iwao has been on death row since the time of the Beatles or the first moon landing.

"It's a personal tragedy for Mr Hakamada and a scar on the conscience of Japan.

"I campaigned for years on the Kenny Richey case so I'm well aware of just how appalling life on death row really is. But this case is in a category all of its own. It's truly shocking.

"Just going to the Japanese embassy in London isn’t going to get Hakamada Iwao off death row overnight, but it's part of a process to secure him a fair retrial or ensure he's released."

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:

"Most people's idea of Japan does not include the fact that the country even has the death penalty, still less the fact that a prisoner has been on death row there for over four decades.

"But the reality is actually worse still. Japan's condemned prisoners are kept in inhuman conditions for decades and then taken out of their cells and hanged without warning.

"With Mr Hakamada about to become 74 we desperately need to see movement on his case. The unfairness of Hakamada’s original trial and mounting concerns about his mental illness must mean that the Japanese authorities either grant him a retrial or release him as soon as possible."

Conditions on death row in Japan are extremely harsh. As Amnesty showed in a lengthy report last year, death row prisoners in Japan are largely confined to isolation cells. They are not allowed to move around in their cells, but must remain seated at all times. They are prohibited from talking to other inmates or even making eye contact with guards. Televisions are forbidden, visits are limited and often denied, and very little contact with the outside world is permitted. Amnesty’s research shows that numerous prisoners have been driven into mental illness, yet few safeguards exist to prevent them being executed.

Later this month Amnesty will publish a global survey on the use of the death penalty and this is expected to show that Japan is one of the world’s biggest users of the punishment.

Australia: No death penalty, no shades of grey

2010-03-03T08:50:00.001+10:00

By Professor George Williams
From The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 March 2010

The Death Penalty Abolition Bill debated in Federal Parliament last week is the most important initiative on the death penalty for decades. If passed, it will block any state attempt to bring back capital punishment. If it did, the law would be a clear and principled statement that Australia renounces the death penalty now and into the future.

Although the death penalty has been absent from the statute book for 25 years - NSW was the last to eradicate it in 1985 - the new law is needed. The silence in federal law on capital punishment means the death penalty could be reintroduced by any state at any time. This is not only a legal but a political possibility due to statements made over many years by our leaders.

The Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, is the latest to try to have it both ways. He said recently he had ''always been against the death penalty'', but went on to say that, in the case of someone ''who cold-bloodedly brought about the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocent people'', you ''start to think that maybe the only appropriate punishment is death''.

Abbott is not alone in attempting to combine a principled stand with an inconsistent appeal to raw emotion. Politicians from both sides have taken the same course. The attraction is obvious as it is an appeal to populism.

A 2005 Bulletin poll showed that most Australians supported capital punishment. The Australian National University's 2007 Electoral Survey found that 44 per cent of people thought the death penalty should be reintroduced - 38 per cent disagreed. Australia may not have the death penalty, but a sizeable part of the population supports its return.

This leaves Australian law in an unsatisfactory state and our citizens facing the death penalty overseas in an even worse situation. Equivocation on the death penalty by our leaders, such as by recognising it as appropriate for someone like Saddam Hussein, makes it harder to oppose the execution of Australians overseas.

Regarding the Bali bombers, John Howard, as prime minister, said that if the death penalty ''is what the law of Indonesia provides, that is how things should proceed''. Such statements undermine Australian arguments against the death penalty for Australians tried in Indonesia and elsewhere.

This has been pointed out by Scott Rush, one of the Bali Nine, who is facing death. He wrote to the government: ''I don't want to be in any way political but, from a practical point of view of someone inside on death row, it makes practical and good sense to have a consistent position of opposing the death penalty without discrimination.''

Ambiguous statements by our politicians, combined with the silence in our law on the reintroduction of the death penalty, leave the door ajar for its return in a state. A political leader seeking high office could take the law and order debate to a new low by arguing for the reintroduction of the death penalty in response to a particularly heinous crime.

Such a course has even had federal support. In 2003, Howard called for a national debate on the reintroduction of capital punishment as part of new anti-terrorism laws. While he said that he did not personally support this, he nonetheless suggested the death penalty could be raised by state opposition parties as an election issue.

It is time that Australian law and our leaders spoke against capital punishment wherever it is applied and without reservation. The notion that it is acceptable to execute terrorists but not other criminals, or to execute foreign nationals but not Australians, is morally and logically unsustainable. The value of a life is not contingent on a person's nationality or the nature of their crime. Opposition to the death penalty does not permit such shades of grey. Its removal from the law in Australia and elsewhere must be an unequivocal demand.

Unfortunately, no federal law can prevent the reintroduction of the death penalty by a future federal parliament. Prohibiting its reintroduction at the state level is as far as we can go without changing the constitution.

The death penalty was abolished in Australia decades ago but the battle against capital punishment was left incomplete. The possibility remains that it may return under state law. The Federal Parliament must pass the Death Penalty Abolition Bill to ensure this cannot happen.

George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor of Law at the University of NSW

South Korea: News report on constitutional court

2010-02-28T21:33:00.000+10:00

Constitutional Court upholds the death penalty
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010

The ruling is expected to revive a debate over the death penalty as South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in 13 years and is classified as “abolitionist in practice”

The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday the death penalty system as prescribed by South Korea’s criminal code is not in violation of the Constitution. However, since six of the nine judges expressed the view that the currently operating system presents misuse and abuse concerns that should be addressed, observers are predicting a revival in the debate over revision and abolition of the death penalty.

In its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of Article 41 in the Criminal Code, containing clauses regarding the death penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled five to four that the article is constitutional. The request for a constitutionality review was submitted earlier by Gwangu High Court. The court stated that the death penalty system “is a type of punishment anticipated by the Constitution.” It also said, “We cannot view the death penalty system as being in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution specifying human dignity and values, and the individual right to life is also included in the limitations on basic rights as specified by Article 37, Item 2 of the Constitution.”

The court added, “The public good, including the protection of the lives of citizens through crime prevention and the realization of justice, is not lesser than the protection of the right to life of a person who has committed a heinous crime.”

In contrast, the four dissenting judges said, “With the right to life, limitation means taking away an entire life, and it is therefore an absolute fundamental right that cannot be taken away by the Constitution.” They also expressed the view that the death penalty system should be abolished through measures such as the implementation of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Among the judges who ruled in favor of the death penalty’s constitutionality, Justices Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan also suggested improvements to the current system. They stated, “It would be desirable to reduce the crimes subject to the death penalty and to amend or abolish the system through legislation rather than through a constitutionality trial.”

Previously, Gwangju High Court requested a constitutionality ruling from the Constitutional Court in September 2008 after receiving a request from an individual, identified by the surname “Oh,” who was charged with murdering four travelers in the costal waters off Boseong County in South Jeolla Province. The court’s decision over the death penalty is its first in over thirteen years. In November 1996, it issued a seven to two ruling affirming the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Currently, there are 57 prisoners in South Korea with confirmed death sentences, while there are two cases, including Oh’s, where the cases are pending in lower courts following a death sentence in the first trial. Ever since carrying out the execution of 23 people in late 1997, however, South Korea has not carried out the death penalty in twelve years and was classified by Amnesty International as “abolitionist in practice.”

In a statement on the Constitutional Court ruling Thursday, the Korean Bar Association called abolition of the death penalty “not simply an improvement of the criminal justice system but an index symbolizing the prestige of the state.”

The Korean Bar Association statement also said, “It is highly regrettable that the Constitutional Court could not go so far as to issue ruling of unconstitutionality when South Korea has been classified as an abolitionist country in practice.”

South Korea: "Dangerous decision" upholds death penalty

2010-02-28T21:29:00.001+10:00

Editorial: Dated logic in Constitutional Court’s death penalty decision
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010

The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”

Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.

There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.

The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”

In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.

We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.

The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.

South Korea: Up to parliament to abolish death penalty

2010-02-28T20:50:00.001+10:00

Capital Punishment
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010

The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.

In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.

Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.

Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.

All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.

Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.

However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.

It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.

Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.

Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.

South Korea: "TIme to move" against death penalty

2010-02-28T20:44:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL: Capital punishment
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010

In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.

The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.

However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.

However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.

Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.

A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.

However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.

Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."

There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.

Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.

South Korea: "Lost opportunity" to abolish death penalty

2010-02-25T21:51:00.004+10:00

Statement from The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
25 Feb, 2010

South Korea: ADPAN regrets the Constitutional Court decision to uphold the death penalty

The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) that is currently attending the 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Geneva regrets today's decision by South Korea’s Constitutional Court to uphold the death penalty.

In a five to four ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that death penalty did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.

South Korea has lost an opportunity to lead on abolition in the region. This decision now goes against a general worldwide trend towards abolition. More than 70 per cent of countries have a moratorium on executions or have abolished the death penalty. It is particularly disappointing given South Korea has not executed in over 12 years and has joined many other countries in the world that have become abolitionist in practice. There are currently 57 people on the death row in South Korea.

Asia holds the record for the highest number of executions in the world. ADPAN representing a regional voice for abolition calls on South Korean government to take a lead and follow other countries in the region that have abolished death penalty: the Philippines in 2006 and the Cooke Islands in 2007.

The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN) is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries. Members are attending 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty which is being held in Geneva from 24 – 26 February.

Australian laws to ban death penalty

2010-02-20T19:00:00.000+10:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP
20 February 2010

STATEMENT ON THE DEATH PENALTY

Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty.

The death penalty has been formally abolished by all jurisdictions in Australia.

It was abolished for Commonwealth and Territory offences in 1973 by the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act.

Each State has also independently and separately abolished the death penalty and there are no proposals by any State Government to reinstate it.

The Australian Government has also introduced legislation – which has been supported by the Opposition – to amend the Death Penalty Abolition Act to extend the application of the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to State laws.

The passage of this comprehensive federal legislation, which is currently being debated in the Parliament, will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.

Internationally, Australia is also a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol which requires all necessary measures be taken to ensure that no one is subject to the death penalty.

China: Guidelines for executions and "mercy"

2010-02-13T15:05:00.003+10:00

China issues guidelines to limit death penalty use
From: Xinhua, 9 February 2010

BEIJING, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) -- China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) said Tuesday it had issued guidelines for courts nationwide to handle criminal cases with a policy of "justice tempered with mercy," stressing that death penalty use be limited.

The guidelines say the death penalty should be "resolutely" handed down to those who have committed "extremely serious" crimes, but that the punishment should be reserved for the tiny minority of criminals against which there is valid and ample evidence.

The guidelines also say that capital punishment reprieves should be granted for as long as they are allowed by law.

The guidelines are an interpretation of the "justice tempered with mercy" policy and details on the judicial principles used when handling criminal cases, SPC spokesman Sun Jungong said.

The "justice tempered with mercy" policy was first enacted in a document approved in 2006 by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).

The policy required courts to issue both severe and lenient sentences, depending on the seriousness of each crime.

According to the guidelines, crimes involving officials taking advantage of their position and mafia-style gangs should be handled "with severity."

Severity should also be applied to repeat offenders.

On the other hand, the document says minors and senior citizens who commit crimes should be punished with leniency.

Commutation and paroles for ex-officials who took advantage of their public position, especially those at county-level or above, are required to be heard at court.

Commutations for criminals convicted of major crimes like murder and robbery are to be strictly limited, the guidlines say.

Indonesia: Legal doubts delay executions

2010-02-01T21:35:00.003+10:00

Indonesian Executions Stalled as Judicial-Review Question Languishes Unanswered
From The Jakarta Globe, 31 January, 2010
By Heru Andriyanto

The absence of executions in 2009 was the result not of an intentional moratorium but because the Supreme Court has failed to provide a specific timeframe within which death row inmates are allowed to request a judicial review, the Attorney General’s Office said.

The AGO last year proposed that the top court issue a ruling to limit the period, to prevent inmates from buying time. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.

"There is no ruling from the Supreme Court that provides us legal standing to execute inmates who have yet to take a stance [on whether to ask for a judicial review] within a certain period," AGO spokesman Didiek Darmanto said.

Inmate Gunawan Santosa has exploited the weak point. The Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for Gunawan for hiring Navy officers to kill his father-in-law. Gunawan has notified the AGO he would ask for a judicial review, but has continuously delayed doing so.

"Why should he hurry? There is no law that limits our time to ask for a judicial review so we take our time," said Alamsjah Hanafiah, Gunawan’s lawyer.

Under Indonesian law, after a Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, the death row inmate has two possible extraordinary measures to escape the death sentence — judicial review and presidential pardon.

Requesting a judicial review by the Supreme Court requires the inmate to provide new evidence supporting his innocence. Asking for a presidential pardon must be preceded by an admission to the crime.

Alamsjah said he would refer to the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who also hired someone to murder a Supreme Court judge but was sentenced to just 15 years in prison.

"Many death row inmates don’t use their rights to extraordinary legal options, but at the last minute might request presidential clemency or a judicial review," Didiek said.

