Source: Reuters (30 November 2022)
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-iran-expert-concerned-about-death-sentences-protesters-2022-11-29/
GENEVA, Nov 29 (Reuters) - A U.N.-appointed independent expert on Iran voiced concern on Tuesday that the repression of protesters was intensifying, with authorities launching a "campaign" of sentencing them to death.
The United Nations says more than 300 people have been killed so far and 14,000 arrested in protests that began after the Sept. 16 death in custody of 22-year-old Kurdish woman Mahsa Amini.
"I'm afraid that the Iranian regime will react violently to the Human Rights Council resolution and this may trigger more violence and repression on their part," Javaid Rehman told Reuters, referring to a UN Human Rights Council vote to establish a probe into the crackdown last week.
Tehran has rejected the investigation and says it will not cooperate.
"Now (authorities) have started a campaign of sentencing (protesters) to death," he added, saying he expected more to be sentenced.
Already, 21 people arrested in the context of the protests face the death penalty, including a woman indicted on "vague and broadly formulated criminal offences", and six have been sentenced this month, Rehman said.
Tehran has rejected the investigation and says it will not cooperate.
"Now (authorities) have started a campaign of sentencing (protesters) to death," he added, saying he expected more to be sentenced.
Already, 21 people arrested in the context of the protests face the death penalty, including a woman indicted on "vague and broadly formulated criminal offences", and six have been sentenced this month, Rehman said.
The U.N. resolution is seen as being among the more strongly-worded in the body's 16-year history and urges the mission to "collect, consolidate and analyse evidence".
Past investigations launched by the council have led to war crimes cases, including the jailing of a Syrian ex-officer for state-backed torture in Germany this year.
Rehman said he expected the new Fact-Finding Mission to provide a list of perpetrators and share that with national and regional legal authorities.
"It will ensure accountability and it will provide evidence to the courts and tribunals," he said. A U.N. document showed the mission would have 15 staff members and a budget of $3.67 million.
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 December 2022
Wednesday, 24 August 2022
Japan: End solitary confinement and video surveillance of death row prisoners
Source: FIDH (22 August 2022)
https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/japan/end-solitary-confinement-and-video-surveillance-of-death-row
Paris, Tokyo - 22 August 2022. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) denounce the use of solitary confinement and intrusive video surveillance of death row prisoners in Japan. Such measures amount to serious human rights violations and are grossly inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under international law.
According to the latest available official figures, at the end of 2021 there were 107 prisoners (99 men and eight women) under death sentence in Japan. Almost half of them (47 men and two women) were in Tokyo Detention House.
CPR research found that prisoners under death sentence in Tokyo Detention House are held in solitary confinement in 5.4-square-meter cells that are monitored 24 hours a day by closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras placed on the ceiling. There are no obstacles in front of the cameras, so everything is videotaped, including prisoners removing their clothes and underwear, as well as their use of toilets.
According to interviews conducted by CPR with five death row prisoners in Tokyo Detention House in May 2022, four of them had been kept in solitary confinement in such cells for periods ranging from three to nearly 15 years. A fifth prisoner was moved after more than 14 years to a cell without a surveillance camera, pursuant to a transfer order dated 1 March 2022. At the time of publication of this statement, the other four prisoners remain in cells monitored by CCTV cameras. Female prisoners under death sentence in Tokyo Detention House are also kept in solitary confinement in cells with CCTV cameras manned by male and female officers.
The use of prolonged solitary confinement and the constant video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence are inconsistent with international human rights treaties to which Japan is a state party, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Prolonged solitary confinement, as defined by the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Nelson Mandela Rules”), [1] is not in line with Articles 2 and 16 of the CAT, which impose on the Japanese government an obligation to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the UN Committee against Torture has long held that solitary confinement might constitute torture or inhuman treatment and should be prohibited for prisoners sentenced to death. [2] Prolonged solitary confinement is also inconsistent with Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Article 7 stipulates that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In its General Comment No. 20, the UN Human Right Committee (CCPR) states that prolonged solitary confinement of detained or imprisoned persons may amount to acts prohibited by Article 7 of the ICCPR. [3] In addition, Article 10 of the ICCPR stipulates that all persons deprived of their liberty should be treated “with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
With regard to the 24-hour video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence, this practice is inconsistent with Articles 10 and 17 of the ICCPR. In its General Comment No. 21, the CCPR states that respect for the dignity of persons deprived of their liberty “must be guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons” and that such persons enjoy all the rights set forth in the ICCPR, subject to the restrictions that are “unavoidable” in a closed environment. [4] Article 17 prohibits any “arbitrary or unlawful” interference with an individual’s privacy. The criteria of unlawfulness and arbitrariness are clarified by the CCPR in its General Comment No. 16, which states that interference authorized by the state can only take place on the basis of law, [5] and that even interference provided for by law “should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.” [6]
Video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence is not provided by law in Japan and its imposition appears to be arbitrary. The Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees (“2005 Prison Act”) stipulates that prisoners under death sentence shall be subject to solitary confinement, prohibiting any contact with other prisoners. However, the 2005 Prison Act does not include rules related to the use of CCTV surveillance in cells. As a result, each correctional institution issues its own Detailed Regulations on Treatment of Inmates Requiring Special Attention (Detailed Regulations). These regulations designate prisoners under death sentence as “prisoners requiring special attention” who must be monitored through CCTV cameras “when particularly strict surveillance is required.”
According to CCPR research, most correctional institutions in Japan have issued their Detailed Regulations. For example, the Detailed Regulations of Tokyo Detention House, Fukuoka Detention House, and Tokushima Prison specifically prescribe that individuals who have been sentenced to death and whose case is under appeal may be detained in cells equipped with video surveillance. Other correctional institutions redacted parts of the designation standards for prisoners requiring special attention, so it is unclear whether prisoners under death sentence in such facilities are designated as persons requiring special attention.
According to the Detailed Regulations of Tokyo Detention House, prisoners who have been sentenced to death and whose sentence is under appeal can be confined in surveillance camera cells only “when particularly strict surveillance is required.” Yet, prisoners under death sentence interviewed by CPR in Tokyo Detention House have not attempted to commit suicide or escape, and no special circumstances would appear to justify their strict surveillance, giving the measure an arbitrary character.
Video surveillance of female prisoners may amount to an additional violation of their right to privacy, whenever CCTV cameras in their cells are operated by male officers, as it can be inferred by the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the “Bangkok Rules”) and the CCPR’s General Comment No. 16. [7]
FIDH and CPR call on the Japanese government to end the use of solitary confinement and video surveillance of death row prisoners in all correctional facilities in Japan without undue delay. The two organizations also demand that death row prisoners held in cells equipped with video surveillance be immediately transferred to other cells without CCTV cameras.
https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/japan/end-solitary-confinement-and-video-surveillance-of-death-row
Paris, Tokyo - 22 August 2022. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Center for Prisoners’ Rights (CPR) denounce the use of solitary confinement and intrusive video surveillance of death row prisoners in Japan. Such measures amount to serious human rights violations and are grossly inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under international law.
According to the latest available official figures, at the end of 2021 there were 107 prisoners (99 men and eight women) under death sentence in Japan. Almost half of them (47 men and two women) were in Tokyo Detention House.
CPR research found that prisoners under death sentence in Tokyo Detention House are held in solitary confinement in 5.4-square-meter cells that are monitored 24 hours a day by closed-circuit TV (CCTV) cameras placed on the ceiling. There are no obstacles in front of the cameras, so everything is videotaped, including prisoners removing their clothes and underwear, as well as their use of toilets.
According to interviews conducted by CPR with five death row prisoners in Tokyo Detention House in May 2022, four of them had been kept in solitary confinement in such cells for periods ranging from three to nearly 15 years. A fifth prisoner was moved after more than 14 years to a cell without a surveillance camera, pursuant to a transfer order dated 1 March 2022. At the time of publication of this statement, the other four prisoners remain in cells monitored by CCTV cameras. Female prisoners under death sentence in Tokyo Detention House are also kept in solitary confinement in cells with CCTV cameras manned by male and female officers.
The use of prolonged solitary confinement and the constant video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence are inconsistent with international human rights treaties to which Japan is a state party, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
Prolonged solitary confinement, as defined by the United Nations (UN) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the “Nelson Mandela Rules”), [1] is not in line with Articles 2 and 16 of the CAT, which impose on the Japanese government an obligation to prevent torture and other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, the UN Committee against Torture has long held that solitary confinement might constitute torture or inhuman treatment and should be prohibited for prisoners sentenced to death. [2] Prolonged solitary confinement is also inconsistent with Articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR. Article 7 stipulates that no one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In its General Comment No. 20, the UN Human Right Committee (CCPR) states that prolonged solitary confinement of detained or imprisoned persons may amount to acts prohibited by Article 7 of the ICCPR. [3] In addition, Article 10 of the ICCPR stipulates that all persons deprived of their liberty should be treated “with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.”
