China issues guidelines to limit death penalty use
From: Xinhua, 9 February 2010
BEIJING, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) -- China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) said Tuesday it had issued guidelines for courts nationwide to handle criminal cases with a policy of "justice tempered with mercy," stressing that death penalty use be limited.
The guidelines say the death penalty should be "resolutely" handed down to those who have committed "extremely serious" crimes, but that the punishment should be reserved for the tiny minority of criminals against which there is valid and ample evidence.
The guidelines also say that capital punishment reprieves should be granted for as long as they are allowed by law.
The guidelines are an interpretation of the "justice tempered with mercy" policy and details on the judicial principles used when handling criminal cases, SPC spokesman Sun Jungong said.
The "justice tempered with mercy" policy was first enacted in a document approved in 2006 by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The policy required courts to issue both severe and lenient sentences, depending on the seriousness of each crime.
According to the guidelines, crimes involving officials taking advantage of their position and mafia-style gangs should be handled "with severity."
Severity should also be applied to repeat offenders.
On the other hand, the document says minors and senior citizens who commit crimes should be punished with leniency.
Commutation and paroles for ex-officials who took advantage of their public position, especially those at county-level or above, are required to be heard at court.
Commutations for criminals convicted of major crimes like murder and robbery are to be strictly limited, the guidlines say.
Showing posts with label sentencing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sentencing. Show all posts
Saturday, 13 February 2010
Friday, 30 May 2008
India: "Abusive lottery must be abolished"
The most comprehensive study of India's death penalty system ever conducted has concluded that it is an abusive and inconsistent process, hanging people on the basis of shockingly inadequate evidence.
Describing the system as a "lethal lottery", at the launch of the report on 2 May 2008, the study's authors said "the only remedy is to abolish the death penalty [in India] completely".
The landmark 243-page report Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India, A study of Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases 1950-2006 was published by Amnesty International India and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry).
Researchers analysed Supreme Court judgements handed down in more than 700 death penalty cases over a 56 year period.
Woefully few, too many
A summary of the study findings said the work was necessary "because of a vital gap that affected those campaigning against the death penalty: the absence of a comprehensive analysis of facts relating to the practice of capital punishment".
"There exist woefully few researched studies on the subject," it said.
Amnesty International reported at least 140 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 2007. The most recent official figures, from 31 December 2005, showed at least 273 people were on death row, a figure which would certainly have increased.
"The fate of these death row prisoners is ultimately a lottery," the study's authors said.
This research was "the first to examine the essential unfairness of the death penalty system in India by analysing evidence found in Supreme Court judgments of abuse of law and procedure and of arbitrariness and inconsistency in the investigation, trial, sentencing and appeal stages in capital cases".
It found that the death penalty was not limited to "rarest of rare cases" as claimed by politicians and courts. But "on the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that the death penalty has been an arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with defendants".
Poor evidence, poor defence
The main failings identified in the report were:
1. errors in consideration of evidence -- most death sentences handed down in India are based on circumstantial evidence alone. In a 1994 Supreme Court appeal, the Court noted the main witness's memory constantly improved from his statement a few days after the incident to the trial three years later
2. inadequate legal representation -- concerns include "lawyers ignoring key facts of mental incompetence, omitting to provide any arguments on sentencing, or failing to dispute claims that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime despite evidence to the contrary"
anti-terrorist legislation -- concerns include "the broad definition of 'terrorist acts', insufficient safeguards on arrest, and provisions allowing for confessions made to police to be admissible as evidence"
3. arbitrariness in sentencing -- "in the same month, different benches of the Supreme Court have treated similar cases differently, with mitigating factors taken into account or disregarded arbitrarily"
4. failure of the courts and state authorities to consistently apply the procedures supposed to limit the death penalty to the "rarest of rare" cases.
The report also condemned a range of failings in India's death penalty system, which were at odds with international standards on the use of the death penalty.
These included expansion in the scope of the death penalty, mandatory death sentences -- for example for drugs and firearms offences -- and a lack of safeguards to prevent execution of children and the mentally ill.
Doing without, for how long?
Amnesty International welcomed the "current hiatus" on executions in the past decade, and said this "illustrates that the people of India are willing to live without the death penalty".
The last execution in India was carried out in August 2004, when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged for the 1990 rape and murder of a girl. He was the first person to be hanged in India for over six years, having spent more than 14 years in prison.
However this week the Times of India reported that on May 16 a Bettiah court issued a "black warrant" for the execution of Prajeet Kumar Singh.
The newspaper said authorities in Bhagalpur Central Jail were preparing for its first execution in 13 years, which by law must take place between 21 and 28 days from a warrant being issued.
It quoted prison superintendant Uma Kant Sharan as saying the gallows would have to be readied and a hangman recruited.