"In addition, carrying out the death sentence costs us a huge amount of money," he said.

Last year’s execution hiatus was a sharp contrast to 2008, when the AGO ordered the execution of 10 inmates — a record in the post-Suharto era.

The flurry of executions started after a humiliating bribery scandal rocked the AGO in March 2008. Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

International human rights group Amnesty International noted that the executions in 2008 totaled only one less than the 11 recorded in the "entire preceding decade."

Amnesty International strongly criticized Indonesia for voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions.

According to the AGO, the country has 107 inmates on death row. Including Gunawan, six have been declared ready to face the firing squad.

The five others include drug trafficker Meirika Franola and convicted murderers Bahar bin Matsar, Jurit bin Abdullah, Ibrahim bin Ujang and Suryadi Swabhuana.

The AGO also said six death-row inmates — Irwan Sadawa Hia, Taroni Hia, Dody Marshal, Jufry, alias Muh Dahri, Imran Sinaga and Rambe Hadipah Paulus Purba — had escaped from prison and were at large.

Although no inmate was put to death in 2009, the number of inmates on death row has fallen from 112 last year. Two condemned inmates, Banged Siahaan and Edith Yunita Sianturi, died of natural causes while in custody, and three other inmates had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by the Supreme Court following judicial reviews.

The three were Australian nationals Matthew Norman, Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali Nine. They were arrested in April 2005 for attempting to smuggle heroin out of Bali.

"The death sentence is cruel and inhuman. It fails as a deterrent so we need to take a lesson from other countries who have abolished capital punishment but at the same time successfully reduced crime and corruption," said Usman Hamid, the chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a human rights group.

Bangladesh: Coup executions condemned

2010-02-01T19:00:00.000+10:00

Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Amnesty International public statement
1 February 2010

Amnesty International condemns last week’s execution in Bangladesh of five men found guilty of killing the country’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.

Six other men sentenced to death in their absence in the same case are living outside Bangladesh, and the government is seeking their extradition. The execution of these five men will make their extradition highly unlikely. There is a high risk that they, too, might be executed.

Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. According to a United News of Bangladesh (UNB) report, Awami League activists led by a local Awami League leader attacked the house of Aziz Pasha, one of 12 men sentenced to death for killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in Tetra village in Harirampur Upazila in Manikganj on 31 January. Witnesses have told UNB reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house on fire. Aziz Pasha who was sentenced in his absence reportedly died outside Bangladesh but his brother lives in his house. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.

The five who were executed on 28 January were found guilty of the murder by the Supreme Court on 27 January and according to media reports in Bangladesh they were executed shortly after midnight on 28 January 2010, less than twenty four hours after their conviction.

Amnesty International opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions. Amnesty International calls on the government of Bangladesh to ensure transparency about its handling of this case.

In Bangladesh it is standard practice for mercy petitions calling for the commutation of death sentences to be considered by the President after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.

However, the President dismissed the mercy petitions of three of the men, before the Supreme Court’s final review of their sentences.

The mercy petition of one of the condemned men was considered after the Supreme Court’s final decision was announced on 27 January, but it was dismissed within hours of it being sent to the President. Lawyers for the man say the speed with which a decision was given for a mercy petition is unprecedented in a death penalty case in the history of Bangladesh.

The fifth man did not submit a mercy petition to the President.

The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences against the five men on 27 January. No other judicial remedy was available to the five former army officers convicted of carrying out the killing. Their lawyers say the men’s execution so close to the final judicial review of their sentences is unprecedented in Bangladesh.

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members were killed when a group of military officers entered his house and opened fire on them in an attempted coup on August 15th

Acting President Kondaker Mushtaq Ahmed, who took office following the death of Sheik Mujobur Rahman as well as his successor, President Ziaur Rahman, had granted the accused officers immunity from prosecution. The immunity was lifted by Sheikh Hasina when she became Prime Minister in 1996.

The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, bringing people to justice must not in itself violate the human rights of the accused.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.

The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

For Immediate Release
1 February 2010
AI Index: ASA 13/003/2010
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured

Mongolia declares moratorium: President

2010-01-15T21:23:00.004+10:00

President Tsakhia ELBEGDORJ of Mongolia delivered the following speech in the country's parliament yesterday, announcing a moratorium on executions in the country. Given the Mongolia's extraordinary level of secrecy regarding its death penalty system -- where event the method of execution was considered a 'state secret' -- the moratorium, and the speech itself, is highly significant. The translation below, from the President’s website, is therefore reproduced in full.

Please note: long post

The Path of Democratic Mongolia Must be Clean and Bloodless
Speech by President Tsakhia ELBEGDORJ on Capital Punishment at the State Great Khural
14 January 2010

My dear people,
Distinguished Members of the State Great Khural,
Dear guests,

Only yesterday did we solemnly mark the 18th anniversary of Mongolia’s Democratic Constitution. It is the fundamental goal of our Constitution to uphold human rights and liberties, rule of law and justice. The Constitution is the firm guarantee of the democratic choice of the Mongolian people and the source of the consistent exercise of this choice.

Upholding our Constitution, we achieved some notable successes in our course to strengthen human rights, freedom and justice in our society. Yet, much remains to be accomplished.

As is dearly enshrined in the Constitution of Mongolia, the most supreme human right is the right to life. Mongolia strictly prohibits deprivation of life except in cases pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

In my capacity of the President of Mongolia, I wish to express from this respectful rostrum my position on the right of a Mongolian citizen to life, and the only cause to deprive him of life – the death penalty. I will speak using only accessible and public information, but not those prohibited by law.

Seven months have passed since I was sworn in as the President of Mongolia. I have to mention that during these seven months, no death penalty was carried out. The decision whether to accept or deny a request to commute a death sentence rests ultimately with the Head of State. At the moment, when the decision whether to spare a precious human life hung in the balance, at the time when the tip of my pen was poised to render my decision, I was faced with a need to make a crucial decision within my full powers.

There could be a multitude of reasons and varying circumstances and settings for committing a crime that carries a death penalty. Yet the guiding principle for the Head of State on whether to approve a death penalty must be single. That single principle is to pardon the offender. As the Head of State of Mongolia, I will remain faithful to this principle because it guarantees and safeguards the value of human life.

I believe, I must cite the reasons for my decision.

Reason One: Pardoning a life does not mean pardoning the penalty. In case the President of Mongolia pardons an offender who has been sentenced to death, the offender is prescribed a penalty of 30 years imprisonment. According to the available official statistics, not a single convict has ever survived this term. This means that offenders sentenced to death who have been pardoned from the death penalty have either died in prison or are still in prison; none of them escaped detention. In other words, Mongolian law does make sure that, provided the sentence is fair, the prisoner ends his life in prison for a crime he committed.

Pardoned offenders in detention die either due to illness or they commit a suicide. As of today, there are 2 convicts with death penalty who, having spent 15 years in the prison of strict regime, are now enduring punishment in a prison of a less strict regime. Others are undergoing sentence in the prison of strongest regime.

Reason Two: The punishment for serious and cruel felonies must be severe. However, capital punishment cannot fully assure that this happens. Everything is over with the execution of the sentence – it’s final, it’s irreparable. However, what if a mistake was made when imposing a sentence, what if the State deprived its innocent citizen of life because of a miscarriage of justice in court proceedings; what if a lighter punishment was to be imposed for the crime committed. These questions remain unanswered.

Moreover, I do not exclude a possibility whereby the execution of a death sentence, might circumvent some organized crimes from being investigated and tried. A death penalty is not serving as a fair punishment either for a person being executed or a person who should not be punished with it. So the issues of justice and injustice, avoiding or enduring the sentence, the intentional and unintentional nature of crimes are a source of serious concern. Let me cite some examples.

In Bayanzurkh district of the capital city five citizens of Mongolia suspected of murder, were detained for 207-1252 days. A court imposed the death penalty on four of the five suspects. However, the court of the last resort exonerated the convicts and closed the alleged murder case. One of the five citizens died while in detention due to tuberculosis. If the court of appeals had chosen to leave the verdict of the primary court as it was and didn’t spare the lives of the defendants, the Mongolian State would have killed innocent citizens.

Another example – a citizen was under investigation for 6 years 8 months and 23 days. During this period a prosecutor filed charges six times and the court sentenced him to death three times. At the court of the last resort, the case was closed upon adjudication and the citizen exonerated.

Amnesty International Mongolia reports, upon concrete facts, that one of three death penalties awarded at courts of different levels are eventually invalidated or changed. You do all very well understand that the Mongolian State should not make such mistakes on the issue of life and death for its citizens. Yet, this is the reality.

Reason Three: There are instances where the death penalty was imposed on an innocent individual instead of the actual offender. There are also cases where the death penalty was used as a means of for furthering the narrow interests of those closer to power and those who are able to influence people in power. Mongolians, too, were not immune to these bitter experiences. For decades we’ve tried, but have not yet completed rehabilitating the victims of past political purges. Mongolia ranks shamefully high in the number of repressed per capital.

According to our Criminal Code, a death penalty – shooting a person dead – is not dangerous for a criminal, but dangerous for a person who did not commit a crime. A death penalty is imposed to men between 18 to 60 years of age. We haven’t closed the door to risks of imposing death penalty to any person aged between 18 and 60, who did not commit a crime or who could have been given a lighter punishment. Mongolians have suffered enough from the death sentence option.

History reveals these facts: Between October 1937 to April 1939, in just 16 months, by 51 sessions of the Special Full-Power Committee, which was then established in place of courts, 20474 Mongolian citizens were repressed and sentenced to death. At just one session, a mass death sentence for 1228 people was issued. Facts read that there were 8 women among those repressed.

Many Mongols believe that foreigners did lend a hand in these purges. Retained death penalty may also lead to situations when it is used not only by domestic, but external forces. Majority of repressed people were those who were sentenced to death in the prime of their life.

Obviously the political and legal settings of those times are incomparable with those of today. Tremendous changes have taken place. However, the nature of death penalty remains. It is the deprivation of life on behalf of the State. That hasn’t changed. Some 67% of the Mongolian citizens, sentenced to death, are young men in their 20s to 40s. And most of them happen to have committed a crime for the first time.

Reason Four: A state-sanctioned execution is not a punishment worth praising. It is a punishment of the highest and most serious nature which degrades a human dignity.

A death penalty involves an offender on one side, and a victim on the other. It leaves families and kin with pain, hurt, and resentment. The victims of a felony often demand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Even then issues are not exhausted. Some victims just wish they become the last victims of such a crime. And I express my condolences and beg a pardon from those left orphaned, left hurt.

There are mistakes we just can’t afford to make. There are mistakes which can be prevented only by closing the doors. The death penalty is one. Without fully abolishing it, we cannot completely do away with miscarriages of justice surrounding this form of penalty. Only when the death penalty is abolished, shall we be able to genuinely enhance the value of human life and human rights and create conditions to safeguard them. The responsibility of people and organizations involved in making penalty decisions are heightened as well.

One of the intrinsic features of a human being is his or her want for justice. There goes a saying, "a living dog is better than a dead lion". Even if unjustly judged, those alive are able to have the truth reinstated.

Mongols view that a human life is more precious than all the wealth that the earth can carry. And it is precisely because of this view that we describe a human life as a "golden life". None of the known human societies have fully secured the guarantees to prevent humans from killing one another. Yet, the State does have the possibility to stop depriving its citizens of their lives. None of the abolitionist countries have repealed death penalty under the pressure of their peoples. But the number of countries whose governments have abolished the application of this punishment grows year by year.

It may not be so soon that our blue planet Earth enjoys the guarantees against humans killing humans. But I believe that one day all countries of the world will come to stop killing their citizens on behalf of states and governments. And so Mongolia, even belatedly, even after many other countries, should abandon death penalty.

Reason Five: Mongolia is a member of the one global family. The United Nations does not support the imposition of the death penalty. It has constantly been calling its member States for abolition of the death penalty. And it does make decisions. The United Nations regularly reports to the international community on developments and international trends in the use of the death penalty, on progress achieved and retreats observed.

Generally countries are classified as either fully abolitionist, countries which have declared a moratorium on execution, and countries maintaining the punishment.

Of the 42 countries of Europe, 40 have abandoned capital punishment. And one country established a moratorium on execution of the penalty. In other words, Europe is 98% abolitionist.

Of 43 countries of Africa, 18 countries have fully abolished the death penalty. Another 11 countries have declared suspension on the use of the punishment. That makes Africa 67.5% abolitionist and opposed to the death penalty.

Fourteen out of 18 Latin American countries made their region 78% abolitionist by repealing capital punishment. In Asia, 17 out of its 46 countries abolished capital punishment, and one country suspended the use of the penalty. Asia, being the home to the most number of countries, is 40% abolitionist.