With regard to the 24-hour video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence, this practice is inconsistent with Articles 10 and 17 of the ICCPR. In its General Comment No. 21, the CCPR states that respect for the dignity of persons deprived of their liberty “must be guaranteed under the same conditions as for that of free persons” and that such persons enjoy all the rights set forth in the ICCPR, subject to the restrictions that are “unavoidable” in a closed environment. [4] Article 17 prohibits any “arbitrary or unlawful” interference with an individual’s privacy. The criteria of unlawfulness and arbitrariness are clarified by the CCPR in its General Comment No. 16, which states that interference authorized by the state can only take place on the basis of law, [5] and that even interference provided for by law “should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances.” [6]
Video surveillance of prisoners under death sentence is not provided by law in Japan and its imposition appears to be arbitrary. The Act on Penal Detention Facilities and the Treatment of Inmates and Detainees (“2005 Prison Act”) stipulates that prisoners under death sentence shall be subject to solitary confinement, prohibiting any contact with other prisoners. However, the 2005 Prison Act does not include rules related to the use of CCTV surveillance in cells. As a result, each correctional institution issues its own Detailed Regulations on Treatment of Inmates Requiring Special Attention (Detailed Regulations). These regulations designate prisoners under death sentence as “prisoners requiring special attention” who must be monitored through CCTV cameras “when particularly strict surveillance is required.”
According to CCPR research, most correctional institutions in Japan have issued their Detailed Regulations. For example, the Detailed Regulations of Tokyo Detention House, Fukuoka Detention House, and Tokushima Prison specifically prescribe that individuals who have been sentenced to death and whose case is under appeal may be detained in cells equipped with video surveillance. Other correctional institutions redacted parts of the designation standards for prisoners requiring special attention, so it is unclear whether prisoners under death sentence in such facilities are designated as persons requiring special attention.
According to the Detailed Regulations of Tokyo Detention House, prisoners who have been sentenced to death and whose sentence is under appeal can be confined in surveillance camera cells only “when particularly strict surveillance is required.” Yet, prisoners under death sentence interviewed by CPR in Tokyo Detention House have not attempted to commit suicide or escape, and no special circumstances would appear to justify their strict surveillance, giving the measure an arbitrary character.
Video surveillance of female prisoners may amount to an additional violation of their right to privacy, whenever CCTV cameras in their cells are operated by male officers, as it can be inferred by the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the “Bangkok Rules”) and the CCPR’s General Comment No. 16. [7]
FIDH and CPR call on the Japanese government to end the use of solitary confinement and video surveillance of death row prisoners in all correctional facilities in Japan without undue delay. The two organizations also demand that death row prisoners held in cells equipped with video surveillance be immediately transferred to other cells without CCTV cameras.
Footnotes
[1] Rule 44 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states: “For the purpose of these rules, solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.”
[2] UN Committee against Torture, Observations of the Committee against Torture on the revision of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR), 16 December 2013; UN Doc. CAT/C/51/4, paras. 32-33.
[3] UN Human Rights Committee, 44th session, General Comment No. 20: Article 7, 1992; para. 6
[4] UN Human Rights Committee, 44th session, General Comment No. 21: Article 10, 10 April 1992; para. 3
[5] UN Human Rights Committee, 32nd session, CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), 8 April 1988; para. 3
[6] UN Human Rights Committee, 32nd session, CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), 8 April 1988; para. 4
[7] Rule 11 of the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders states: “If it is necessary for non-medical prison staff to be present during medical examinations, such staff should be women and examinations shall be carried out in a manner that safeguards privacy, dignity and confidentiality.” The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC’s) commentary to the Bangkok Rules states: “The presence of male staff in the examination and treatment of a woman prisoner may cause extreme distress and violates the right to privacy and should be avoided in all cases.” See also, CCPR’s General Comment No. 16, para.8.
[1] Rule 44 of the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners states: “For the purpose of these rules, solitary confinement shall refer to the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact. Prolonged solitary confinement shall refer to solitary confinement for a time period in excess of 15 consecutive days.”
[2] UN Committee against Torture, Observations of the Committee against Torture on the revision of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR), 16 December 2013; UN Doc. CAT/C/51/4, paras. 32-33.
[3] UN Human Rights Committee, 44th session, General Comment No. 20: Article 7, 1992; para. 6
[4] UN Human Rights Committee, 44th session, General Comment No. 21: Article 10, 10 April 1992; para. 3
[5] UN Human Rights Committee, 32nd session, CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), 8 April 1988; para. 3
[6] UN Human Rights Committee, 32nd session, CCPR General Comment No. 16: Article 17 (Right to Privacy), 8 April 1988; para. 4
[7] Rule 11 of the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders states: “If it is necessary for non-medical prison staff to be present during medical examinations, such staff should be women and examinations shall be carried out in a manner that safeguards privacy, dignity and confidentiality.” The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime’s (UNODC’s) commentary to the Bangkok Rules states: “The presence of male staff in the examination and treatment of a woman prisoner may cause extreme distress and violates the right to privacy and should be avoided in all cases.” See also, CCPR’s General Comment No. 16, para.8.
Wednesday, 29 June 2022
Myanmar democracy activists' death sentences upheld, junta says
Source: Reuters (4 June 2022)
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/myanmar-democracy-activists-death-sentences-upheld-junta-says-2022-06-03/
June 3 (Reuters) - Myanmar's military government said on Friday that appeals by two prominent democracy activists against their death sentences had been rejected, paving the way for the country's first executions in decades.
The government has received widespread condemnation abroad for ousting an elected government in a coup more than a year ago, and for the brutal crackdown that it has since unleashed on critics, opposition members and activists.
Kyaw Min Yu, a veteran democracy activist, and Phyo Zeyar Thaw, a lawmaker for the former ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) party, were sentenced to death by a military tribunal in January on charges of treason and terrorism, according to a junta statement at the time.
The United Nations said it was "deeply troubled" by Friday's announcement, which U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric described as a blatant human rights violation.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for charges to be dropped "against those arrested on charges related to the exercise of their fundamental freedoms and rights, and for the immediate release of all political prisoners in Myanmar," Dujarric said.
It was unclear whether Kyaw Min Yu and Phyo Zeyar Thaw had denied the charges against them. The junta statement did not mention their pleas.
Their appeals against the sentences were rejected, a junta spokesperson said, though it was unclear by whom. The activists' representatives could not be reached for comment.
"Previously, the convicts sentenced to death could appeal and if no decision was made, then their death sentences would not be implemented. At this time, that appeal was rejected so the death sentences are going to be implemented," junta spokesperson Zaw Min Tun told BBC Burmese.
He did not say when the executions would take place.
Judges in Myanmar sentence offenders to death for serious crimes including murder, but no one has been executed in decades.
The military took power after complaining of fraud in a November 2020 general election won by Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD. Election monitoring groups found no evidence of mass fraud.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/myanmar-democracy-activists-death-sentences-upheld-junta-says-2022-06-03/
June 3 (Reuters) - Myanmar's military government said on Friday that appeals by two prominent democracy activists against their death sentences had been rejected, paving the way for the country's first executions in decades.
The government has received widespread condemnation abroad for ousting an elected government in a coup more than a year ago, and for the brutal crackdown that it has since unleashed on critics, opposition members and activists.
Kyaw Min Yu, a veteran democracy activist, and Phyo Zeyar Thaw, a lawmaker for the former ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) party, were sentenced to death by a military tribunal in January on charges of treason and terrorism, according to a junta statement at the time.
The United Nations said it was "deeply troubled" by Friday's announcement, which U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric described as a blatant human rights violation.
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for charges to be dropped "against those arrested on charges related to the exercise of their fundamental freedoms and rights, and for the immediate release of all political prisoners in Myanmar," Dujarric said.
It was unclear whether Kyaw Min Yu and Phyo Zeyar Thaw had denied the charges against them. The junta statement did not mention their pleas.
Their appeals against the sentences were rejected, a junta spokesperson said, though it was unclear by whom. The activists' representatives could not be reached for comment.
"Previously, the convicts sentenced to death could appeal and if no decision was made, then their death sentences would not be implemented. At this time, that appeal was rejected so the death sentences are going to be implemented," junta spokesperson Zaw Min Tun told BBC Burmese.
He did not say when the executions would take place.
Judges in Myanmar sentence offenders to death for serious crimes including murder, but no one has been executed in decades.
The military took power after complaining of fraud in a November 2020 general election won by Aung San Suu Kyi's NLD. Election monitoring groups found no evidence of mass fraud.
Monday, 29 November 2021
Iran: UN Experts Say Executions Of Child Offenders Must Stop
Source: Scoop (26 November 2021)
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2111/S00314/iran-un-experts-say-executions-of-child-offenders-must-stop.htm
GENEVA (25 November 2021) UN human rights experts* today strongly condemned the execution of Arman Abdolali, convicted for an alleged murder committed when he was 17, and demanded that Iran stop sentencing children to death.
There are currently over 85 juvenile offenders on death row in Iran, sentenced to death following processes that significantly violate international human rights law. The majority of those sentenced to death are from marginalized groups or are individuals who themselves have been victims of abuse.
Arman Abdolali was executed at dawn on 24 November. He was transferred to solitary confinement the previous evening.
“We strongly deplore that the authorities proceeded with the execution of juvenile offender Arman Abdolali, in violation of an absolute prohibition under international human rights law,” the experts said.