"A separate request will be made to manufacturers of the special noose rope in Buxar," he said.
Prajeet's family, however, has reportedly lodged a petition for mercy with the President.
Related stories:
India: The politics of hanging -- 16 January, 2007
Describing the system as a "lethal lottery", at the launch of the report on 2 May 2008, the study's authors said "the only remedy is to abolish the death penalty [in India] completely".
The landmark 243-page report Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India, A study of Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases 1950-2006 was published by Amnesty International India and the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (Tamil Nadu & Puducherry).
Researchers analysed Supreme Court judgements handed down in more than 700 death penalty cases over a 56 year period.
Woefully few, too many
A summary of the study findings said the work was necessary "because of a vital gap that affected those campaigning against the death penalty: the absence of a comprehensive analysis of facts relating to the practice of capital punishment".
"There exist woefully few researched studies on the subject," it said.
Amnesty International reported at least 140 people were sentenced to death in 2006 and 2007. The most recent official figures, from 31 December 2005, showed at least 273 people were on death row, a figure which would certainly have increased.
"The fate of these death row prisoners is ultimately a lottery," the study's authors said.
This research was "the first to examine the essential unfairness of the death penalty system in India by analysing evidence found in Supreme Court judgments of abuse of law and procedure and of arbitrariness and inconsistency in the investigation, trial, sentencing and appeal stages in capital cases".
It found that the death penalty was not limited to "rarest of rare cases" as claimed by politicians and courts. But "on the contrary, there is ample evidence to show that the death penalty has been an arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with defendants".
Poor evidence, poor defence
The main failings identified in the report were:
1. errors in consideration of evidence -- most death sentences handed down in India are based on circumstantial evidence alone. In a 1994 Supreme Court appeal, the Court noted the main witness's memory constantly improved from his statement a few days after the incident to the trial three years later
2. inadequate legal representation -- concerns include "lawyers ignoring key facts of mental incompetence, omitting to provide any arguments on sentencing, or failing to dispute claims that the accused was under 18 years of age at the time of the crime despite evidence to the contrary"
anti-terrorist legislation -- concerns include "the broad definition of 'terrorist acts', insufficient safeguards on arrest, and provisions allowing for confessions made to police to be admissible as evidence"
3. arbitrariness in sentencing -- "in the same month, different benches of the Supreme Court have treated similar cases differently, with mitigating factors taken into account or disregarded arbitrarily"
4. failure of the courts and state authorities to consistently apply the procedures supposed to limit the death penalty to the "rarest of rare" cases.
The report also condemned a range of failings in India's death penalty system, which were at odds with international standards on the use of the death penalty.
These included expansion in the scope of the death penalty, mandatory death sentences -- for example for drugs and firearms offences -- and a lack of safeguards to prevent execution of children and the mentally ill.
Doing without, for how long?
Amnesty International welcomed the "current hiatus" on executions in the past decade, and said this "illustrates that the people of India are willing to live without the death penalty".
The last execution in India was carried out in August 2004, when Dhananjoy Chatterjee was hanged for the 1990 rape and murder of a girl. He was the first person to be hanged in India for over six years, having spent more than 14 years in prison.
However this week the Times of India reported that on May 16 a Bettiah court issued a "black warrant" for the execution of Prajeet Kumar Singh.
The newspaper said authorities in Bhagalpur Central Jail were preparing for its first execution in 13 years, which by law must take place between 21 and 28 days from a warrant being issued.
It quoted prison superintendant Uma Kant Sharan as saying the gallows would have to be readied and a hangman recruited.
"A separate request will be made to manufacturers of the special noose rope in Buxar," he said.
Prajeet's family, however, has reportedly lodged a petition for mercy with the President.
Related stories:
India: The politics of hanging -- 16 January, 2007
Tuesday, 31 July 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions
China's official media have reported a reduction in executions this year -- but once again the government refused to release meaningful statistics about the use of the death penalty.
China Daily reported that figures from Beijing No 1 and No 2 intermediate people's courts showed a 10 per cent drop in the first five months of this year compared with the same period last year.
Court spokesperson Ni Shouming said the situation was similar across the country, but he "declined to give details".
The newspaper said in an editorial that the "remarkable drop" showed the return to Supreme Court review had achieved its aim "to rein in irresponsible use of capital punishment" by local courts.
China Daily said the change came "after the Supreme People's Court recovered the right to review and approve all death sentences decided by local courts in the country".
From 1 January 2007, all death sentences handed down by provincial courts must be reviewed by the Supreme People's Court.
Official statistics quoted in the China Daily report showed nearly 890,000 people were convicted by all levels of courts across China, with nearly 154,000 receiving sentences longer than five years.