The number of countries in our continent fully abandoning capital punishment and declaring moratoriums is on an ascending trend. The "STAN" countries which often are criticized for infringements upon human rights and democracy have achieved a notable progress in repealing capital punishment. For instance, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – all four of them - have abolished capital punishment. In addition, Tajikistan, announced a moratorium on execution of death penalty.

Every country has its own road to go. So does Mongolia. We will make our own path. Mongolians can carefully observe whether action matches words. If we truly have chosen to uphold human rights and freedom, and have declared this choice, we must spare no effort to assure that human rights and freedoms are in fact exercised in this country. Just like accomplishments, or failures are assessed against criteria, our efforts to safeguard human rights and freedom must also have a criterion to be checked against. And this dear criterion is full and complete exercise of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, the State of Mongolia is to revisit its capital punishment policy, although belatedly as the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world have already chosen to abandon capital punishment. And we must join their path. The road democratic Mongolia has to take ought to be clean and bloodless.

Reason Six: A State that cannot guarantee to pardon the life of its innocent citizens cannot enjoy a moral right to tell its people "Trust Your State, Have Faith In the Government". As the Head of State of a country that maintains the death penalty, I cannot pronounce these mighty words.

I want to be a President who can tell its citizens: "I will not deprive you of your life under any circumstances, knowingly, on behalf of the State".

A moral right cannot be measured -- not in meters, or liters, or ounces. It’s just a matter of fact – a right does exist, or it does not. Period. And this right does not depend on who is the Head of State, or on who the Mongolian state decision makers happen to be. It is a matter of the ability of the State of Mongolia to state, to tell our people: "In order to prevent shooting you, dear person, one day, we are pardoning the life of the offender under a sentence of death and replacing the penalty with a 30-year sentence to prison".

It is not the fault of the people of Mongolia that Mongolia maintains the death penalty. And it is not the fault of our judiciary to practice this punishment. Our judges have endeavored to render just judgments and have been working to repair those decisions deemed unjust. Yet, I cannot firmly say, no mistakes have been made here. Similarly, I cannot say, no mistakes will be made. The price we pay for mistakes in delivering the truth is measured in human lives. Humans work in courts, judiciaries. After all, no human being is alien to mistakes.

In any country, it is the authority of the State to change the practice of capital punishment. If this punishment does exist, the guilt should rest with the politicians, it is the guilt, the fault of us, the Mongolian decision makers. It is not easy for me, as President, as an elected official, to raise the death penalty issue. I believe, the fate of a politician shouldn’t be easy. Who else, if not us, the politicians, would raise difficult issues, would wrestle with difficulties with our bare hands?

Politicians, when tackling an issue to resolve, try to take into account social psychology. The State should initiate, should enlighten, should set examples, should lead on and should resolve the issue of capital punishment. Our Mongolian State is a state of a dear tradition and history of mercy and forgiveness. It was only the State of Mongolia which enshrined the merciful and dignified policy of forgiving its citizens his 9 blunders. But what we do with vengeance which sprouts in human mind? What to do with violence in the society? The profound wisdom of our ancestors teaches us that respect for humanity is to persevere in the heart and mind of the State.

We do have a record, a bright record in our most recent history as well. On August 5, 1953, the Presidium of the People’s Great Khural adopted Decree #93 which resolved:"…to abandon the capital punishment, enforced by effective Laws of the Mongolian People’s Republic". However, in 10 months, due to certain reasons, it retreated from its decision. There are few countries which reintroduced capital punishment. Since 1985 over 50 countries abolished capital punishment. And the records show that only 4 of them retreated from their decisions.

Any community demands from its State a severe punishment for felons and criminals. The risk of making a bad decision under the anger of people increases. Therefore, flexibility is to be provided for the punishment policy to be reviewed as the decisions have to be stable and must endure the tests of time. It is not accidental to change the capital punishment, when decreeing a commutation, to a 30-year imprisonment. It is not wrong to review a complicated case and punish a felon with a lengthy imprisonment.

Reason Seven: Mongolia does have all the difficulties and challenges that a democratic country faces. And we do have the capacity to resolve them. My country is the inspiring role model of freedom in the entire region. But there is a blemish on the shiny name of Mongolia. This black spot is capital punishment which degrades to the supreme human right to life.

As the President of Mongolia, I sent a New Year Greetings message to the mobile phones to my people, to youth and elders, to men and women, on the first day of the New Year. I tried in my message to tell our people that they can forge the Good Name of Mongolia.

If Mongolia declares a moratorium on the execution of capital punishment, and eventually, becomes a country free of the death penalty, Mongolia’s Good Name and Fame will further be enhanced. At home, we may disagree and argue about the rightness of the execution moratorium and abolition. Yet, our Good Name and Solid Fame will be embraced by the world. As the Head of State of Mongolia I commit myself to ideas and initiatives to consolidate Mongolia’s integrity and honor. I appeal to you, the distinguished Members of the Parliament and Government, my dear citizens, the entire Mongolian people, to join me in the march.

As of today, Mongolia de jure maintains capital punishment. De facto, we refrain from practicing capital punishment and replace the death penalty with a penalty of 30-year imprisonment. Two clarifications need to be made here.

First, this policy is practiced when a convict with a death penalty appeals to the President for pardon. Since I assumed Presidency, there wasn’t a single convict with death penalty who didn’t appeal to me for pardon. In fact, it’s very rare for a death-sentenced convict not to ask for a mercy. The second note, 2009 was a year when Mongolia held no execution at all. The reason is I pardoned the convicts on the death row. And in future, those on the death row will be pardoned from death to imprisonment.

On the other hand, today, as the President of Mongolia, I declare to our Parliament, to my people, and to the international community that the change made in Mongolia’s capital punishment in 2009 will continue. From today on Mongolia is a country which suspends the execution of capital punishment, and becomes a country which announces a moratorium on execution of the death penalty. Mongolia will further aim to become a fully abolitionist country and shall conform our laws and legislation to this end.

This policy, I am convinced, is consistent with the historic choice our people made 20 years ago, and with the path and aspiration of Mongolia to safeguard human rights and democracy. From tomorrow, from being a country depriving her citizens of life on behalf of the State, Mongolia will come to be a country that doesn’t practice executions, and instead, imprisons its convicts for a long-term. And, understandably, from tomorrow on, the struggle to abolish capital punishment as I describe it now, will not be easy. However, as the Head of State of Mongolia, I have zero intention to retreat from the course I start because this is a right, pure and just goal.

Mr. Chairman of the State Great Khural, dear Members of the State Great Khural, I am about to reach the end of my speech. But I do have one more reason to state and two special notes to make. Please exert patience to listen to them.

Reason Eight: One of the justifications for maintaining capital punishment has been the view that it deters criminality. Not a single survey produced to date has proven that abolition of capital punishment leads either to an increase, or opposite, to a shrinkage in criminality. However, some argue that keeping the death sentence leads to an increase in serious felonies. These may be related to those as felons may conclude that they have nothing more to lose having already committed a death sentence crime.

We cannot repair a death with a death. A water drop hollows out a stone. Some fear death, but the prospect of a death makes others crueler. Criminals fear justice, fear just judgment. A just judgment in addition to being fitting to the felony is also about the truth established and reinstituted.

Let me cite an example from afar: some sources indicate that in the US, in states where capital punishment is maintained, the rate of criminality and the extent of cruelty is higher than in those states that have abandoned the punishment. However, the US cannot set a model for us in capital punishment. Whole 4 decades have elapsed since the UK abandoned the death penalty. Over this period, over 20 attempts were made to reintroduce the punishment in that country. The policy makers in the UK have, however, sought to unwaveringly protect the integrity of their State and remained faithful to their 40-year old choice. It decided to abolish capital punishment once and for all, not to revoke even in times of war.

There are quite a few distortions in Mongolia’s punishment policy that deviate from common international practices. An offender charged with a death penalty has 10 days to appeal to the court of higher jurisprudence, and has merely 15 days for appeal for a pardon. International organizations take the view that the minimum term of appeal should be no shorter than 3 years. In some developed countries, where it is possible to include the DNA test into evidences, there are occasions when those in detention have been exonerated and released.

The Mongolian Criminal Code lists many crimes as death penalty offences. Professional and official institutions list them differently. In other words, the Criminal Code lists specific provisions and terms, that can be interpreted in varying ways. The Mongolian Criminal Code names 7 offences for which the death penalty is imposed. However, these 7 offences are broken down to 59 crimes, according to a list made by an official source. Fifty nine crimes for which the death penalty can be applied. The possibility to issue a perfect, thoroughly fair judgment on such a wide premise of offences is extremely slim. Therefore, abolition of the death penalty is becoming a common practice.

Mongolia is also not immune to practices that are common for countries maintaining capital punishment. However, there are extremely grave, shameful practices that exist only in Mongolia, and already known to the rest of the world. I have just stated eight reasons for abolishing the death penalty. The fact that I am about to share is not just a reason, but it is a misery of Mongolia, it is about the humiliating nature of the practice in Mongolia. These are special situations that need to be immediately rectified.

SPECIAL SITUATION ONE: If someone is sentenced to death, it becomes practically impossible to monitor the person’s fate from outside. An international human rights organization writes time and again in its annual reports that of all countries with capital punishment there are four that are of greatest concern. One of those four is Mongolia. International organizations note that some of the four countries record improvement in the control of the capital punishment, some review the application of the punishment, and even introduce humane methods of execution.

As far as Mongolia is concerned, we lack information on executions; if there are records, they are in the form of arbitrary observations. Mongolia is the worst record keeper on the matter. This is our reality. To make this speech today before Parliament, I received information from relevant organizations and officials. There were discrepancies in those data on capital punishment. This is one of the issues that worries me gravely.

As is prescribed by law, execution procedures, the act itself, and execution documents are kept in strict confidentiality. As we all know, the State is obliged to maintain justice in society. Justice cannot be practiced in an environment of hidden information, without transparency. Justice is about humans, it’s about human rights. There is no justice without a human who this very justice is to serve.

After all, even a felon with a death penalty is entitled to certain rights, and simple human respect. If a citizen of Mongolia receives a death sentence, and if the President doesn’t grant him a pardon, there is virtually no room for national and international organizations to exercise any control over the life of the offender and seek information. These bars are equally tightly placed in front of the offender’s advocate and family. State secrecy on execution of death penalty is a blind and dark hole, just like hell.

We Mongols have embodied in our Constitution, which anniversary we marked yesterday, our will to build a humane, democratic society, which can close this black hole, at least, shed some light on it. Why ought we to care? It’s because if the hole, this bottomless pit, persists, it can soak up everything we value and cherish in our society. To seal the black hole, I decided, it would be right, first, to keep the death-sentenced alive and punish him severely with a more appropriate penalty.

I, the President of the country, as well, lack the information on citizens executed. The most I can do is just inquire. At best, I listen to a report. Your President as well, is not aware, does not see what is unheard and unseen by someone else. If, as is practiced elsewhere, a representative of the victim, at least his advocate attends the process as an observer, a source of external monitoring, a person, this very advocate will know of what has just happened.

There are many rumors about the application of capital punishment. I don’t doubt, the punishment is executed. But because it is secret, there are things that I do not know. A secret is a secret. What is kept in utmost secrecy becomes the source of utmost gossip. And as such, arouses, I would say, legitimate suspicions. This leads me to the second special situation, which I elaborate further.

SPECIAL SITUATION TWO: After the sentence is executed, issues arise about the body of the executed person. This is a serious issue. The body is not given to the family of the executed. While the State imposes its utmost and gravest punishment to the offender, it must not punish the dead body of the offender and his family.

Mongolia lacks monitoring over such bodies, not speaking about a monitoring over a death-sentenced offender. It’s not a secret that the last will of those who attempted a suicide or did commit one while on death-row is mainly a plea to give his dead body to his family and the will to be buried by his family. A newspaper recently carried an article about this issue. There were incidences when a buried body of an executed offender would surface in the floods and cause consternation.

Mongols do respect the afterlife of a person. I was shocked to learn during briefings and reports on capital punishment and corpses of executed that some of the provisions of the strictly confidential decrees of the President are not implemented, or cannot be implemented at all. Clearly, we cannot let this continue.

An official was assigned and got acquainted with the state of affairs around the death penalty and its execution. The findings and observations were reported to me. I also met with certain official people who reported attending executions. We exchanged views. While listening to the reports and findings, my conviction to repeal execution grew stronger. And the relevant officials I met also agreed that Mongolia has to end the current practice of execution.

Criminals do conceal their horrendous acts. But the State doesn’t need to fully keep in secret the fate of a criminal. There are no secrets forever. One day Mongolian society will talk about the issue. The earlier we talk, the earlier we will be able to resolve the issue. A lot of work must be done in the areas I have addressed in this speech – change our laws and rules, scrutinize and streamline the facts and data, a lot of things to check, to confirm and also, there is a need to invite more external control. We must act and immediately.