Arman Abdolali’s execution had been scheduled and re-scheduled at least on six occasions, during which he was transferred to solitary confinement in preparation for his execution only to be returned to his cell at the last minute. Special Procedures mandate holders and experts from Treaty Bodies had on several occasions, including on 12 October, called on the Government to halt his execution.
“This case is emblematic of the deep flaws of the juvenile justice system in the Islamic Republic of Iran and we call on the Government to undertake reforms as a matter of priority,” the experts said. Human rights mechanisms have consistently called on Iran to abolish the death penalty, in particular for juvenile offenders.
“In the meantime, we call on the Government to commute all death sentences issued against juvenile offenders, in line with its international obligations.”
* The experts: Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; Mikiko Otani, Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO2111/S00314/iran-un-experts-say-executions-of-child-offenders-must-stop.htm
GENEVA (25 November 2021) UN human rights experts* today strongly condemned the execution of Arman Abdolali, convicted for an alleged murder committed when he was 17, and demanded that Iran stop sentencing children to death.
There are currently over 85 juvenile offenders on death row in Iran, sentenced to death following processes that significantly violate international human rights law. The majority of those sentenced to death are from marginalized groups or are individuals who themselves have been victims of abuse.
Arman Abdolali was executed at dawn on 24 November. He was transferred to solitary confinement the previous evening.
“We strongly deplore that the authorities proceeded with the execution of juvenile offender Arman Abdolali, in violation of an absolute prohibition under international human rights law,” the experts said.
Arman Abdolali’s execution had been scheduled and re-scheduled at least on six occasions, during which he was transferred to solitary confinement in preparation for his execution only to be returned to his cell at the last minute. Special Procedures mandate holders and experts from Treaty Bodies had on several occasions, including on 12 October, called on the Government to halt his execution.
“This case is emblematic of the deep flaws of the juvenile justice system in the Islamic Republic of Iran and we call on the Government to undertake reforms as a matter of priority,” the experts said. Human rights mechanisms have consistently called on Iran to abolish the death penalty, in particular for juvenile offenders.
“In the meantime, we call on the Government to commute all death sentences issued against juvenile offenders, in line with its international obligations.”
* The experts: Javaid Rehman, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran; Mikiko Otani, Chair of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Morris Tidball-Binz, Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; Nils Melzer, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Sunday, 7 July 2019
Sri Lanka: Resuming Death Penalty a Major Setback
Source: Human Rights Watch (30 June 2019)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/30/sri-lanka-resuming-death-penalty-major-setback
(New York) – The Sri Lanka government should halt plans to resume executions and restore its de facto 43-year moratorium on the use of the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said he has ordered the execution of four drug offenders, claiming it would end increasing addiction problems in the country.
“Sri Lanka’s plan to resume use of the death penalty is a major setback for human rights,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Sri Lanka has been a bulwark against capital punishment in Asia for more than four decades, yet now the Sirisena government wants to throw in its lot with less rights-respecting regimes.”
The death penalty has not been carried out in Sri Lanka since 1976. Currently, 1,299 prisoners – 1,215 men and 84 women – are on Sri Lanka’s death row after having been convicted for capital offenses, including 48 people convicted for drug crimes.
Sirisena said he was determined to crack down on drug trafficking after over 300,000 people in Sri Lanka allegedly became addicts, with 60 percent of 24,000 prison inmates incarcerated for drug-related offenses.
The United Nations General Assembly has continually called on countries to establish a moratorium on the death penalty, progressively restrict the practice, and reduce the offenses for which it might be imposed – all with a view toward its eventual abolition.
Where the death penalty is permitted, international human rights law limits the death penalty to “the most serious crimes,” typically crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. In a March 2010 report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically urged member countries to prohibit use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, while urging countries to take an overall “human rights-based approach to drug and crime control.”
In its 2014 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with monitoring compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to abolish the death penalty for drug offenses. The UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime.” In September 2015, the UN high commissioner for human rights reaffirmed that “persons convicted of drug-related offences … should not be subject to the death penalty.”
Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty. The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked.
“The death penalty is a cruel practice that has no place in modern society for combating drug crimes or any other offense,” Adams said. “Sri Lanka should work toward upholding its human rights pledges and immediately rescind the execution orders.”
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/06/30/sri-lanka-resuming-death-penalty-major-setback
(New York) – The Sri Lanka government should halt plans to resume executions and restore its de facto 43-year moratorium on the use of the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena said he has ordered the execution of four drug offenders, claiming it would end increasing addiction problems in the country.
“Sri Lanka’s plan to resume use of the death penalty is a major setback for human rights,” said Brad Adams, Asia director. “Sri Lanka has been a bulwark against capital punishment in Asia for more than four decades, yet now the Sirisena government wants to throw in its lot with less rights-respecting regimes.”
The death penalty has not been carried out in Sri Lanka since 1976. Currently, 1,299 prisoners – 1,215 men and 84 women – are on Sri Lanka’s death row after having been convicted for capital offenses, including 48 people convicted for drug crimes.
Sirisena said he was determined to crack down on drug trafficking after over 300,000 people in Sri Lanka allegedly became addicts, with 60 percent of 24,000 prison inmates incarcerated for drug-related offenses.
The United Nations General Assembly has continually called on countries to establish a moratorium on the death penalty, progressively restrict the practice, and reduce the offenses for which it might be imposed – all with a view toward its eventual abolition.
Where the death penalty is permitted, international human rights law limits the death penalty to “the most serious crimes,” typically crimes resulting in death or serious bodily harm. In a March 2010 report, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime called for an end to the death penalty and specifically urged member countries to prohibit use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses, while urging countries to take an overall “human rights-based approach to drug and crime control.”
In its 2014 annual report, the International Narcotics Control Board, the agency charged with monitoring compliance with UN drug control conventions, encouraged countries to abolish the death penalty for drug offenses. The UN Human Rights Committee and the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions have concluded that the death penalty for drug offenses fails to meet the condition of “most serious crime.” In September 2015, the UN high commissioner for human rights reaffirmed that “persons convicted of drug-related offences … should not be subject to the death penalty.”
Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty. The alleged deterrent effect of the death penalty has been repeatedly debunked.
“The death penalty is a cruel practice that has no place in modern society for combating drug crimes or any other offense,” Adams said. “Sri Lanka should work toward upholding its human rights pledges and immediately rescind the execution orders.”
Saturday, 29 December 2018
Death penalty: Global abolition closer than ever as record number of countries vote to end executions
Source: Amnesty International (17 December 2018)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/global-abolition-closer-than-ever-as-record-number-of-countries-vote-to-end-executions/
After a record number of UN member states today supported at the final vote a key UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, Amnesty International’s Death Penalty Expert Chiara Sangiorgio said:
“The fact that more countries than ever before have voted to end executions shows that global abolition of the death penalty is becoming an inevitable reality. A death penalty-free world is closer than ever.
“This vote sends yet another important signal that more and more countries are willing to take steps to end this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment once and for all.
“The result also shows the increasing isolation of the 35 countries that voted against the resolution. Those countries still retaining the death penalty should immediately establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards full abolition.”
Background
121 of the UN’s 193 member states voted in favour of the seventh resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the UNGA plenary session in New York, while 35 voted against and 32 abstained. 117 had done so in December 2016. This resolution was proposed by Brazil on behalf of an Inter-Regional Task Force of member states and co-sponsored by 83 states.
For the first time, Dominica, Libya, Malaysia and Pakistan changed their vote to support the resolution, while Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana and South Sudan moved from opposition to abstention. Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Mauritius, Niger, and Rwanda once again voted in favour of the call for a moratorium on executions, having not done so in 2016.
Five countries reversed their 2016 votes, with Nauru moving from vote in favour to vote against and Bahrain and Zimbabwe switching from abstention to opposition. Congo and Guinea changed from voting in favour to abstention.
When the UN was founded in 1945 only eight of the then 51 UN member states had abolished the death penalty. Today, 103 of 193 member states have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, and 139 have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2017 executions were reported in 22 UN member states, 11% of the total. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/12/global-abolition-closer-than-ever-as-record-number-of-countries-vote-to-end-executions/
After a record number of UN member states today supported at the final vote a key UN General Assembly resolution calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, Amnesty International’s Death Penalty Expert Chiara Sangiorgio said:
“The fact that more countries than ever before have voted to end executions shows that global abolition of the death penalty is becoming an inevitable reality. A death penalty-free world is closer than ever.
“This vote sends yet another important signal that more and more countries are willing to take steps to end this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment once and for all.
“The result also shows the increasing isolation of the 35 countries that voted against the resolution. Those countries still retaining the death penalty should immediately establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards full abolition.”
Background
121 of the UN’s 193 member states voted in favour of the seventh resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the UNGA plenary session in New York, while 35 voted against and 32 abstained. 117 had done so in December 2016. This resolution was proposed by Brazil on behalf of an Inter-Regional Task Force of member states and co-sponsored by 83 states.
For the first time, Dominica, Libya, Malaysia and Pakistan changed their vote to support the resolution, while Antigua and Barbuda, Guyana and South Sudan moved from opposition to abstention. Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Mauritius, Niger, and Rwanda once again voted in favour of the call for a moratorium on executions, having not done so in 2016.
Five countries reversed their 2016 votes, with Nauru moving from vote in favour to vote against and Bahrain and Zimbabwe switching from abstention to opposition. Congo and Guinea changed from voting in favour to abstention.
When the UN was founded in 1945 only eight of the then 51 UN member states had abolished the death penalty. Today, 103 of 193 member states have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, and 139 have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2017 executions were reported in 22 UN member states, 11% of the total. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception.
Saturday, 14 October 2017
Indonesia’s Contradictory Death Penalty Rhetoric
Source: Human Rights Watch (11 October 2017)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/11/indonesias-contradictory-death-penalty-rhetoric
Indonesia’s government on Tuesday marked World Day Against the Death Penalty by issuing a self-serving and contradictory statement on its death penalty policy.
Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly reaffirmed the government won’t seek to abolish the death penalty, but would pursue a “win-win solution” designed to appease both death penalty supporters and opponents. That might include mandatory judicial reviews of death penalty judgments and possible sentence commutation for death row prisoners.
Indonesia ended a four-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty in March 2013, and President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has made the execution of convicted drug traffickers a signature policy issue. Since Jokowi took office in 2014, 18 convicted drug traffickers were executed in 2015 and 2016 – the majority citizens of other countries. Jokowi has routinely rejected their governments’ calls for clemency, citing national sovereignty. The government’s apparent newfound flexibility on its death penalty policy, including a temporary suspension of executions in 2017, was linked by the attorney general to its ambitions to secure United Nations member support to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Recent evidence uncovered by the ombudsman of “maladministration” by the Indonesian government in denying the legal rights of a Nigerian citizen executed for drug trafficking in July 2016 underscore the need for the death penalty’s abolition. But Laoly’s claims of a more flexible death penalty policy are contradicted by Indonesia’s performance last month during the UN Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia’s rights record. Jakarta rejected recommendations by UN member countries that the government enhance safeguards on the use of the death penalty, including adequate and early legal representation for defendants and not executing people with mental illness. It also rejected a recommendation to review all cases with a view to commuting death sentences or at least ensuring “fair trials that fully comply with international standards.”
Jokowi’s government should stop its cynical efforts to use the cruel and irreversible punishment of the death penalty as a bargaining chip for a Security Council seat. Instead it should publicly recognize that the death penalty has no place in a right-respecting country and immediately move toward abolition.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/10/11/indonesias-contradictory-death-penalty-rhetoric
Indonesia’s government on Tuesday marked World Day Against the Death Penalty by issuing a self-serving and contradictory statement on its death penalty policy.
Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly reaffirmed the government won’t seek to abolish the death penalty, but would pursue a “win-win solution” designed to appease both death penalty supporters and opponents. That might include mandatory judicial reviews of death penalty judgments and possible sentence commutation for death row prisoners.
Indonesia ended a four-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty in March 2013, and President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has made the execution of convicted drug traffickers a signature policy issue. Since Jokowi took office in 2014, 18 convicted drug traffickers were executed in 2015 and 2016 – the majority citizens of other countries. Jokowi has routinely rejected their governments’ calls for clemency, citing national sovereignty. The government’s apparent newfound flexibility on its death penalty policy, including a temporary suspension of executions in 2017, was linked by the attorney general to its ambitions to secure United Nations member support to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Recent evidence uncovered by the ombudsman of “maladministration” by the Indonesian government in denying the legal rights of a Nigerian citizen executed for drug trafficking in July 2016 underscore the need for the death penalty’s abolition. But Laoly’s claims of a more flexible death penalty policy are contradicted by Indonesia’s performance last month during the UN Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia’s rights record. Jakarta rejected recommendations by UN member countries that the government enhance safeguards on the use of the death penalty, including adequate and early legal representation for defendants and not executing people with mental illness. It also rejected a recommendation to review all cases with a view to commuting death sentences or at least ensuring “fair trials that fully comply with international standards.”
Jokowi’s government should stop its cynical efforts to use the cruel and irreversible punishment of the death penalty as a bargaining chip for a Security Council seat. Instead it should publicly recognize that the death penalty has no place in a right-respecting country and immediately move toward abolition.
Wednesday, 11 October 2017
Death penalty has 'no place in 21st century'
Source: Channel News Asia (11 October 2017)
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/death-penalty-has-no-place-in-21st-century-un-chief-9298458?view=DEFAULT
UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an end to the death penalty on Tuesday (Oct 10), insisting it has "no place in the 21st century".
He urged member states that still execute convicts to join the 170 countries that have halted or abolished the practice, warning that the risk of a miscarriage of justice is an "unacceptably high price" to pay.
"I want to make a plea to all states that continue this barbaric practice: please stop the executions," Guterres said at an event marking the 15th World Day Against the Death Penalty.
Capital punishment "does little to serve victims or deter crime," Guterres said, adding that most of the UN's 193 members do not carry out executions.
"Just last month, two African states - The Gambia and Madagascar - took major steps towards irreversible abolition of the death penalty," he said.
"In 2016, executions worldwide were down 37 per cent from 2015. Today just four countries are responsible for 87 per cent of all recorded executions," he added.
Advertisement
Those four countries are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, a UN official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Guterres also called for transparency from states where the death penalty is legal, asking them to let lawyers do their job.
"Some governments conceal executions and enforce an elaborate system of secrecy to hide who is on death row, and why," Guterres said. "Others classify information on the death penalty as a state secret, making its release an act of treason."
This lack of transparency "shows a lack of respect for the human rights of those sentenced to death and to their families."
Source: AFP/de
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/death-penalty-has-no-place-in-21st-century-un-chief-9298458?view=DEFAULT
UNITED NATIONS: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an end to the death penalty on Tuesday (Oct 10), insisting it has "no place in the 21st century".
He urged member states that still execute convicts to join the 170 countries that have halted or abolished the practice, warning that the risk of a miscarriage of justice is an "unacceptably high price" to pay.
"I want to make a plea to all states that continue this barbaric practice: please stop the executions," Guterres said at an event marking the 15th World Day Against the Death Penalty.
Capital punishment "does little to serve victims or deter crime," Guterres said, adding that most of the UN's 193 members do not carry out executions.
"Just last month, two African states - The Gambia and Madagascar - took major steps towards irreversible abolition of the death penalty," he said.
"In 2016, executions worldwide were down 37 per cent from 2015. Today just four countries are responsible for 87 per cent of all recorded executions," he added.
Advertisement
Those four countries are China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, a UN official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Guterres also called for transparency from states where the death penalty is legal, asking them to let lawyers do their job.
"Some governments conceal executions and enforce an elaborate system of secrecy to hide who is on death row, and why," Guterres said. "Others classify information on the death penalty as a state secret, making its release an act of treason."
This lack of transparency "shows a lack of respect for the human rights of those sentenced to death and to their families."
Source: AFP/de
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
UNGA 2016 Resolution – How Countries Voted
Source: Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (19 December 2016)
https://adpan.org/2017/01/10/unga-2016-resolution-how-countries-voted/
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY(UNGA) MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY RESOLUTION..19/12/2016
[117 of the UN’s 193 member states voted in favour of the proposal. Only 40 states voted against it and 31 abstained at the vote]
Below the Draft Test of the Resolution (for the final text, visit UN Website)
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations,
Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Recalling the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and in this regard welcoming the increasing number of accessions to and ratifications of the Second Optional Protocol,
Reaffirming its resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007, 63/168 of 18 December 2008, 65/206 of 21 December 2010, 67/176 of 20 December 2012 and 69/186 of 18 December 2014 on the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which the General Assembly called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing it,
Welcoming all relevant decisions and resolutions of the Human Rights Council,
Mindful that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable,
Convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty,
Noting ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty, as well as the readiness of an increasing number of Member States to make available to the public information on the use of the death penalty, and also, in this regard, the decision by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 26/2 of 26 June 20145 to convene biennial high-level panel discussions in order to further exchange views on the question of the death penalty,
Recognizing the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty,
Welcoming the considerable movement towards the abolition of the death penalty globally and the fact that many States are applying a moratorium, including long-standing moratoriums, either in law or in practice, on the use of the death penalty,
Emphasizing the need to ensure that persons facing the death penalty are treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity and in compliance with their rights under international human rights law,
Noting the technical cooperation among Member States, as well as the role of relevant United Nations entities and human rights mechanisms, in supporting State efforts to establish moratoriums on the death penalty,
Bearing in mind the work of special procedures mandate holders who have addressed human rights issues related to the death penalty within the framework of their respective mandates,
Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;
Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;
Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 69/186 and the recommendations contained therein;
Also welcomes the steps taken by some States to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, as well as steps taken to limit its application;
Further welcomes initiatives and political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic decision-making;
Welcomes the decisions made by an increasing number of States from all regions, at all levels of government, to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty;
Calls upon all States:
(a) To respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984, as well as to provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;
(b) To comply with their obligations under article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, particularly the right to receive information on consular assistance;
(c) To make available relevant information, disaggregated by sex, age, and race, as applicable, and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the number of executions carried out, the number of death sentences reversed or commuted on appeal and information on any scheduled execution, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States pertaining to the use of the death penalty;
(d) To progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and not to impose capital punishment for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age, on pregnant women or on persons with mental or intellectual disabilities;
(e) To reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed;
(f) To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;
(g) To establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;
Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it, and encourages them to share their experience in this regard;
Encourages States which have a moratorium to maintain it and to share their experience in this regard;
Calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;
Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its seventy-third session under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”.