This is not the first time I am appealing to Mongolia’s law-making authority to abolish capital punishment. Nineteen years ago, when I was one of the deputees (members) of the People’s Great Khural, elected by the first ever democratic election in Mongolia, I expressed my views during the discussions of the draft of our Constitution. Back then we held two-day discussions and debates on issues relating to the abolition of capital punishment.

I recall citing eight grounds for abolition of the death penalty when I shared with my position during those discussions. Today, I am addressing the Parliament with eight groups of reasons and two special circumstances to consider. Today, when reminding the words I pronounced 19 years ago, I do not mean to flatter myself, but wish to note that back 19 years ago, there were many deputees – representatives of the people – who supported abolition of death penalty.

Mongols have fought through many decades and centuries to secure our freedom, independence and sovereignty. In 2011 we will mark the centenary of Mongolia’s restoration of our independence and freedom. Freedom and independence of any country is measured by the freedoms and liberties, and self-sustaining power of its individual citizens. I ask my people, the people of Mongolia to make a present to ourselves on this auspicious centennial of our country – let us become a country where a citizen is not deprived of life by the State, and more precisely, as a democratic country, let us be a people where a citizen is not killed by another citizen.

Mongolia is a dignified country, both in terms of the legacies of our history, and in the way we practice freedom. And our citizens are dignified people. Therefore, I ask Mongolia to put behind us this death penalty which degrades our dignity to death.

A Mongol man, a Mongol fate is not a fate to be degraded by the death penalty. Mongols are people of celestial destiny and noble fortune. Mongols, my dear people, let us live this life with dignity, with integrity, with Good Name and Solid Fame.

Thank you.

Mongolia: Activists welcome moratorium on executions

2010-01-15T21:12:00.003+10:00

Mongolia announces moratorium on executions
Statement from Amnesty International
14 January 2010

Amnesty International has welcomed the announcement made by the government of Mongolia on Thursday declaring an official moratorium on executions in the country.

The organization said it believes President Tsakhia Elbegdorj has taken a bold move for the protection of human rights in Mongolia and welcomed this important development as a key step toward full abolition of the death penalty.

"The government of Mongolia has shown that it has a strong commitment to human rights by introducing a moratorium on the death penalty. Amnesty International urges other countries in the region to follow Mongolia’s example," said Roseann Rife, Amnesty International Asia-Pacific deputy director.

Asia continues to execute more individuals than the rest of the world combined. Amnesty International estimates at least 1,838 individuals were executed in 11 countries in Asia in 2008.

In China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and North Korea, executions and death penalty proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and a lack of transparency.

"Mongolia must quickly amend its law on state secrecy to end the lack of transparency in the application of the death penalty. Transparency is an essential element of an open and free society but also an important step towards abolition," said Roseann Rife.

The President of Mongolia commuted the death sentences of at least three people in 2009. Executions are carried out in secret in Mongolia and no official statistics on death sentences or executions are made available. Prison conditions for death row inmates are reported to be poor. Families are not notified in advance of the execution and the bodies of those executed are not returned to the family.

More than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for a moratorium on executions.

"We look forward to Mongolia’s support for the UNGA resolution in 2010 and urge other nations in the region to follow suit," said Roseann Rife.

In 2010 Mongolia’s human rights situation will also be reviewed under the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review.

The UN General Assembly will consider a third resolution calling for a moratorium on executions in 2010. Mongolia voted against the UNGA resolutions adopted in 2007 and 2008, as has China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 46 voted against and 34 abstained.

Amnesty International said it believes the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and opposes the death penalty in all cases.

The organization said that the death penalty is discriminatory, used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities and it the ultimate act of state violence. There is no evidence that it is any more effective in reducing crime than other harsh punishments.

Australia: Alabama seeks death for dive death

2010-01-15T21:09:00.002+10:00

Alabama A-G: death penalty 'still on table'
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
From: The Brisbane Times, 14 January 2010

The Attorney General of Alabama has refused to back down from a possible capital murder charge against honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, despite knowing Australia will not extradite a person if they may face the death penalty.

Gabe Watson, 32, was convicted this year of manslaughter after leaving his wife of just 11 days, Christine 'Tina' Watson, to drown on the floor of the Great Barrier Reef in 2003 during a scuba diving trip.

Alabama Attorney General Troy King has maintained Watson evaded the full weight of the law under a plea bargain with the Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions and is determined to pursue a capital murder charge against Gabe Watson in the United States.
Alabama authorities believe they can mount a case that Watson plotted and planned the 'murder' in the US state.

"I won't add to the dishonour of [Tina's] memory by allowing Australia's view of what is just to affect what we do," Mr King told Fairfax Radio 4BC today.

"If we become convinced that we can prove a capital murder charge, we will go to an Alabama grand jury and seek the most severe charge."

But under the Australian Extradition Act, a person cannot be deported to face prosecution for a capital offence, unless there was an undertaking that the death penalty would not be carried out.

"One way [to have Watson extradited] would be for Alabama to water down its law the way you have watered down yours," Mr King told 4BC.

"But I believe that for us to seek any punishment and any penalty less than that which we think is appropriate doesn't make matters worse, it compounds what's already a very tragic and sad situation.

"If we get the evidence, and as I am anticipating, [it] does support a [capital murder charge], then of course I'm not going to take it off the table."

But Tina's father Tommy Thomas told brisbanetimes.com.au today he would be disappointed if Mr King's refusal to take the death penalty off the table would see Watson "escape justice again".

"I would be disappointed if something were to allow him to escape extradition and continue to allow him to freely escape a trial by jury," Mr Thomas said.

But Mr Thomas stopped short of calling for Mr King to drop a possible capital murder charge against Watson.

"The fact of the matter is the decision to that end is really not in our hand to begin with," he said.

"What we've always wanted is to see Gabe stand trial for what he was indicted for in Australia."

Yesterday, Acting Police Minister Andrew Fraser said double jeopardy laws and Australia's objection to the death penalty would hamper any attempts to extradite Watson.

Should Australia refuse to extradite Watson, Mr King said "it would remain pending until and unless he returned to the United State voluntarily".

"It's our citizen who went to Australia. It's our citizen who did not come home. It's our citizen who lost their life. And I intend to do everything in my power to see that justice is done by the state of Alabama for citizens of the state of Alabama," he said.

Mr King maintained Queensland authorities had refused to co-operate with the state's prosecutors, although the Queensland Attorney General's department found no record of any formal request from Alabama, "despite an extensive search".

It is understood, however, that a request has been made by Mr King's office to the Queensland Police for the investigation material.

University of Queensland international law expert Professor Andreas Schloenhardt told brisbanetimes.com.au any transmission of investigation material must be made between the Australian and United States federal governments, by way of a formal request.

Indonesia: Call to end death penalty

2010-01-07T23:33:00.005+10:00

Repeal Indonesia's Death Penalty: Rights Group
By Camelia Pasandaran
From: Jakarta Globe, 6 January 2010

Indonesian rights group Imparsial on Wednesday expressed concerns over the government’s reluctance to do away with the death penalty.

In its latest report released, the organization said that 21 of the 119 people sentenced to death across the country had been executed between 1998 and December 2009. It said that almost half of those were executed in 2008 alone, when 10 prisoners faced the firing squad.

"From past experience, death row prisoners can wait as long as 20 years before they are finally executed," said Al Araf, a senior research coordinator at the rights group.

He added that of the 119 prisoners on the death row, 55 were foreigners.

"Among the foreigners, the highest number comes from Nigeria, with 11 people," Al Araf said.

The other foreign prisoners on death row are from Australia, Nepal, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the Netherlands.

Al Araf said the government should commute the death sentence to life in prison for psoners that have been on death row for five years or more.

"After five years, the sanction should be changed to a life sentence," he said, adding that more than 60 of those currently on death row have been waiting for more than five years.

Nineteen of the 21 prisoners who have faced the firing squad since 1998 were convicted for murder. Those convicted of drug offenses were the second-largest group, and those convicted of terrorism charges were third.

Indonesia is one of 66 countries around the world that still implements the death penalty. Although the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, it has not adopted the second optional protocol aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.

Despite international pressure, the death penalty is still imposed for crimes in Indonesia.

Al Araf said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, and everyone had the right to life. "As an intrinsic right, there should be no exception in whatever situation," he said. "Instead, the death sentence has been promoted by politicians to show how serious they are in fighting crime. It has become a political commodity to win elections."

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s legal affairs adviser, Denny Indrayana, recently said the government’s stance was in line with a Constitutional Court ruling in March 2007 that threw out a judicial review filed by two Australians on death row, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. They had challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Viet Nam: Blogger may face death penalty

2009-12-21T22:57:00.003+10:00

Blogger and activist faces possible death penalty
Published on 14 December 2009
Statement from Reporters Without Borders

Reporters Without Borders is deeply concerned about French-educated blogger and pro-democracy activist Nguyen Tien Trung, now facing a possible death penalty under article 79 of the criminal code after the charges against him were changed to "trying to overthrow the people’s government." Arrested more than five months ago, he is due to be tried at the end of the month.

"We call for Nguyen Tien Trung’s immediate and unconditional release as the charges against him are entirely fabricated," Reporters Without Borders said. "Trung is a pacifist who has never endangered the Vietnamese state. He just exercised his right to free expression, a right he learned to use in France."

The press freedom organisation added: "Trung is a scapegoat. The authorities want to make an example of him in order to intimidate other Vietnamese students who want to press for more freedom when they return home after studying abroad."

Trung’s family told Reporters Without Borders that his father was allowed to visit him on 10 December for the second time since his arrest. The authorities are reportedly now going to allow his family to visit him once a month. Trung seemed to be in good physical and psychological condition and did his best to reassure his father. He asked his father to bring him books, especially economics and French books. The authorities are considering the request.

A former student at the National Institute for Applied Sciences (INSA) in the northern French city of Rennes, where he got a masters in information technology, Trung was arrested at his parents’ home in Ho Chi Minh City on 7 July on a charge of propaganda against the state under article 88 of the criminal code. A government TV station broadcast taped footage in which he made a confession.

He seems to have been arrested because of the pro-democracy views he posted online and, in particular, an open letter to the government about education policies.

The Trung support committee website posted an opinion piece by Philippe Echart, who was one of Trung’s teachers at the INSA.

"It is strange for a teacher to realise that one his students, which whom he had a few talks and to whom he paid special attention because he was a foreigner, is now being in prison at the other end of the world, in his own country, on serious charges," Echard writes. "And why is he in prison? For expressing his views freely. For criticising university education in Vietnam. For calling for more freedoms and more democracy, as many other intellectuals in his country have."

The support committee is calling for a determined campaign on his behalf. "The worst that could happen to Trung is that people gradually forget him," the committee’s appeal says. Trung’s friends and family have relaunched the campaign for his release. Sign a petition at the http://freetrung.tk website.

Australia: Police guidelines announced

2009-12-21T21:12:00.003+10:00

Media Release
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION
18 December 2009

Attorney-General
Hon Robert McClelland MP

Minister for Home Affairs
Brendan O'Connor MP

Attorney-General, Robert McClelland and Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, today announced a new policy to govern law enforcement cooperation with countries that may apply the death penalty.

Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty and it is appropriate that this position is reflected in our law enforcement practices.

From today, new Australian Federal Police (AFP) guidelines governing police-to-police assistance in possible death penalty cases will take effect.

The new guidelines will require senior AFP management to consider a set of prescribed factors before providing assistance in matters with possible death penalty implications, including:
* the purpose of providing the information and the reliability of that information;
* the seriousness of the suspected criminal activity;
* the nationality, age and personal circumstances of the person involved;
* the potential risks to the person, and other persons, in providing or not providing the information; and
* Australia’s interest in promoting and securing cooperation from overseas agencies in combating crime.

The new guidelines will also require:
* Ministerial approval of assistance in any case in which a person has been arrested, detained, charged with, or convicted of, an offence which carries the death penalty; and
* the AFP Commissioner to report biannually to the Minister for Home Affairs about the number and nature of cases where information is provided to foreign law enforcement agencies in potential death penalty cases.

These changes follow a thorough examination of existing policy and represent a balanced and responsible approach that provides greater clarity and accountability, while maintaining our commitment to combating transnational crime.

A copy of the new AFP Practical Guide on International Police-to-Police Assistance in Potential Death Penalty Situations is attached and available at http://www.afp.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/21096/Guideline_for_international_death_penalty_situation.pdf.

Death penalty rules for Australian police

2009-12-21T20:46:00.003+10:00

Police get rules on suspects
JONATHAN PEARLMAN

From The Age
19 December 2009

THE Federal Government has issued guidelines to the Australian Federal Police on co-operating with countries that have the death penalty, including a stipulation that senior police consider a suspect's age, nationality and whether capital punishment is likely to be imposed.

The guidelines could prevent a repeat of the controversy surrounding the Bali nine case in which the AFP passed on information to Indonesian authorities about a group of Australians involved in a heroin smuggling operation in 2005.