Some observations of a friend as follows:-
The plenary session of the UN General Assembly adopted yesterday its sixth resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with 117 votes in favour, 40 against and 31 abstentions.
The text of the resolution includes some positive new additions compared to 2014, including:
-a reference to the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty;
-a request to make available relevant information on any scheduled execution, in addition to other information already listed in previous resolutions;
-a call on states that still retain the death penalty “To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;”
Unfortunately the opponents of the resolution managed this year to include in the resolution a new paragraph that recalls their sovereign right to determine their legal systems, as follows:
“1. Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;”
While the number of the votes in favour remained the same as in 2014, there have been some interesting changes in the voting, both positively and negatively:
Positive changes:
-Guinea, Malawi, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka moved from abstention to vote in favour;
-Zimbabwe moved from vote against to abstention;
– Swaziland also moved from not present to vote in favour (but voted against the resolution in previous years).
-Lesotho moved from not present to abstention (but abstained in previous resolutions, so did not mention this in our AI statement); Nauru moved from not present to vote in favour (but supported the resolutions in previous years, so we did not mention this in our statement).
Negative changes:
-Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Philippines, Seychelles moved from vote in favour to abstention;
-Maldives moved from abstention to vote against;
-Burundi and South Sudan moved from vote in favour to vote against.
Several states also did not vote yesterday, for whatever reason, contributing to the final results:
-DRC, Gambia, Senegal went from abstention to not present;
-Rwanda went from vote in favour to not present.
This leaves us with a somewhat bittersweet result: on one hand, the number of votes in favour has not become higher compared to 2014; on the other hand, some of the positive changes might signal the beginning of new journeys towards abolition.
2016 has been a very challenging year all around, including for the death penalty-some of the negative vote changes were somewhat expected, some perhaps speak to greater human rights challenges.
Thank you nonetheless for your continued work to get us all here-look forward to more work together in the new year.
Amnesty International’s public statement on yesterday’s vote can be found below and at this link: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/5389/2016/en/
https://adpan.org/2017/01/10/unga-2016-resolution-how-countries-voted/
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY(UNGA) MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY RESOLUTION..19/12/2016
[117 of the UN’s 193 member states voted in favour of the proposal. Only 40 states voted against it and 31 abstained at the vote]
Below the Draft Test of the Resolution (for the final text, visit UN Website)
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations,
Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Recalling the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and in this regard welcoming the increasing number of accessions to and ratifications of the Second Optional Protocol,
Reaffirming its resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007, 63/168 of 18 December 2008, 65/206 of 21 December 2010, 67/176 of 20 December 2012 and 69/186 of 18 December 2014 on the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which the General Assembly called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing it,
Welcoming all relevant decisions and resolutions of the Human Rights Council,
Mindful that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable,
Convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty,
Noting ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty, as well as the readiness of an increasing number of Member States to make available to the public information on the use of the death penalty, and also, in this regard, the decision by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 26/2 of 26 June 20145 to convene biennial high-level panel discussions in order to further exchange views on the question of the death penalty,
Recognizing the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty,
Welcoming the considerable movement towards the abolition of the death penalty globally and the fact that many States are applying a moratorium, including long-standing moratoriums, either in law or in practice, on the use of the death penalty,
Emphasizing the need to ensure that persons facing the death penalty are treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity and in compliance with their rights under international human rights law,
Noting the technical cooperation among Member States, as well as the role of relevant United Nations entities and human rights mechanisms, in supporting State efforts to establish moratoriums on the death penalty,
Bearing in mind the work of special procedures mandate holders who have addressed human rights issues related to the death penalty within the framework of their respective mandates,
Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;
Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;
Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 69/186 and the recommendations contained therein;
Also welcomes the steps taken by some States to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, as well as steps taken to limit its application;
Further welcomes initiatives and political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic decision-making;
Welcomes the decisions made by an increasing number of States from all regions, at all levels of government, to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty;
Calls upon all States:
(a) To respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984, as well as to provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;
(b) To comply with their obligations under article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, particularly the right to receive information on consular assistance;
(c) To make available relevant information, disaggregated by sex, age, and race, as applicable, and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the number of executions carried out, the number of death sentences reversed or commuted on appeal and information on any scheduled execution, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States pertaining to the use of the death penalty;
(d) To progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and not to impose capital punishment for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age, on pregnant women or on persons with mental or intellectual disabilities;
(e) To reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed;
(f) To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;
(g) To establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;
Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it, and encourages them to share their experience in this regard;
Encourages States which have a moratorium to maintain it and to share their experience in this regard;
Calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;
Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its seventy-third session under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”.
Some observations of a friend as follows:-
The plenary session of the UN General Assembly adopted yesterday its sixth resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with 117 votes in favour, 40 against and 31 abstentions.
The text of the resolution includes some positive new additions compared to 2014, including:
-a reference to the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty;
-a request to make available relevant information on any scheduled execution, in addition to other information already listed in previous resolutions;
-a call on states that still retain the death penalty “To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;”
Unfortunately the opponents of the resolution managed this year to include in the resolution a new paragraph that recalls their sovereign right to determine their legal systems, as follows:
“1. Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;”
While the number of the votes in favour remained the same as in 2014, there have been some interesting changes in the voting, both positively and negatively:
Positive changes:
-Guinea, Malawi, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka moved from abstention to vote in favour;
-Zimbabwe moved from vote against to abstention;
– Swaziland also moved from not present to vote in favour (but voted against the resolution in previous years).
-Lesotho moved from not present to abstention (but abstained in previous resolutions, so did not mention this in our AI statement); Nauru moved from not present to vote in favour (but supported the resolutions in previous years, so we did not mention this in our statement).
Negative changes:
-Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Philippines, Seychelles moved from vote in favour to abstention;
-Maldives moved from abstention to vote against;
-Burundi and South Sudan moved from vote in favour to vote against.
Several states also did not vote yesterday, for whatever reason, contributing to the final results:
-DRC, Gambia, Senegal went from abstention to not present;
-Rwanda went from vote in favour to not present.
This leaves us with a somewhat bittersweet result: on one hand, the number of votes in favour has not become higher compared to 2014; on the other hand, some of the positive changes might signal the beginning of new journeys towards abolition.
2016 has been a very challenging year all around, including for the death penalty-some of the negative vote changes were somewhat expected, some perhaps speak to greater human rights challenges.
Thank you nonetheless for your continued work to get us all here-look forward to more work together in the new year.
Amnesty International’s public statement on yesterday’s vote can be found below and at this link: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/5389/2016/en/
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
India opposes UN resolution for moratorium on death penalty
Source: Gulf News (22 November 2016)
http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/india-opposes-un-resolution-for-moratorium-on-death-penalty-1.1932108
United Nations: India has opposed a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, saying it goes against Indian law and the sovereign right of countries to determine their own laws and penalties.
“The resolution before us sought to promote a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty,” Mayank Joshi, a counsellor at India’s UN Mission said on Thursday. “My delegation, therefore, has voted against the resolution as a whole as it goes against Indian statutory law.”
The resolution, however, was adopted by the General Assembly’s committee dealing with humanitarian affairs by 115 votes to 38 with 31 abstentions after an acrimonious debate and the adoption of an amendment to recognise the sovereign rights of nations to determine their own laws, which virtually nullified it.
India supported the amendment and Joshi told the committee: “Every state has the sovereign right to determine its own legal system and appropriate legal penalties.”
The amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 72 with 26 abstentions. However, it did not mollify India, which voted against the amended resolution.
Explaining New Delhi’s position on capital punishment, Joshi said, “In India, the death penalty is exercised in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime committed is so heinous as to shock the conscience of society.”
In the last 12 years only three executions — all of them of terrorists — have been carried out in the nation of 1.2 billion.
Last year Yakub Memon, who financed the 1993 Mumbai bombings, was executed. Mohammad Afzal, convicted of plotting the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament, was hanged in 2013 and Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, one of the terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attack was executed in 2012.
An independent judiciary hears the cases where death penalty can be imposed and appeals are permitted at several levels, Joshi said. Moreover, the Supreme Court has decreed that “poverty, socio-economic, psychic compulsions, undeserved adversities in life” should be considered as mitigating factors in imposing the death penalty, he added.
The amendment about the sovereign right of nations to have their own legal systems was introduced by Singapore. Its delegate said that the original resolution was one-sided and tried to impose the values of one group of countries upon others.
New Zealand, echoing the sentiments of several other countries, said that sovereignty did not absolve nations from complying with international norms of human rights and the death penalty violated it.
The United States also opposed the resolution saying that capital punishment was legal under international law and dealing with it was a domestic matter.
http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/india-opposes-un-resolution-for-moratorium-on-death-penalty-1.1932108
United Nations: India has opposed a UN resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, saying it goes against Indian law and the sovereign right of countries to determine their own laws and penalties.
“The resolution before us sought to promote a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty,” Mayank Joshi, a counsellor at India’s UN Mission said on Thursday. “My delegation, therefore, has voted against the resolution as a whole as it goes against Indian statutory law.”
The resolution, however, was adopted by the General Assembly’s committee dealing with humanitarian affairs by 115 votes to 38 with 31 abstentions after an acrimonious debate and the adoption of an amendment to recognise the sovereign rights of nations to determine their own laws, which virtually nullified it.
India supported the amendment and Joshi told the committee: “Every state has the sovereign right to determine its own legal system and appropriate legal penalties.”
The amendment passed by a vote of 76 to 72 with 26 abstentions. However, it did not mollify India, which voted against the amended resolution.
Explaining New Delhi’s position on capital punishment, Joshi said, “In India, the death penalty is exercised in the rarest of rare cases, where the crime committed is so heinous as to shock the conscience of society.”
In the last 12 years only three executions — all of them of terrorists — have been carried out in the nation of 1.2 billion.
Last year Yakub Memon, who financed the 1993 Mumbai bombings, was executed. Mohammad Afzal, convicted of plotting the 2001 attack on India’s Parliament, was hanged in 2013 and Mohammad Ajmal Amir Qasab, one of the terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attack was executed in 2012.
An independent judiciary hears the cases where death penalty can be imposed and appeals are permitted at several levels, Joshi said. Moreover, the Supreme Court has decreed that “poverty, socio-economic, psychic compulsions, undeserved adversities in life” should be considered as mitigating factors in imposing the death penalty, he added.
The amendment about the sovereign right of nations to have their own legal systems was introduced by Singapore. Its delegate said that the original resolution was one-sided and tried to impose the values of one group of countries upon others.
New Zealand, echoing the sentiments of several other countries, said that sovereignty did not absolve nations from complying with international norms of human rights and the death penalty violated it.
The United States also opposed the resolution saying that capital punishment was legal under international law and dealing with it was a domestic matter.
Friday, 10 June 2016
ASEAN setback: Forward march on death penalty
Source: The Jakarta Post (10 June 2016)
http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/06/01/asean-setback-forward-march-on-death-penalty.html
Last Wednesday President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo announced a controversial regulation in lieu of law, citing the many recent reports involving the rape and murder of children. The controversy stems from the addition of heavier penalties for the aforementioned crimes which include, among others, a life sentence, chemical castration and even the death penalty in particular cases. The death penalty has been outlined for cases where the crime has led to severe damage or death, or if the perpetrators were family members and or guardians of the victims.
The regulation is criticized for lacking a comprehensive perspective regarding sexual violence targeting children and also for strengthening the death penalty regime.
This is a setback from the government’s commitment to human rights protection — compared to the moratorium on the death penalty in 2009-2013. The high number of executions carried out under the President Jokowi administration is inconsistent with a commitment made among ASEAN leaders to protect the right to life as stated in the ASEAN Charter on Human Rights, adopted in 2012.
Executions and leaders’ statements elsewhere also indicate questionable commitment from ASEAN countries in regard to moving forward with a death penalty moratorium in the region.
Singapore executed Kho Jabing, a Malaysian citizen, on May 20, hours after the highest court rejected his appeal for clemency. In April, Malaysia also executed its citizens, Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu, Ramesh and Sasivarnam Jayakumar for murder. Indonesia may proceed to the next round of executions with a list of 14 death row convicts, reportedly after Idul Fitri in early July.
In April this year, Indonesia was criticized again by rights groups for claiming pro-capital punishment countries as like-minded groups in the UN General Assembly meeting, responding to outcry from a number of European countries over the assembly document, which omitted the commitment to promote the abolition of the death penalty.
The silence of ASEAN governments on this issue, before and following the Kho Jabing execution — presumably rooted in ASEAN’s principle of non-interference — will continue to be the biggest challenge for the future of death penalty abolition in Southeast Asia.
Unfortunately Jabing belonged to a country that does not seem to care about losing a life of its citizen. Let us not forget what happened to Filipino convict Mary Jane Veloso, whose country’s leaders had actively lobbied the Indonesian government, although the possibility of preventing her from execution is very unlikely.
At least their attempts have succeeded to delay the execution, providing more time for possible steps toward clemency. Similarly, regarding Indonesian migrant workers facing the death penalty in Malaysia, our government has actively provided legal assistance as well as bilateral diplomacy to prevent its citizens from executions.
Therefore, it is ironic that our government is planning a third round of executions. Moreover, the plan of the newly elected president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, to revive the use of the death penalty, has a severe impact on the movement to abolish the death penalty in the region, as the country previously was among the few nations supporting its abolition.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights records that in Southeast Asia only three out of 11 UN members have abolished capital punishment — Timor Leste, Cambodia and the Philippines. Cambodia’s and Timor Leste’s commitment to eliminate capital punishment is part of their post-conflict reconstruction under the aegis of the UN. Meanwhile, the abolition found its momentum in the Philippines as part of the commitment to cut off the Ferdinand Marcos’ legacy, also sending a letter, reflecing active diplomatic roles in defending their migrant workers facing the death penalty abroad.
We still recall the migrant workers Sarah Balabagan and Flor Contemplacion sentenced to death for murder, cases that demonstrate the totality of the Philippines to defend its citizens from executions. This attempt has set the new benchmark and best practice for other ASEAN countries on how a country should protect its citizens facing the death penalty abroad.
Thus, Duterte’s plan to revive the death penalty in the Philippines is counterproductive, and would affect the government’s commitment to save the lives of its migrant workers abroad.
Meanwhile, Indonesia’s representative for the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights ( AICHR ), Dinna Wisnu, called for the abolition of the death penalty in ASEAN.
A similar call has come from the Malaysian AICHR representative Muhammad S. Abdullah for his active role in defending Wilfrida Soik, an Indonesian migrant worker, from execution.
However, their efforts promoting the abolition of capital punishment must be supported by comprehensive measures so as to push ASEAN countries to move away from their conservatism and look at the opportunity to end the death penalty.
In 2012 the road map toward abolishing capital punishment recorded a brighter picture when a few ASEAN countries no longer rejected the moratorium of the death penalty as shown in the table above.
The stance for abstention has given new hope for ASEAN to be a region in which the right to life would finally be respected as a non-derogable right.
Thus Indonesia’s rights defenders continue to mobilize support and international solidarity to promote the abolition of the death penalty, including in the current penal code amendment discussed by lawmakers.
Activists in the Philippines will surely continue to fight Duterte’s plan to revive the death penalty. It is precisely in this alarming situation that the momentum is here to urge leaders of ASEAN countries to walk their talk in protecting human rights as enshrined in the ASEAN Charter, by developing a road map for the abolition of death penalty in the region.
***
Wahyu Susilo is a policy analyst for Migrant CARE, an NGO. Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum is a researcher for the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy ( ELSAM ) and a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales Law School in Sydney.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/06/01/asean-setback-forward-march-on-death-penalty.html
Last Wednesday President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo announced a controversial regulation in lieu of law, citing the many recent reports involving the rape and murder of children. The controversy stems from the addition of heavier penalties for the aforementioned crimes which include, among others, a life sentence, chemical castration and even the death penalty in particular cases. The death penalty has been outlined for cases where the crime has led to severe damage or death, or if the perpetrators were family members and or guardians of the victims.
The regulation is criticized for lacking a comprehensive perspective regarding sexual violence targeting children and also for strengthening the death penalty regime.
This is a setback from the government’s commitment to human rights protection — compared to the moratorium on the death penalty in 2009-2013. The high number of executions carried out under the President Jokowi administration is inconsistent with a commitment made among ASEAN leaders to protect the right to life as stated in the ASEAN Charter on Human Rights, adopted in 2012.
This is a setback from the government’s commitment to human rights protection — compared to the moratorium on the death penalty in 2009-2013.(OHCHR/*)
Executions and leaders’ statements elsewhere also indicate questionable commitment from ASEAN countries in regard to moving forward with a death penalty moratorium in the region.
Singapore executed Kho Jabing, a Malaysian citizen, on May 20, hours after the highest court rejected his appeal for clemency. In April, Malaysia also executed its citizens, Gunasegar Pitchaymuthu, Ramesh and Sasivarnam Jayakumar for murder. Indonesia may proceed to the next round of executions with a list of 14 death row convicts, reportedly after Idul Fitri in early July.
In April this year, Indonesia was criticized again by rights groups for claiming pro-capital punishment countries as like-minded groups in the UN General Assembly meeting, responding to outcry from a number of European countries over the assembly document, which omitted the commitment to promote the abolition of the death penalty.
The silence of ASEAN governments on this issue, before and following the Kho Jabing execution — presumably rooted in ASEAN’s principle of non-interference — will continue to be the biggest challenge for the future of death penalty abolition in Southeast Asia.
Unfortunately Jabing belonged to a country that does not seem to care about losing a life of its citizen. Let us not forget what happened to Filipino convict Mary Jane Veloso, whose country’s leaders had actively lobbied the Indonesian government, although the possibility of preventing her from execution is very unlikely.