This followed a tip-off from Lee Rush, whose son, Scott Rush, is one of the nine. He faces execution.

The guidelines, released yesterday by Attorney-General Robert McClelland and Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor, require ministerial approval for assistance in cases where a person has been arrested and faces the death penalty. Previous guidelines allowed police to co-operate without approval for months in cases - such as the Bali nine - where the suspects had been arrested but not charged.

While ministerial approval is not required before the AFP helps foreign police in investigations, the co-operation must be approved by one of two high-ranking AFP officers who must consider factors such as the seriousness of the crime, the reliability of the information and the degree of risk to the suspect.

Other factors include Australia's interest in securing future co-operation from foreign agencies, the person's personal circumstances and the risk to the person or others of not providing the information.

A spokesman for Mr McClelland said yesterday the guidelines would clear up confusion in cases involving foreign assistance, but would not say whether they would have led to a different outcome in the Bali nine case. ''That is hypothetical,'' he said.

Legal advocates and family members of the Bali nine expressed outrage at the AFP for allegedly reneging on a deal to intervene before the drugs were smuggled.

The former commissioner, Mick Keelty, who retired in September, refused to apologise. He had insisted the AFP could not have arrested the suspects in Australia and would act the same way in future cases.

Mr Rush, who unsuccessfully took legal action against the AFP, said yesterday he did not want to comment. ''There is nothing more to say. Maybe Mr Keelty would like to comment.''

Mr Keelty could not be reached.

Labor MP Chris Hayes, who befriended Scott Rush's parents and has urged Australia to push other countries to abolish the death penalty, welcomed the guidelines.

''Which parent of a 17-year-old has not been concerned about what they are doing and who they are hanging out with?'' he said.

''Lee Rush told me he did what he did knowing his son would probably never talk to him again but he was determined to end his life of crime. But he didn't realise he would be signing his death warrant.''

The AFP said yesterday the guidelines followed consultation with legal and civil rights groups and would provide greater clarity and accountability.

Bangladesh: Death penalty on army coup leaders

2009-12-15T08:27:00.002+10:00

Bangladesh Upholds Death Penalty on 1975 Coup Leaders (Update1)
By Jay Shankar

From Bloomberg, 19 November 2009

Nov. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Bangladesh’s Supreme Court upheld death sentences on five army officers for assassinating Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the country’s first president, in 1975.

"We are very much happy," Qamrul Islam, the junior minister for law, justice and parliamentary affairs, said in a telephone interview from the capital, Dhaka. "We have been waiting for this moment and judgment for the last 34 years. It is our hope that the accused will be hanged soon."

Rahman, who led the country to independence from Pakistan, was killed in a coup that brought a military government to power. His wife and three sons were among 16 family members who died in the pre-dawn attack.

Bangladesh began the trial after Rahman’s daughter, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, who was abroad during the coup, became prime minister in 1996 and overturned an indemnity law passed by the military government 11 years earlier.

After Rahman’s death "the murderers were indemnified, which is unprecedented in history," Wali-ur Rahman, a former trial coordinator and now director of the Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs research body, said by phone from Dhaka.

Bangladesh deployed security forces to prevent unrest over the court ruling. Police will "focus their attention on diplomatic areas, the Dhaka central jail, the Supreme Court and judges’ complex," Home Secretary Abdus Sobhan Sikder said from Dhaka. The increased security will continue after today’s verdict, he said.

Subversive Incidents
Hasina’s ruling Awami League told party leaders and supporters to be on the alert after "subversive incidents" occurred during the trial process, it said in a statement on its Web site.

Increased security is needed because Attorney-General Mahbubey Alam last month received a letter from an unidentified person threatening to kill him and family members if the army officers weren’t released, Sikder said.

Unidentified attackers last month threw a bomb at the car of legislator Fazle Noor Tapas, an Awami League member, Reuters reported at the time. At least a dozen people were injured in the attack. Tapas, who escaped unhurt, is one of the lawyers taking part in the trial process, according to the report.

Death sentences were handed down on 15 army officers by a court in 1998 and the group first appealed the ruling in 2000, Bangladesh’s New Nation newspaper said on its Web site. Three officers were later acquitted.

Fled the Country
Seven of the killers are living abroad, Sikder said. The five in jail will have 30 days to file an appeal against the Supreme Court judgment and their last option is a mercy petition to the president, Sikder said.

The killers were "sent abroad as diplomats," the Bangladesh Institute’s Rahman said. "Many countries, especially in the Middle East, accepted them."

Hasina’s government couldn’t complete the trial process while in power and the administration led by Prime Minister Khaleda Zia didn’t "pursue the matter at all" when it took over in 2001, Rahman said.

A military-backed government declared emergency rule in January 2007 and started an anti-corruption drive that resulted in the arrests of leading politicians, including Hasina and Zia, causing further delays.

Fair Trial
"The masses wanted a clear and fair trial," Retired Major General, A.N.M. Muniruzzaman, president of the Bangladesh Institute of Peace and Security Studies, said by telephone from Dhaka. "It is a long awaited trial. It went through a very lengthy legal process" that was "very transparent."

"No one can complain on that count," he said.

The government is also taking precautions after the recent arrests in Bangladesh of Lashkar-e-Taiba militants from India and Pakistan, Muniruzzaman said.

More than 50 Islamic militants from both the countries are active in Bangladesh and police have arrested six Indians and three Pakistani militants since May 27, Bangladesh’s daily New Age newspaper reported on Nov. 15, citing Monirul Islam, deputy commissioner of the country’s detective branch.

Bangladesh, which has had at least five military coups since its creation in 1971, was hit by its first suicide bombings in 2005, attacks that were blamed on the Jamaatul Mujaheedin Bangladesh terrorist group.

Eighty-three percent of the country’s 156 million people are Muslim and almost 40 percent of the population lives on less than $1 a day.

Last Updated: November 19, 2009 01:23 EST

South Korea: 'Disappointment' at lack of change

2009-12-15T08:13:00.002+10:00

[Interview] "S. Korea slips in being first in Asia to abolish death penalty"
Amnesty International’s Go Euntae talks on not wanting a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International

From The Hankyoreh, 10 October 2009

"There are two kinds of countries in this world. One is the kind that does not kill citizens regardless, and the other is the kind that will kill its citizens at any time according to the circumstances."

Go Euntae, a member of Amnesty International’s international executive committee, sat down with the Hankyoreh on Friday, on the eve of the World Day Against the Death Penalty, Oct. 10. Go said, "If a state has the right to take a citizens’ life, individuals will always be subordinated to the state." He added, "The death penalty is a yardstick that fundamentally determines the relationship between the state and the individual."

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty has designated Oct. 10 as the World Day Against the Death Penalty and holds related events on that day throughout the world. In South Korea, a commemorative ceremony is being held at Indiespace, Joongang Cinema on Jeo-dong 1-ga Street in Seoul’s Jung-gu district.

Until recently, Go had served as director of Amnesty International’s Korea branch since 2006, and had also served from 2002 and 2004. In August, he was elected the first Korean member of the Amnesty International’s international executive committee. This came 12 years after the last figure from the Asia region had been elected to the committee in 1997. The committee consists of nine members who serve four-year terms, during which time they represent Amnesty International activities throughout the world and execute decisions. Go has mainly carried out his duties in South Korea, but he also visits the organization’s headquarters in London, Great Britain, for quarterly meetings.

In the interview, Go expressed his concern about the fact that discussion of applying the death penalty has been surfacing again recently despite South Korea being an "abolitionist country in practice." South Korea received this classification by Amnesty International in 2007, ten years after the last time the death penalty had been carried out, however, the Constitutional Court has still not made any decision on the constitutionality of the death penalty, nor has there been any legislative activity in the National Assembly to abolish it. Justice Minister Lee Kwi-nam said in his National Assembly confirmation hearing last month that he would "seriously examine whether or not to carry out the death penalty."

Regarding recent public opinion in some quarters calling for the execution of 57-year-old child rapist Cho Du-sun, Go said that the death penalty should not be viewed as a solution in this case. "Rather than a method in which the wrongdoer is separated from ‘us, the innocent ones’ and met with severe punishment, I think it more proper to question why a person like that was able to commit a crime like that in our society," he observed.

Go also communicated growing concerns among the international community. "In the international human rights community, there were high hopes that South Korea would be the first to abolish the death penalty in Asia, which is seen as a ‘hole in global human rights,’" he said. "However, recently, disappointment has been growing within the international community," he added. Some 1,838 executions were carried out in Asian countries including China and Japan in 2008, accounting for 76.9 percent of all executions worldwide.

When asked what role he hopes Amnesty International will play, Go said, "I do not want to make a ‘Santa Claus’ Amnesty International that remains off in the distance and then pops in once a year to give presents. I want to make the ‘guy next door’ Amnesty International."

Australia: Abolition bill introduced in parliament

2009-11-19T20:37:00.003+10:00

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
HON ROBERT McCLELLAND MP
SECOND READING
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT(TORTURE PROHIBITION AND DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION) BILL
THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2009

I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009.

The Bill contains two key measures.

First, it enacts a specific Commonwealth torture offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code, to operate concurrently with existing offences in State and Territory criminal laws.

Second, it amends the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 to extend the application of the current prohibition on the death penalty to State laws, to ensure the death penalty cannot be introduced anywhere in Australia.

The overarching purpose behind these amendments is, in the spirit of engagement with international human rights mechanisms, to ensure that Australia complies fully with its international obligations to combat torture and to demonstrate our commitment to the worldwide abolitionist movement.

[Speech addresses the abolition of torture aspects of the bill]

Abolition of the Death Penalty
Australia has a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty. Australia is a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

The ICCPR only permits the death penalty for the 'most serious crimes'. The Second Optional Protocol goes further and requires Australia to take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction and to ensure that no one within its jurisdiction is subject to the death penalty.

The death penalty has been formally abolished in all jurisdictions in Australia.

It was first abolished for Commonwealth and Territory offences in 1973, by the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act. Each State has independently and separately abolished the death penalty, and there are no proposals by any State or Territory Government to reinstate the death penalty.

The purpose of the legislation is to extend the application of the current prohibition on the death penalty to State laws. This will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.

The amendments emphasise Australia's commitment to our obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and ensure that Australia continues to comply with those obligations.

Such a comprehensive rejection of capital punishment will also demonstrate Australia’s commitment to the worldwide abolitionist movement, and complement Australia’s international lobbying efforts against the death penalty.

In summary, this Bill contains important measures which again demonstrate this Government's ongoing commitment to better recognise Australia's international human rights obligations.

I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Australia acts to outlaw death penalty

2009-11-19T20:17:00.003+10:00

Media release from Robert McClelland, Attorney-General of Australia
19 November 2009

AUSTRALIA TAKES ACTION AGAINST TORTURE AND THE DEATH PENALTY

Attorney-General Robert McClelland today introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009.

The Bill implements a specific Commonwealth offence of torture into the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The new offence will operate concurrently with existing offences in State and Territory laws.

"Introducing a specific Commonwealth offence of torture will more clearly fulfil Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture to ban all acts of torture, wherever they occur," Mr McClelland said.

The Bill also amends the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 to extend the application of the current prohibition on the death penalty to State laws, to ensure the death penalty cannot be introduced anywhere in Australia.

The Bill was developed in consultation with the States and Territories.

Amending the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973 to cover State laws will safeguard Australia's ongoing compliance with the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

"It will ensure the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future," Mr McClelland said.

"The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that Australia complies fully with its international obligations to combat torture and to demonstrate our commitment to the worldwide movement for the abolition of the death penalty."

"Taking these steps demonstrates our fundamental opposition to acts that are contrary to basic human values."

Singapore: Malaysian faces execution for drugs

2009-11-08T00:33:00.003+10:00

Amnesty International issued the following urgent action appeal for a Malaysian man at risk imminent risk of execution in Singapore.

URGENT ACTION
MALAYSIAN MAN FACING EXECUTION IN SINGAPORE

Yong Vui Kong was sentenced to death for drug trafficking in January 2009. He had exhausted his appeals by October, and can now escape execution only if the president grants clemency

Yong Vui Kong was arrested in June 2007, when he was 19, by officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau. He was charged with trafficking 42.27 grams of heroin, and then sentenced to death in January 2009

He had been working as a messenger for a man in Malaysia who often asked him to collect money from debtors or deliver packages as "gifts" to people in Singapore and Malaysia. At his trial, Yong Vui Kong said he had not known what was in the packages, and when he asked, he had simply been told not to open them. The judge, however, ruled that Yong must have been aware of their contents, saying in his written summation, "I found that the accused had failed to rebut the presumption against him. I am of the view that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and I therefore found the accused guilty as charged and sentenced him to suffer death

Yong was convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which provides that anyone found guilty of illegally importing, exporting or trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin will automatically receive a mandatory death sentence

Governments need to address crimes, including drug trafficking, but there is no clear evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other forms of punishment. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions stated in his 2005 report that the "mandatory death penalty, which precludes the possibility of a lesser sentence being imposed regardless of the circumstances, is inconsistent with the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." To date, 139 countries have abolished death penalty in law or practice

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in English, Mandarin or your own language:
Urging the president to grant clemency to Yong Vui Kong and commute his death sentence;
Expressing concern that because the death penalty is mandatory for drug-trafficking cases, the court had no discretion to sentence Yong Vui Kong to an alternative punishment;
Calling on the president to introduce a moratorium on executions, with a view to complete abolition of the death penalty.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The authorities in Singapore do not release any information about the use of the death penalty in the country. At least one person is known to have been hanged so far in 2009, and at least three sentenced to death; in 2008, at least one person was hanged and five sentenced to death. The true figures are likely to be higher. The government has always maintained that the death penalty is not a human rights issue, and consistently lobbied other nations against the abolition of the death penalty.