At least their attempts have succeeded to delay the execution, providing more time for possible steps toward clemency. Similarly, regarding Indonesian migrant workers facing the death penalty in Malaysia, our government has actively provided legal assistance as well as bilateral diplomacy to prevent its citizens from executions.
Therefore, it is ironic that our government is planning a third round of executions. Moreover, the plan of the newly elected president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, to revive the use of the death penalty, has a severe impact on the movement to abolish the death penalty in the region, as the country previously was among the few nations supporting its abolition.
The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights records that in Southeast Asia only three out of 11 UN members have abolished capital punishment — Timor Leste, Cambodia and the Philippines. Cambodia’s and Timor Leste’s commitment to eliminate capital punishment is part of their post-conflict reconstruction under the aegis of the UN. Meanwhile, the abolition found its momentum in the Philippines as part of the commitment to cut off the Ferdinand Marcos’ legacy, also sending a letter, reflecing active diplomatic roles in defending their migrant workers facing the death penalty abroad.
We still recall the migrant workers Sarah Balabagan and Flor Contemplacion sentenced to death for murder, cases that demonstrate the totality of the Philippines to defend its citizens from executions. This attempt has set the new benchmark and best practice for other ASEAN countries on how a country should protect its citizens facing the death penalty abroad.
Thus, Duterte’s plan to revive the death penalty in the Philippines is counterproductive, and would affect the government’s commitment to save the lives of its migrant workers abroad.
Meanwhile, Indonesia’s representative for the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights ( AICHR ), Dinna Wisnu, called for the abolition of the death penalty in ASEAN.
A similar call has come from the Malaysian AICHR representative Muhammad S. Abdullah for his active role in defending Wilfrida Soik, an Indonesian migrant worker, from execution.
However, their efforts promoting the abolition of capital punishment must be supported by comprehensive measures so as to push ASEAN countries to move away from their conservatism and look at the opportunity to end the death penalty.
In 2012 the road map toward abolishing capital punishment recorded a brighter picture when a few ASEAN countries no longer rejected the moratorium of the death penalty as shown in the table above.
The stance for abstention has given new hope for ASEAN to be a region in which the right to life would finally be respected as a non-derogable right.
Thus Indonesia’s rights defenders continue to mobilize support and international solidarity to promote the abolition of the death penalty, including in the current penal code amendment discussed by lawmakers.
Activists in the Philippines will surely continue to fight Duterte’s plan to revive the death penalty. It is precisely in this alarming situation that the momentum is here to urge leaders of ASEAN countries to walk their talk in protecting human rights as enshrined in the ASEAN Charter, by developing a road map for the abolition of death penalty in the region.
***
Wahyu Susilo is a policy analyst for Migrant CARE, an NGO. Indriaswati Dyah Saptaningrum is a researcher for the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy ( ELSAM ) and a PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales Law School in Sydney.
Friday, 25 September 2015
UN: Riyadh stop the death sentence of Arab Spring protestor
Source: Asia News (23 September 2015)
Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was under age and in high school in 2012 when he joined the protests in the eastern city of Qatif. United Nations officials say he was subjected to violence, torture and abuse by the police; the confession was extorted by force. He faces beheading and crucifixion. In 2015 the Executioner has already killed 134 people in the Saudi kingdom.
UN officials, human rights experts are appealing to the authorities in Riyadh to put a stop to the execution of a young man accused of joining a criminal gang after having participated in the Arab Spring protests when he was a minor. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was still attending high school when, in 2012, he joined those who were demonstrating to demand reforms and greater democracy in Qatif, a town in the eastern part of the kingdom.In an official statement the UN officials say the young man was repeatedly subjected to torture, abuse, forced to confess and did not receive adequate legal assistance before and during his trial. His appeal was conducted "with a total disregard of international standards".
"Every judgment - the UN report says - that imposes the death penalty on persons who were minors at the time, and their effect, is incompatible with the international obligations assumed by Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, the young man is locked up on death row, and "could be executed at any time." After decapitation, the boy will be crucified by the authorities as a "warning against the criminals."
In addition to the conviction for joining a criminal gang, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was also indicted for attacking the police. Two other people, also minors at the time, could soon end up in the hands of the Executioner always in connection with protests in Qatif.
Activists and human rights groups say that between January 1985 and June 2015, Saudi Arabia executed at least 2,208 people, about half of them foreigners; among those killed by the Executioner are people with mental disabilities and minors. This year the number of executions has already reached 134, 44 more than in last year's total.
"We appeal to the Saudi authorities - the UN experts conclude - because a moratorium to the use of the death penalty, interrupt the execution of convicted persons and minors at the time. Finally, thorough investigations should be launched into alleged cases of torture".
UN officials, human rights experts are appealing to the authorities in Riyadh to put a stop to the execution of a young man accused of joining a criminal gang after having participated in the Arab Spring protests when he was a minor. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was still attending high school when, in 2012, he joined those who were demonstrating to demand reforms and greater democracy in Qatif, a town in the eastern part of the kingdom.In an official statement the UN officials say the young man was repeatedly subjected to torture, abuse, forced to confess and did not receive adequate legal assistance before and during his trial. His appeal was conducted "with a total disregard of international standards".
"Every judgment - the UN report says - that imposes the death penalty on persons who were minors at the time, and their effect, is incompatible with the international obligations assumed by Saudi Arabia.
Meanwhile, the young man is locked up on death row, and "could be executed at any time." After decapitation, the boy will be crucified by the authorities as a "warning against the criminals."
In addition to the conviction for joining a criminal gang, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr was also indicted for attacking the police. Two other people, also minors at the time, could soon end up in the hands of the Executioner always in connection with protests in Qatif.
Activists and human rights groups say that between January 1985 and June 2015, Saudi Arabia executed at least 2,208 people, about half of them foreigners; among those killed by the Executioner are people with mental disabilities and minors. This year the number of executions has already reached 134, 44 more than in last year's total.
"We appeal to the Saudi authorities - the UN experts conclude - because a moratorium to the use of the death penalty, interrupt the execution of convicted persons and minors at the time. Finally, thorough investigations should be launched into alleged cases of torture".
Tuesday, 15 September 2015
UN experts call for abolition of death penalty in India
Source: Gulf News India (13 September 2015)
http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/un-experts-call-for-abolition-of-death-penalty-in-india-1.1582758
United Nations: UN human rights experts have welcomed recommendations made by India's Law Commission to abolish death penalty with the exception of terror offences and called on Indian authorities to move towards the complete abolition of capital punishment.
"The conclusions and recommendations of the Indian Law Commission represent an important voice in favour of the abolition of the death penalty in India," Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns said.
"I encourage the Indian authorities to implement these recommendations and to move towards the complete abolition of the death penalty for all offences," he added.
The Indian Law Commission issued its report on August 31, concluding that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and recommended its abolition for all crimes, except terrorism-related offences and waging war.
The Commission had been tasked by the Supreme Court to study the issue of the death penalty in India.
In its report, the Indian Law Commission recognised that, while on death row, the prisoner "suffers from extreme agony, anxiety and debilitating fear arising out of an imminent yet uncertain execution," and that "the death row phenomenon is compounded by the degrading and oppressive effects of conditions of imprisonment imposed on the convict, including solitary confinement".
The recommendation by the 9-member panel was, however, not unanimous, with one full-time member and two government representatives dissenting and supporting retention of capital punishment.
Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez said the Indian authorities should review the findings very carefully and ratify the law.
The experts also welcomed the decision to reduce the number of crimes subject to death penalty by China.
China amended several provisions of its Criminal Law, replacing death penalty with life imprisonment for several offences, including smuggling of weapons, ammunition, nuclear materials and counterfeit currency; obstruction of duty of police; and creating rumours during wartime.
"By adopting these amendments to its criminal code, China has made progress in the right direction; this needs to be encouraged," the UN experts noted.
"These new developments in India and China are in line with the general trend towards the abolition of the death penalty at a global level, even if there are isolated moves in the opposite direction," Heyns said.
Special rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme.
http://gulfnews.com/news/asia/india/un-experts-call-for-abolition-of-death-penalty-in-india-1.1582758
United Nations: UN human rights experts have welcomed recommendations made by India's Law Commission to abolish death penalty with the exception of terror offences and called on Indian authorities to move towards the complete abolition of capital punishment.
"The conclusions and recommendations of the Indian Law Commission represent an important voice in favour of the abolition of the death penalty in India," Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns said.
"I encourage the Indian authorities to implement these recommendations and to move towards the complete abolition of the death penalty for all offences," he added.
The Indian Law Commission issued its report on August 31, concluding that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent and recommended its abolition for all crimes, except terrorism-related offences and waging war.
The Commission had been tasked by the Supreme Court to study the issue of the death penalty in India.
In its report, the Indian Law Commission recognised that, while on death row, the prisoner "suffers from extreme agony, anxiety and debilitating fear arising out of an imminent yet uncertain execution," and that "the death row phenomenon is compounded by the degrading and oppressive effects of conditions of imprisonment imposed on the convict, including solitary confinement".
The recommendation by the 9-member panel was, however, not unanimous, with one full-time member and two government representatives dissenting and supporting retention of capital punishment.
Special Rapporteur on torture Juan Mendez said the Indian authorities should review the findings very carefully and ratify the law.