All capital cases are tried by the High Court; convicted prisoners can appeal, and if they are unsuccessful they can apply to the president for clemency. President Nathan, who has been in power since 1999, is not known to have granted clemency to any condemned prisoner.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 15 DECEMBER 2009:
President
His Excellency SR Nathan
Office of the President
Istana, Orchard Road
Singapore 0922

Email: s_r_nathan@istana.gov.sg
Salutation: Your Excellency

UA: 296/09 Index: ASA 36/004/2009 Singapore
Date: 03 November 2009

China: Lethal injection site completed

2009-11-07T20:06:00.001+10:00

By Cui Xiaohuo (China Daily)
From: China Daily, 6 November 2009

Beijing's first permanent lethal injection facility has been completed, ahead of plans to abolish execution by firing squad for criminals next year.

The new facility is within the Beijing No 1 Detention Center in Chaoyang district, the Beijing Youth Daily reported yesterday, quoting sources from three intermediate courts. Court personnel responsible for executions have recently received training in operation of the beds, injection pumps and other equipment.

Beijing's justice authority did not provide details about the new facility yesterday, and it is unknown how many execution beds the facility has prepared.

Most criminal executions this year were carried out by a firing squad at various sites in suburban Beijing, the justice authority said. Condemned prisoners are blindfolded and turned away from court marshals.

A small number received a lethal injection.

Experts familiar with execution methods said the reform had taken years to implement.

"This is no longer the time for public executions," said Qu Xinjiu, a criminal law professor at the China University of Politics and Law.

"The harshness of the execution is not necessary to horrify the public and torture the criminals, who also deserve decent deaths," said Zhao Bingzhi, secretary-general of the China Law Science Society Criminal Law Research Institute.

Zheng Xiaoyu, executed on July 10, 2007, was the last senior official to die from lethal injection. He was convicted of corruption during his tenure as director of the State Food and Drug Administration.

Zhao said lethal injection for corrupt officials was not an act of mercy for those in power.

"The officials who received lethal injections were known because of media reports. But the practice is not restricted to officials only, the other cases just went unreported," said Zhao.

It costs the Beijing government about 700 yuan ($103) to carry out one execution by firing squad. Lethal injection is expected to cost more money because of the technology involved.

Media reported in June that courts will likely use sodium thiopental, a rapid anaesthetic, as a component of the injection. The process takes about one minute.

The US also use this drug for condemned prisoners.

Lethal injection practices have been gradually put into operation since 1997 in 15 provinces and municipalities around China.

Justice authorities in Beijing have been reluctant to use the practice widely.

The Beijing government does not release the number of executed criminals each year.

(China Daily 11/06/2009 page26)

Mongolia: Death row inmate pardoned

2009-10-17T21:45:00.002+10:00

On 30 July 2009 Amnesty International (AI) issued an urgent appeal on behalf of Mongolian man facing execution for murder. It is extremely rare for details of capital cases in Mongolia to be made public, which greatly limits the ability of independent media to report on the death penalty in that country and of human rights activists to place pressure on the government.

Information about the death penalty in Mongolia is considered a state secret, even to the extent that the government does not confirm how executions are carried out.

On 14 October, AI issued the following update.

Urgent Action
Mongolian death row inmate pardoned

Buuveibaatar, a 33-year old Mongolian man sentenced to death for murder, has been granted a pardon by the Mongolian President.

Buuveibaatar was sentenced to death for the murder of his former girlfriend’s new boyfriend in January 2008. He had exhausted all his appeals. His father wrote to Amnesty International, thanking everyone for their support.

No further action is requested from the Urgent Action network. Many thanks to all who sent appeals.

This is the first update of UA 206/09 (ASA 30/002/2009).
Issue Date: 14 October 2009

Related story:
Mongolia: Appeal for death row pardon -- 3 August 2009

Amnesty damns Japan's death row as cruel, inhuman

2009-10-08T22:59:00.004+10:00

From ABC Radio Australia
11 September 2009

The use of the death penalty is on the decline globally. Japan is one of the few industrialised countries to continue to use it, hanging a smalll number of prisoners each year. Amnesty International says the conditions for those on Japan's death row to be curel, inhuman and degrading.

Listen to the interview here.

Presenter: Stephanie Foxley
Speaker: James Welsh, Amnesty International's health expert

WELSH: Yes, this report deals with mental health aspects of death penalty in Japan. We have have had long standing concerns about the death penalty itself in Japan but of growing concern are reports that mentally ill prisoners are being sentenced to death and are being executed. what we've found in trying to investigate the problem was firstly that there are major obstacles to anyone finding out information about the situation of prisoners on death row in Japan it's a very secret and secretive system and this has been found not just by us but by lawyers in Japan and also UN bodies trying to assess the situation. What we found was that prisoners on death row are kept in very harsh conditions, they are isolated, the are prevented from talking to staff or other prisoners and this level of pressure, together with the knowledge that they are going to be executed has a major impact on their mental health. Added to that there's a fact that prisoners are not given a date of their execution, which means every day the potentially face the fact that this could be their last day and this ratchets up the level of pressure on the prisoners. The families of course, are likewise not given notice of the execution of their family member. So all in all it's secretive, it's harsh and it's likely to give rise to high levels of mental stress.

FOXLEY: How many prisoners are we talking about?

WELSH: At the moment there are 102 prisoners on death row in Japan. There are other prisoners who's trials are ongoing, so some of those will certainly join their fellow prisoners on death row. Then others may face execution or may die of natural causes.

FOXLEY: What's the percentage of those that have been diagnosed as mentally ill?

WELSH: Well, that's an extremely relevant question and one that's very hard to answer precisely because of the level of secrecy that applies. We site 5 cases in our report, two of which we give in considerable detail drawing on court documents on medical assessments made for the court. But the answer is, we just don't know, we suspect that there are high levels of mental health problems ranging from mild to very serious, but we just don't know.

FOXLEY: Are there not international standards that are supposed to be followed with regard to the welfare of prisoners, even those on death row?

WELSH: Yes, all prisoners should be protected by basic standards. The Human Rights Committee for the UN has made precisely this point to the Japanese authorities on many many occasions, particularly expressing grave concern about the lack of notice of execution and the impact that could have on prisoners. but up to this point that has been no satisfactory response from the authorities. Now, there was an election in Japan very recently, and a new government will come to power next week, they have committed themselves to a public dialogue on the death penalty, so we see this as quite a hopeful point of entry for our report and for a wider discussion on the death penalty itself in Japan.

FOXLEY: Have you had any confirmation that there will be a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty permanently?

WELSH: There has been no such commitment given, we would be very keen to see such a moratorium take place to allow for a proper debate. We will be making this point to the new government and we will have to see how they respond.

FOXLEY: If the death penalty is not abolished, is there likely to be any abuse of claiming mental illness to avoid the death penalty, is this perhaps one of Japans worries?

WELSH: I don't know if it's a worry. It's a point that can be raised or discussed, in some of the cases we are talking about, the evidence is quite striking. We don't have any concerns that there could be fraud or faked mental illnesses, it's not an easy thing to fake effectively, particularly given the nature of some of the prisoners, they are not medical students, they haven't read up on mental health issues. So, it's a point that can be raised but it's a trivial point and I expect the debate to come down to that level.

Japan's justice minister comments on the death penalty

2009-10-06T22:10:00.002+10:00

Justice Minister hopes for greater transparency on death penalty
From The Mainichi Daily News
30 September 2009

Following her appointment as Justice Minister, Keiko Chiba has faced major issues such as the legislation of police investigation videotaping and how to address Japan's death penalty. In an interview with the Mainichi the minister provides her thoughts on these topics.

Mainichi: How will you proceed with legislation of video and sound recordings of all stages of the investigation process, as the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) proposed in its election manifesto?

Chiba: We want to stay committed to realizing this steadily. We have put together the framework within the party, and we want to hold open debate on how we will carry the measures out, receiving opinions from many people. On bills presented by lawmakers, we want to narrow down how much we will include, whether it be everything from the outset, or whether we take things one step at a time.

Mainichi: You are a member of the league of Diet members promoting abolition of the death penalty. Do you plan to sign any execution orders as Justice Minister?

Chiba: I am aware that there are regulations and the Justice Minister is entrusted with duties. Now that I have become a member of the government, I will place myself at a certain distance from the league and step down as a member. However, there are various debates about the issue, and in the end, it's a penalty that takes people's lives away from them, so I want to handle the issue cautiously. The citizen judge system has started, and it is possible for the public to select the death penalty. Considering that, I hope that people will focus on the issue and think about it, and that we can create some kind of forum for debate. I hope we can open things up little by little in some form or other, including by making information public and bringing execution venues into public view. I am aware that it is hard for debate to proceed without the public knowing any of the reality.

Mainichi: Diet members have proposed legislation to revise the Civil Code with the introduction of a system of optional separate family names for husbands and wives. How will the DPJ compile opinions on this as the ruling party?

Chiba: It's a fact that there are varying opinions within the party, but up until now the DPJ has been involved in such policymaking, so we will proceed on that footing. I feel it a little strange that the Justice Ministry Legislative Council gave a response (in favor of a legal revision in 1996) but nothing has materialized over this period. We want to quickly settle on a definite plan, and look toward making a proposal at a regular Diet session next year.

(Mainichi Japan) September 30, 2009

Japan: Will new minister cut hangings?

2009-10-06T21:55:00.002+10:00

New DPJ Cabinet might slow down executions
Kyodo News

From The Japan Times online
24 September 2009

With the inauguration of the new government led by the Democratic Party of Japan, there could be a lull in executions of death-row inmates, at least for the time being. Recent years have seen accelerated hangings under Liberal Democratic Party-led governments.

Political commentators have taken particular notice of the appointment of Upper House member Keiko Chiba as justice minister. She opposes capital punishment and belongs to the nonpartisan Parliamentary League for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. The justice minister has the final say in authorizing executions.

Any move toward carrying out executions could also trigger resistance from other members of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's Cabinet. Shizuka Kamei, leader of the People's New Party, leads the anti-death penalty league, and Mizuho Fukushima, leader of the Social Democratic Party, also is staunchly opposed to capital punishment.

After the Cabinet was seated on Wednesday, Chiba said at her inaugural news conference that it is her "personal feeling that it would be good" if there were moves toward a moratorium on executions or abolition of the death penalty.

But she added: "The fact remains that the justice minister is tasked with professional duties under the law. I am fully aware (that a justice minister) is obliged institutionally to deal with executions."

Said Toyo Atsumi, a professor of criminal procedure at Kyoto Sangyo University's law school, "If (a minister) avoids executions when the institution of execution exists, there will be no rule of law. I am sure Justice Minister Chiba is fully aware of that and if executions are to be done away with, it must be after (relevant) revisions to the law have been made."

Nobuto Hosaka, secretary general of the death penalty opponents' parliamentary league, is hopeful about the new justice minister. "I would think she will probably institute a moratorium. No doubt a brake will be put on executions," he said.

The ministry itself was noncommittal. "For the time being, various matters will come under review and a judgment will probably be made after fully considering the circumstances," a spokesman said.
The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the justice minister order an execution within six months after a death sentence is finalized. Not all ministers, however, have signed execution orders.

Japan saw a lull in executions for three years and four months starting in November 1989. That period included Megumu Sato's term as justice minister from 1990 to 1991. A Buddhist monk, Sato refused to sign execution orders, citing his faith.

Masaharu Gotoda restarted executions in March 1993. Since then almost all justice ministers, except for those serving brief stints, have ordered executions. A notable exception was Seiken Sugiura, who assumed the justice minister's post in October 2005.

At his inaugural press conference, Sugiura openly said he would not sign an execution order on religious and philosophical grounds but retracted the statement one hour later. During his nearly one-year tenure, however, he never signed an execution order.

Since then, the number of people on death row has grown to around 100, and executions also have risen.

Among recent justice ministers, Kunio Hatoyama signed orders for 13 executions, while his predecessor, Jinen Nagano, signed 10.

Japan: New justice minister urges debate

2009-09-18T08:07:00.002+10:00

From The Japan Times, 18 September 2009

Chiba urges death penalty debate
Kyodo News

New Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said Thursday she will deal carefully with death penalty cases and called for a wide-ranging debate on whether capital punishment should be abolished.

"The death penalty involves a person's life, so I will cautiously handle (the cases) based on the duties of the justice minister," Chiba, a former lawyer, said at a news conference following the first meeting of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama's new Cabinet.

The 61-year-old native of Kanagawa Prefecture said discussions are taking place on keeping or abolishing the death penalty, including whether it should be replaced with a new sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole.

"The lay judge system has been introduced and I believe many people have a very deep interest and various thoughts (on the issue), so I think it is something that we should find a path for through a wide-ranging public debate, if possible," she said.

Chiba said she won't give special treatment to cases involving Democratic Party of Japan leaders, such as one in which Hatoyama's fundraising body was found to have received contributions from dead people and another where a close aide to DPJ Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa was indicted over a fundraising scandal involving Nishimatsu Construction Co.

"They are not special so I would like to make appropriate decisions," said Chiba, who is a member of the Upper House.

On her Web site associated with the DPJ's Kanagawa prefectural chapter, Chiba lists the death penalty as a problem she would like to see eliminated during the 21st century. She argues that the death penalty prevents crime and forces offenders to take responsibility, but it is not the best solution.

Japan continues to execute mentally ill prisoners

2009-09-14T06:02:00.004+10:00

10 September 2009

The government of Japan continues to execute prisoners who are mentally ill, according to a new Amnesty International report.

Hanging by a thread: mental health and the death penalty in Japan highlights five cases where mental illness has been reported, including two cases with extensive medical documentation. These prisoners remain on death row facing execution.

The exact number of death row prisoners with mental illness is unknown. The secrecy around the death penalty and prisoners' health, combined with a lack of scrutiny by independent mental health experts, has led to reliance on secondary testimony and documentation to assess the mental state of those on death row.

The government has a policy of not allowing access to prisoners on death row and denied Amnesty International's request for access.

Amnesty International's report also emphasises that prison conditions need to be improved to prevent inmates from developing serious mental health problems while on death row.

Japan has signed up to international standards that require that those with a serious mental illness be protected from the death penalty. The country is contravening those standards by its failure to prevent the execution of prisoners who are mentally ill.

As of 3 September 2009, 102 people are on death row in Japan waiting to find out if their government will put them to death. For those who have completed the legal process, death could come at a few hours' notice. Each day could be their last.

The arrival of a prison officer with a death warrant would signal their execution within hours. Some live like this year after year, sometimes for decades.

"To allow a prisoner to live for prolonged periods under the daily threat of imminent death is cruel, inhuman and degrading," said James Welsh, Amnesty International’s Health Coordinator and lead author of the report. "Amnesty International’s studies around the world have shown that those suffering mental health problems are at particular risk of ending up on death row.

"Mental disorders can give rise to crimes, impair the ability of a defendant to participate in an effective legal defence, and are likely to play a significant role in the decision of prisoners to terminate appeals. In Japan, condemned inmates are also at risk of developing a serious mental illness while on death row."

According to the report, Japan is breaching its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its treatment of prisoners on death row. Conditions in prisons are harsh and prisoners on death row are especially vulnerable to developing mental health problems due to being imprisoned in isolation with little human contact.

Amnesty International is concerned that prisoners are not allowed to talk to one another – a restriction enforced by strict isolation. Contact with family members, lawyers and others can be restricted to as little as five minutes at a time.

Apart from visits to the toilet, prisoners are not allowed to move around the cell and must remain seated. Death row prisoners are less likely than other prisoners to have access to fresh air and light and more likely to suffer additional punishments because of behaviour that may infringe the strict rules imposed on them.

"These inhuman conditions increase a prisoner’s anxiety and anguish and in many cases push prisoners over the edge and into a state of mental illness," said James Welsh.

The report calls on the government of Japan to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. It also urges the government of Japan to review all cases where mental illness may be a relevant factor, to ensure that prisoners with mental illness are not executed and to improve conditions for prisoners so that prisoners will not suffer declining mental health or the development of serious mental illness.

-----

The report is available here.

Indonesia: State-secrets law would carry death penalty

2009-09-14T05:56:00.002+10:00

From The Jakarta Post, 10 September, 2009

The House of Representatives and the government have agreed to pass a state secrecy bill which would see people found guilty of leaking state secrets face the death penalty.

A member of the House's working committee deliberating the bill, Effendi Choirie, said Thursday lawmakers had approved a maximum penalty of 20 years of imprisonment or capital punishment and a minimum jail sentence of four years and fine of Rp 100 million (US$10,000) for the crime.

The committee has also reached an agreement on the definition of state secrets.

"State secrets are defined as information or materials and activities, which are classified as secrets by the president, and could potentially endanger the state, its existence and integrity if they are leaked to people who do not have the right to possess them," chairman of the committee, Guntur Sasono of the Democratic Party, told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

According to Effendi of the National Awakening Party (PKB), details of the definition were available in the following articles.

"For example, only intelligence-sensitive information is classified as secret," he said in response to public fears that the definition of state secrets would be too generic and open to abuse.

In response to the ongoing deliberation of the bill, research coordinator of human rights group Imparsial, Al Araf, said that even though some of the bill’s controversial content had been dropped, the draft in general restricts the public from accessing vital information.

"It is already difficult for us to investigate human rights violations in the absence of a state secrecy law, let alone with one," he said.

China: Lethal injection spreads in north-east

2009-08-31T22:01:00.002+10:00

More NE Chinese cities to adopt lethal injection
From Xinhua, 24 August 2009

SHENYANG, Aug. 24 (Xinhua) -- All 14 cities in northeast China's Liaoning Province are expected to have adopted the lethal injection as the means of execution by the end of the year, putting an end to shooting, the provincial higher people's court announced Monday.

Liaoning had 10 cities that used lethal injection by the end of last year and another four cities would follow this year, said Zuo Lianbi, vice president of the Higher People's Court of Liaoning, at a press conference.

Zuo also called on courts of the four cities to prepare venues and train staff for the injection, which would be less painful for convicted criminals and preserve their physical integrity.

Lethal injection was first used in Liaoning in 2001 to execute two convicted murderers in Shenyang, the regional capital.

Shooting was the only means of execution in China under the Criminal Law that took effect in 1979, but the revised 1996 version of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulated that lethal injection was also allowed.

The first lethal injection in the country was conducted in Kunming, capital of Yunnan Province, in southwest China, on March 28, 1997.

In 2001, the Supreme Court of China called on courts at all levels to gradually adopt lethal injection for people given death sentences.

Related stories:
More lethal injections for Chinese province -- 19 February 2009
AI condemns China's expanded lethal injection -- 5 January 2008
China: Another province takes up the needle -- 20 June 2006

China: Demand for clemency

2009-08-28T23:32:00.002+10:00

Amnesty International has issued the following urgent action appeal for a man who could be executed within days. Tang Yanan was convicted of an economic crime, reportedly after he was tortured to confess and given an unfair trial.

DEMAND CLEMENCY FROM SUPREME COURT

The Anhui Provincial High People’s Court rejected Tang Yanan’s appeal against the death penalty on 12 August. China’s Supreme People's Court in Beijing, is reviewing his sentence. Tang Yanan could be executed within days if it upholds the sentence.

After what appears to have been an unfair trial the Bozhou City Intermediate People’s Court in Anhui province, convicted Tang Yanan on 11 December 2008, of "fraudulent raising of public funds". According to the Chinese press, he and approximately 20 other co-defendants illegally obtained 970 million Yuan in public funds (approximately US$142 million) between 2004 and 2007. The money was for a deer breeding centre to cull deer antlers which could be used in Chinese herbal medicines. They managed to attract nearly 50,000 investors from more than 110 districts and counties in seven provinces by offering investors high profit returns.

The Chinese press reported that Tang Yanan admitted his guilt. However, during the appeal hearing he withdrew his confession saying that he confessed under torture. Despite this, Anhui Provincial People’s High Court upheld the guilty verdict. At the same time, the appeal court reduced the sentence of several co-defendants who were sentenced to various terms from three years’ to 15 years’ imprisonment. It is unclear whether Tang Yanan has access to his family or legal representation of his own choice.

There are concerns with the consistency in the application of economic criminal charges in China. Earlier in 2009, Du Yimin, a businesswoman who was executed on 5 August, was also found guilty of "fraudulent raising of public funds." Both her defense and Tang Yanan’s argued that they should have been convicted of the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits," which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 Yuan (US$73,000) because their intent had not been to commit fraud but to genuinely invest funds in legitimate enterprises.

PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in Mandarin or your own language:

Urging the authorities not to execute Tang Yanan;
calling on the authorities to ensure that Tang Yanan has access to his family and legal representation of his choosing and urging the authorities to guarantee that he is not subject to torture or other ill-treatment while in custody.
urging the National People’s Congress to introduce a legal procedure for clemency;
urging the authorities to establish an immediate moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, as provided by UN General Assembly resolution 62/149, of 18 December 2007.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 08 October 2009 TO:

President of the Supreme People's Court
WANG Shengjun Yuanzhang
Zuigao Renmin Fayuan
27 Dongjiaomin Xiang
Beijingshi 100745
People's Republic of China
Fax: +86 10 65292345
Salutation: Dear President

Also send copies to diplomatic representatives accredited to your country. Please check with your section office if sending appeals after the above date.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The death penalty is applicable for 68 offences in China, including non-violent ones. China executes more people every year than any other country in the world. Amnesty International estimated that China carried out at least 1,718 executions and sentenced 7,003 people to death in 2008. These figures represent a minimum - real figures are undoubtedly much higher. A US-based NGO that is focused on advancing human rights in China, the Dui Hua Foundation, estimates that between 5,000 and 6,000 people were executed that year, based on figures obtained from local officials. The official statistics on death sentences and executions are classified as state secrets.

In January 2007, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) review for all death sentences, which had been scrapped in 1982, was restored. All death sentences are now reviewed by the SPC, which has the power to approve, revise or remand death sentences. Chinese authorities have reported a drop in executions since the SPC resumed this review. Nevertheless, the application of the death penalty remains shrouded in secrecy in China, and statistics on death sentences and executions are classified as state secrets. Without access to such information it is impossible to make a full and informed analysis of death penalty developments in China, or to say if there has been a reduction in its use.

No one who is sentenced to death in China receives a fair trial in accordance with international human rights standards. Many have had confessions accepted despite saying in court that these were extracted under torture; have had to prove themselves innocent, rather than be proven guilty; and have had limited access to legal counsel.

UA:226/09 Index: ASA 17/046/2009, Issue Date: 27 August 2009

Related stories:
China: Businesswoman shot after unfair trial -- 12 August 2009
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China -- 10 March 2009
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007

Thailand: Civil libertarians condemn executions

2009-08-27T21:16:00.004+10:00

Statement by the Thailand Union for Civil Liberty, 25 August 2009

Statement by UCL
It is wrong that Thailand has executed two men on 24th August 2009:

It ignores the majority vote of the United Nations General Assembly in December 2007 and again in December 2008 in favour of a universal moratorium on the death penalty.

It flouts the greater certainty expressed world wide that the death penalty is a transgression of the most basic of all human rights, the right to life.

It goes against the interpretation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights expressed to representatives of the Royal Thai government by the UN Human Rights Committee, on 28th July 2003, that drug offenses did not constitute a crime subject to Capital Punishment within the terms of the Covenant which it has ratified.

The execution of the two with a mere one hour notice is a flagrant transgression of the procedures established by the UN for the enactment of Capital Punishment.

It is a useless measure of no greater consequence than other punishment in the fight against drugs.

It is a cruel and inhumane punishment, with no place in a civilised state.

It is counter to the Buddhist belief in the sanctity of life.

Danthong Breen
Union for Civil Liberty, Thailand

Related stories:
Thailand: Executions a backward step -- 27 August 2009
Thailand: Drug dealers put to death -- 26 August 2009

Thailand: Executions a backward step

2009-08-27T21:09:00.004+10:00

Thailand: resumption of executions a backwards step
Public statement by Amnesty International, 26 August 2009

As country after country abandons its use of judicial state killing, Amnesty International deeply regrets the resumption of executions in Thailand after a six-year hiatus.

On 24 August 2009 two men were executed by lethal injection at Bang Khwang prison, central Thailand.

Bundit Jaroenwanit, aged 45, and Jirawat Poompreuk, aged 52, were convicted of drug trafficking on 29 March 2001 and subsequently sentenced to death. They were reportedly only given 60 minutes’ notice before their executions were carried out.

Although Thailand continued to hand down death sentences, they did not execute anyone for six years, which the abolitionist movement had welcomed as an encouraging sign from the Asia region.