The experts also welcomed the decision to reduce the number of crimes subject to death penalty by China.
China amended several provisions of its Criminal Law, replacing death penalty with life imprisonment for several offences, including smuggling of weapons, ammunition, nuclear materials and counterfeit currency; obstruction of duty of police; and creating rumours during wartime.
"By adopting these amendments to its criminal code, China has made progress in the right direction; this needs to be encouraged," the UN experts noted.
"These new developments in India and China are in line with the general trend towards the abolition of the death penalty at a global level, even if there are isolated moves in the opposite direction," Heyns said.
Special rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a country situation or a specific human rights theme.
Saturday, 27 June 2015
Indonesia court rejects French citizen's death sentence appeal
Source: Jurist (23 Jun 2015)
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/06/indonesia-court-rejects-french-citizens-death-sentence-appeal.php
The State Administrative Court of Jakarta[official website, in Indonesian] on Monday denied the clemency appeal of a French citizen sentenced to death on a drug trafficking charge. The appeal of Serge Atlaoui was an effort to reverse the original clemency denial made by President Joko Widodo [BBC profile] last year. The country has received significant criticism for its use of the death penalty for drug offenses, particularly against foreign nationals. In its opinion, the Jakarta court said that granting clemency was the exclusive prerogative of the president. France, which firmly opposes the death penalty, has aimed to provided aid [Le Monde report, in French] to Atlaoui and has warned of "consequences" should the execution be completed.
Indonesia's use of the death penalty has been an international point of contention, with several members of the international community speaking out against the practice. In April, Indonesia exectued eight convicted drug smugglers said to be part of the "Bali Nine" smuggling ring by firing squad. In February a spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] urged the Indonesian government to halt all executions of people convicted of drug-related offenses. In January another spokesperson for the OHCHR voiced concern over the continued use of the death penalty in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The OHCHR reported that eight more people convicted of drug trafficking in Vietnam had been sentenced to death. Also in January Brazil and the Netherlands recalled their ambassadors from Indonesia after an Indonesian firing squad executed six convicted drug traffickers.
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2015/06/indonesia-court-rejects-french-citizens-death-sentence-appeal.php
The State Administrative Court of Jakarta[official website, in Indonesian] on Monday denied the clemency appeal of a French citizen sentenced to death on a drug trafficking charge. The appeal of Serge Atlaoui was an effort to reverse the original clemency denial made by President Joko Widodo [BBC profile] last year. The country has received significant criticism for its use of the death penalty for drug offenses, particularly against foreign nationals. In its opinion, the Jakarta court said that granting clemency was the exclusive prerogative of the president. France, which firmly opposes the death penalty, has aimed to provided aid [Le Monde report, in French] to Atlaoui and has warned of "consequences" should the execution be completed.
Indonesia's use of the death penalty has been an international point of contention, with several members of the international community speaking out against the practice. In April, Indonesia exectued eight convicted drug smugglers said to be part of the "Bali Nine" smuggling ring by firing squad. In February a spokesperson for the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] urged the Indonesian government to halt all executions of people convicted of drug-related offenses. In January another spokesperson for the OHCHR voiced concern over the continued use of the death penalty in Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The OHCHR reported that eight more people convicted of drug trafficking in Vietnam had been sentenced to death. Also in January Brazil and the Netherlands recalled their ambassadors from Indonesia after an Indonesian firing squad executed six convicted drug traffickers.
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
Southeast Asia: UN rights office appeals for halt in executions for drug crimes
Source: New Kerala (21 January 2015)
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2015/fullnews-8893.html
"Drug-related offences, economic crimes, political crimes, adultery, and offences relating to consensual same-sex relationships did not fall under the threshold of 'most serious crimes' required under international law for application of the death penalty," Shamdasani said.
OHCHR expressed its concern about the continued use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes in parts of South East Asia, where last Sunday, six people convicted of drug offences were executed in Indonesia in spite of several national and international appeals. Further, a court in Vietnam on Tuesday reportedly sentenced eight people, including two women, to death for heroin trafficking.
Heroin Drugs
The Office is particularly concerned about the respect for due process in such cases after Indonesian President Joko Widodo reportedly stated that he would reject all requests for clemency for drug-related crimes, the Spokeswomen said.
OHCHR urged the Indonesian authorities to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty and to conduct a thorough review of all requests for pardon with a view to commutation of sentence, Shamdasani said.
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia has ratified, "anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence," according to the spokeswoman.
OHCHR also called on Vietnam not to carry out those executions of the eight people sentenced on Tuesday , to ensure judicial review of the sentences, and to consider elimination of the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
In Southeast Asia, drug-related crimes are punishable by death in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam.
While those crimes are also punishable by death in Brunei Darussalam, the Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic and Myanmar, those three countries have not carried out executions since 1957, 1989 and 1988, respectively.
The OHCHR Spokesperson said the International Narcotics Control Board had encouraged States that still imposed the death penalty for drug-related offenses to abolish that punishment.
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2015/fullnews-8893.html
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Tuesday expressed concern over the use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes in Southeast Asia and urged authorities to abolish the punishment amid reports that eight more people had been sentenced to death for heroin trafficking.
"According to international human rights jurisprudence, capital punishment could only be applied to the crime of murder or intentional killing," OHCHR spokesperson Ravina Shamdasani told reporters in Geneva, where the Office is based."Drug-related offences, economic crimes, political crimes, adultery, and offences relating to consensual same-sex relationships did not fall under the threshold of 'most serious crimes' required under international law for application of the death penalty," Shamdasani said.
OHCHR expressed its concern about the continued use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes in parts of South East Asia, where last Sunday, six people convicted of drug offences were executed in Indonesia in spite of several national and international appeals. Further, a court in Vietnam on Tuesday reportedly sentenced eight people, including two women, to death for heroin trafficking.
The Office is particularly concerned about the respect for due process in such cases after Indonesian President Joko Widodo reportedly stated that he would reject all requests for clemency for drug-related crimes, the Spokeswomen said.
OHCHR urged the Indonesian authorities to reinstate a moratorium on the death penalty and to conduct a thorough review of all requests for pardon with a view to commutation of sentence, Shamdasani said.
According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia has ratified, "anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence," according to the spokeswoman.
OHCHR also called on Vietnam not to carry out those executions of the eight people sentenced on Tuesday , to ensure judicial review of the sentences, and to consider elimination of the death penalty for drug-related crimes.
In Southeast Asia, drug-related crimes are punishable by death in Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam.
While those crimes are also punishable by death in Brunei Darussalam, the Lao Peoples' Democratic Republic and Myanmar, those three countries have not carried out executions since 1957, 1989 and 1988, respectively.
The OHCHR Spokesperson said the International Narcotics Control Board had encouraged States that still imposed the death penalty for drug-related offenses to abolish that punishment.
Taiwan: Six more executions signal cruel about-turn on death penalty
Source: Amnesty International (19 April 2013)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/articles/news/2013/04/taiwan-six-more-executions-signal-cruel-about-turn-death-penalty/
Taiwanese authorities executed six men on Friday night in what Amnesty International said was a cruel change of heart from their earlier stated commitment to abolish the brutal practice. Those put to death were: Chen Tung-Jung, Chen Jui-Chin, Lin Chin-Te, Chang Pao-Hui, Li Chia Hsuan, and Chi Chun-I. These latest executions come only a few months after Taiwan put to death six other inmates in December 2012, the only executions carried out in the country last year. “A dozen executions in Taiwan in less than six months raises serious questions about the authorities’ pledges to abolish the death penalty,” said Catherine Baber, Asia-Pacific Programme Director at Amnesty International. “President Ma Ying-jeou should impose an immediate moratorium on the use of the death penalty to engage in a national debate about abolishing its use in the future.”
In February, Manfred Nowak, a former UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Eibe Riedel, a member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, visited Taiwan after calling for such a moratorium. Novak and Riedel were part of an Independent Experts panel invited by the government to consider its report on implementation of UN human rights covenants. In their report issued in Taipei on 1 March 2013, the Independent Experts strongly recommended that the government of Taiwan intensify its efforts towards abolition of capital punishment and – as a first and decisive step – to introduce an immediate moratorium on executions. They urged the government, pending abolition, to observe all relevant procedural and substantive safeguards relating to the use of capital punishment and in particular to commute the death sentence in all cases where such punishment was imposed on the basis of a confession extracted through torture.
The Taiwanese government has replied to the observations saying that it would be "difficult" for Taiwan to abolish the death penalty at this stage and they have set up a special committee to examine the different possibilities for gradual abolition of the death penalty.Amnesty International’s annual Death Sentences and Executions report, published earlier this month, lists Taiwan as one of only eight countries or territories in the Asia-Pacific region that carried out executions in 2012. Its six executions last year made it the fifth-largest executioner in the region. There are currently 50 people awaiting execution in Taiwan after exhausting all appeals.Family members are typically not informed about scheduled executions in advance. They only find out when they are invited to collect the body from the mortuary. In addition, serious fair trial concerns have marked the country’s use of the death penalty. In April 2012, Taiwan's High Court quashed the convictions of three men sentenced to death over the murder of a couple 21 years ago, as it found that the convictions were based on unreliable confessions. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to carry out the execution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