In the last 10 months, the UN General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for a moratorium on executions, while Burundi, Togo and the US state of New Mexico have abolished the death penalty. The government of Thailand should follow their example and urgently review its use of the death penalty.

There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime. The government of Thailand must join the international trend away from capital punishment.

Background
The last executions in Thailand were carried out in 2003, when four people were executed by lethal injection. These were the first executions by lethal injection, which had replaced execution by shooting in the same year.

In its 2005 Consideration of Thailand’s report, the United Nations Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the death penalty was not restricted to the most serious crimes and was applicable to drug trafficking in Thailand.

Sixteen countries in Asia still have laws that provide for the death penalty for drug-related offences. As many countries in the region do not make information on the death penalty publicly available, it is impossible to calculate exactly how many drug-related death sentences are imposed there. However, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand, reports indicate that a high proportion of death sentences are imposed on those convicted of drug offences.

AI Index: ASA 39/006/2009

Related stories:
Thailand: Drug dealers put to death -- 26 August 2009

China admits majority of organs from executed

2009-08-27T20:54:00.005+10:00

As China announces a national organ donation system, official media admit the system will replace transplant organs from executed prisoners, which "experts estimate account for more than 65 percent of total donors".

From China Daily, 26 August 2009

Public call for organ donations
By Shan Juan (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-08-26 07:38

China launched a national organ donation system yesterday in a bid to gradually shake off its long-time dependence on executed prisoners as a major source of organs for transplants and as part of efforts to crack down on organ trafficking.

The system, operated mainly by the Red Cross Society of China with assistance from the Ministry of Health, will begin as pilot projects in 10 provinces and cities.

"The system is in the public interest and will benefit patients regardless of social status and wealth in terms of fairness in organ allocation and better procurement," said Vice-Minister of Health Huang Jiefu.

Under the system, the Red Cross is responsible for encouraging post-death organ donations among the public, receiving donor registrations, keeping a database, starting a fund to provide financial assistance for needy, surviving families of donors and overseeing the allocation of donated organs according to set principles.

"Transplants should not be a privilege for the rich," Huang said.

The late, famous Chinese actor Fu Biao received two liver transplants within several months in 2005, raising doubts about the fairness of organ allocation, given that the waiting time for the general public can be years - even if one is lucky enough to get a match, let alone have a second surgery.

Currently about one million people in China need organ transplants each year while only 1 percent receive one, official statistics show.

Only about 130 people on the mainland have signed up to donate their organs since 2003, according to research on the promotion of organ donation after death by professor Chen Zhonghua with the Institute of Organ Transplantation of Tongji Hospital.

The system will help find more willing donors who didn't know how to donate, said Jiang Yiman, the society's deputy director at the launch yesterday in Shanghai. "The Chinese have a tradition of helping others in need and the potential of organ donations from the public is yet to be tapped," she said.

Organ donors
Executed prisoners, who experts estimate account for more than 65 percent of total donors, "are definitely not a proper source for organ transplants," said Vice-Minister Huang.

That the rights of death-row prisoners to donate is fully respected and written consent from them is required, he told China Daily.

Qian Jianmin, chief transplant surgeon with the Shanghai Huashan Hospital, said hospitals performing transplants not only treat patients getting organs from executed prisoners, but have to deal with other levels of government, including the justice department.

"Corruption can arise during the process," he said.

Some just ignore legal procedures regarding organ donations from executed prisoners and make a fat profit, Huang said.

All costs are passed on to patients. Sometimes the recipient pays up to 200,000 yuan ($29,000) for a kidney, not including other medical services.

China issued an organ transplant law in 2007 that bans organ trafficking and only allows donations from living people to blood relatives and spouses, plus someone considered "emotionally connected."

However, organ middlemen have been faking documents in order to make a person who is desperately in need of money be considered "emotionally connected" to the recipients, reports said.

Living transplants increased to 40 percent of total transplants from 15 percent in 2006, Chen Zhonghua said.

"That's one of the daunting tasks facing us as we try to end the organ trade by establishing this system," Huang noted.

Other goals include preventing organ tourism, improving transplant quality, better defining donors' rights and satisfying patients' needs for transplants in an ethical manner.

"With more organ donations from the public, the total cost for transplants will decrease," he said.

The exact cost for transplants varies from place to place and largely remains an industry secret. But experts said it's at least 100,000 yuan.

Praise for initiative
"We welcome the emphasis put on fair practice in organ procurement, allocation and transplant, echoing the WHO guiding principles on transplantation," said Luc Noel, coordinator of clinical procedures in the essential health technologies department at World Health Organization headquarters in Geneva.

"China is establishing the national network and authority necessary to initiate and maximize organ donations from deceased donors and thus progress towards the global mainstream in organ donation and transplantation," he said.

The system will be operated at both State and provincial levels. Donated organs would be allocated locally first and then nationally.

"My colleagues and I welcome the system, which will facilitate our efforts to save more patients and help medical workers concentrate more on practicing medicine," said transplant surgeon Qian, whose hospital performs about 150 transplants each year.

Wang Yuling, a young white-collar worker in Beijing, said she'd donate if it really helps someone in need instead of making someone rich.

The pilot projects will take place across the country, including Shanghai, Tianjin, Fujian (Xiamen), Jiangsu (Nanjing), Hubei (Wuhan), Liaoning, Shandong and Jiangxi. The system will then be introduced nationwide, Jiang said.

When asked for a specific timetable when the system will cover the whole country, Huang said the process took 20 years in United States.

"I hope it'll be faster in China. We are still searching for the best way," he said.

"Details about the system, like how to clearly define responsibilities for all stakeholders under the system, including the Red Cross and health administrations, are still under discussion," Jiang said.

(China Daily 08/26/2009 page3)

[Emphasis added]

Related stories:
China admits organs from prisoners -- 6 December 2006
Stop transplant tourism: surgeon -- 28 November 2006
China restricts organs from executions -- 29 March 2006

PNG, Solomons advised against death penalty

2009-08-26T20:13:00.002+10:00

No death penalty, expert advises PNG, Solomons
From ABC Radio Australia, 20 August 2009

Last Updated: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:18:00 +1000

An Australian criminologist says Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea should not consider introducing the death penalty against violent crimes.

Both countries have high rates of crime and are considering capital punishment.

Professor Paul Wilson, from Australia's Bond University, in Queensland, says there is evidence in research from across the world that the death penalty does not reduce the rate of murder and violent crime.

He says despite this, many politicians choose to call for its introduction because they are aware there may be people in their electorates who could support it.

Professor Wilson has told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat more needs to be done to study patterns of crime in PNG and the Solomons to determine better prevention and appropriate penalties.

"If you are going to reduce the murder rate or violence rate, you have to first of all analyse exactly how the violence is occuring, by whom, at what time, where, and the motiviationsm" he said.

"And that is a fairly substantial research job and then you have to apply quite well-known crime prevention methods, which will vary according to the location.

"You work it with a combination of zero-type policing."

Thailand: Drug dealers put to death

2009-08-26T20:00:00.001+10:00

From The Bangkok Post, 25 August 2009

Writer: KING-OUA LAOHONG

Two convicted drug traffickers at Bang Khwang prison have been executed by lethal injection.

Bundit Jaroenwanit, 45, and Jirawat Poompreuk, 52, yesterday became the country's fifth and sixth people to be executed by lethal injection, which replaced death by shooting in 2003.

The atmosphere at Bang Khwang prison in Nonthaburi was subdued yesterday when the two learned they were about to die.

They were given 60 minutes to call or write to their loved ones. They were then offered a last meal and a chance to listen to a sermon from a monk invited from Wat Bang Praek Tai.

They were blindfolded and given flowers, candles and incense sticks before being taken to the execution chamber.

The two, their legs manacled, turned their faces towards the temple as they were laid out on beds.

They received three injections. The first was a sedative, the second a muscle relaxant and the third a drug that stops the heart beating.

South Korea loses anti-death penalty voice

2009-08-20T10:54:00.005+10:00

A tribute from Amnesty International

Kim Dae-jung, human rights champion and former South Korean president, dies
19 August 2009

Former South Korea President Kim Dae-jung died on Tuesday, aged 85. A winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at reconciliation with North Korea, he leaves a legacy of commitment to human rights and democracy.

A former prisoner of conscience, Kim Dae-jung was a lifelong activist who sought to raise the profile of human rights both in South Korea and around the world. Once a death row inmate, he was a tireless campaigner against the death penalty.

"Kim Dae-jung was a hero and inspiration to Amnesty International and many people around the world for his uncompromising stance and struggle for democracy in South Korea during the seventies and eighties," said Amnesty International's Secretary General, Irene Khan.

"Amnesty International is privileged to have campaigned on his behalf, as prisoner of conscience, during his years of imprisonment and when he was given the death sentence.

"Kim Dae-jung was considered a dangerous radical in the 1970s and 1980s, during South Korea's decades of military dictatorship. He survived assassination and abduction attempts, walked free from a death sentence and was exiled twice.

Over several video interviews with Amnesty International in April, Kim Dae-jung discussed his childhood (he was the son of a middle-class farmer), his experiences as a prisoner of conscience, the attempt on his life in Tokyo in 1973 and his time as president. One of the main topics of conversation though, was the death penalty. He said:

"A human should not kill a human. We need to abolish the death penalty in Asia…If the death penalty were abolished, it would change the atmosphere in Asia and also have a positive knock-on effect in Central & South America and Africa and the rest of the world…the issue of death penalty is one of the most serious issues confronting human beings, and I hope that, if possible, the Asian countries will set an example in sorting out this problem.

"As a human rights activist, Kim Dae-jung was subjected to human rights violations for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression.

He was kidnapped in Tokyo's Grand Palace hotel in 1973 by South Korean agents. He was dragged to a ship where he said they planned to dump him at sea. The US government intervened to save him and the agents then abandoned their plan. The assassination attempt was in apparent response to his public opposition to the rewriting of the Constitution, which gave more power to General Park Chung-hee, the country’s military ruler.

Kim Dae-jung spent much of the 1970s under house arrest or in prison. It was during this period that he was first adopted as a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.

He was arrested in March 1976, as a prominent signatory of a "Declaration for National Democratic Salvation". He was arrested again in May 1980, just before the Kwangju Massacre, which resulted in the deaths of civilians who had risen up against the military dictatorship. He was accused of having "instigated" agitation. He was sentenced to death in September 1980.

Amnesty International, and many other human rights and pressure groups, campaigned vigorously on Kim Dae-jung's behalf throughout that period.

In 1981, following widespread international protests and campaigning by international organizations, his death sentence was commuted; in 1982 he was released on a "suspended" sentence. He then went to live in Boston where he taught at Harvard University.

In February 1985, he was placed under house arrest again on the day he returned from two years' exile in the USA. House arrest and harassment continued until February 1986.

During a visit to London in 1993, Kim Dae-jung presented Amnesty International with calligraphy he had written, of four Chinese characters meaning “All Nations are One Family”.

He was elected President of South Korea in December 1997. It was the first time in the country's history that the power of government had been passed from the ruling party president to an opposition leader.

During his presidency Kim-Dae-jung became the first and so far only Korean to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000. This was for his instigation of the so-called "Sunshine Policy", promoting closer ties with communist North Korea.

Kim-Dae-jung’s term as President of South Korea ended in 2003.

"As fellow Nobel Laureates, we were honoured to share President Kim’s ardent opposition to the death penalty, and we were moved by his dedication to campaigning for human rights," said Irene Khan.

Related stories:
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 6 March 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February 2006

China: Businesswoman shot after unfair trial

2009-08-12T11:20:00.003+10:00

Amnesty International has issued this update to its appeal on behalf of Du Yimin, a businesswoman who was executed last week after being convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds".

URGENT ACTION
BUSINESSWOMAN EXECUTED FOR FRAUD

Du Yimin, a businesswoman convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds" was executed on 5 August after China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) approved her sentence.

Du Yimin was sentenced to death in March 2008. Her appeal was rejected on 13 January 2009. According to the verdict, she had illegally raised approximately 700 million yuan (US$102 million) from hundreds of people investing in her beauty parlours. According to the Chinese press, she had obtained the money between 2003 and 2006 by offering investors monthly returns of up to 10%.

Her lawyer has stated that Du Yimin should have been convicted for the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits," which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 yuan (US$73,000). Du Yimin claimed that she had had no intention of keeping the money, but had intended to invest it in her companies, and that she had obtained it without using fraudulent means.

Du Yimin’s death sentence has caused a debate about the consistency in the application of the death penalty in the People's Republic of China. The day before she was sentenced to death, an official who used 15.8 billion yuan of public funds to cover his personal spending was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment.

Amnesty international believes Du Yimin did not receive a fair trial in line with international standards and condemns her execution.

Further information on UA: 42/09 Index: ASA 17/007/2009
People's Republic of China
Date: 07 August 2009

Amnesty International's original appeal, from 13 February 2009, is here.

Related stories:
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China -- 10 March 2009
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007