But these figures were useless for assessing the use of the death penalty, since they included custodial sentences over five years, life terms and executions.
'Trend towards leniency'
Criminal law expert Chen Weidong, from Renmin University of China, predicted death sentences would drop by 20 per cent over this year.
"Leniency and more judicious use of capital punishment is the trend of the time, a concept in line with international practice," he said.
Chen Zexian, deputy director of the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told China Daily that China would ultimately abolish the death penalty, but "it has to start from strict limits on the use of death penalties".
"It takes a long time for society to accept the abolition of the death penalty," he said.
China Daily's editorial said the implementation of a new approach to criminal law incorporated "both leniency and severity - with the accent on leniency".
This was "a break from China's traditional emphasis on harshness in law enforcement".
"The general appeal for leniency in criminal justice and, more specifically, the call for prudent use of the death sentence are both indications of civilized law enforcement," the newspaper said.
"But a more direct cause for the decline in the number of death sentences in the past months could well be the new requirement that all such verdicts be scrutinized by the Supreme Court."
'Political interference remains'
Human Rights Watch said while there appeared to be a drop in executions in China, the country still executed between 7,000 and 15,000 people a year.
Nicholas Becquelin, a China researcher with the organisation, said police and political interference was still common in the courts.
He told VOA News that recent efforts to cut the number of executions were also motivated by a desire to clean up the country's image before the 2008 Olympics.
"The number of death penalty [cases] and the sort of callousness in which the Chinese government executes people is regularly one of the top black spots on China's image in the international community," he said.
"And, with the Olympic Games coming closer and closer, this is definitely something that the Chinese authorities want to be seen as acting over."
Related stories:
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to video death penalty appeals -- 28 May 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
China Daily reported that figures from Beijing No 1 and No 2 intermediate people's courts showed a 10 per cent drop in the first five months of this year compared with the same period last year.
Court spokesperson Ni Shouming said the situation was similar across the country, but he "declined to give details".
The newspaper said in an editorial that the "remarkable drop" showed the return to Supreme Court review had achieved its aim "to rein in irresponsible use of capital punishment" by local courts.
China Daily said the change came "after the Supreme People's Court recovered the right to review and approve all death sentences decided by local courts in the country".
From 1 January 2007, all death sentences handed down by provincial courts must be reviewed by the Supreme People's Court.
Official statistics quoted in the China Daily report showed nearly 890,000 people were convicted by all levels of courts across China, with nearly 154,000 receiving sentences longer than five years.
But these figures were useless for assessing the use of the death penalty, since they included custodial sentences over five years, life terms and executions.
'Trend towards leniency'
Criminal law expert Chen Weidong, from Renmin University of China, predicted death sentences would drop by 20 per cent over this year.
"Leniency and more judicious use of capital punishment is the trend of the time, a concept in line with international practice," he said.
Chen Zexian, deputy director of the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told China Daily that China would ultimately abolish the death penalty, but "it has to start from strict limits on the use of death penalties".
"It takes a long time for society to accept the abolition of the death penalty," he said.
China Daily's editorial said the implementation of a new approach to criminal law incorporated "both leniency and severity - with the accent on leniency".
This was "a break from China's traditional emphasis on harshness in law enforcement".
"The general appeal for leniency in criminal justice and, more specifically, the call for prudent use of the death sentence are both indications of civilized law enforcement," the newspaper said.
"But a more direct cause for the decline in the number of death sentences in the past months could well be the new requirement that all such verdicts be scrutinized by the Supreme Court."
'Political interference remains'
Human Rights Watch said while there appeared to be a drop in executions in China, the country still executed between 7,000 and 15,000 people a year.
Nicholas Becquelin, a China researcher with the organisation, said police and political interference was still common in the courts.
He told VOA News that recent efforts to cut the number of executions were also motivated by a desire to clean up the country's image before the 2008 Olympics.
"The number of death penalty [cases] and the sort of callousness in which the Chinese government executes people is regularly one of the top black spots on China's image in the international community," he said.
"And, with the Olympic Games coming closer and closer, this is definitely something that the Chinese authorities want to be seen as acting over."
Related stories:
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to video death penalty appeals -- 28 May 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
Sunday, 6 May 2007
Drug penalty violates international law
Applying the death penalty for drug-related offences is a breach of international law, according to analysis by a leading human rights adviser to the United Nations.
Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said where it is used, the death penalty should be restricted to the "most serious crimes".
In a detailed analysis in his latest annual report to the Human Rights Council, he concluded the death penalty "must be limited to the most serious crimes, in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
The offences considered to be among the "most serious crimes" did not include those relating to drugs.
The death penalty is widely used across Asia for drug offences, including in China, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, where it is a mandatory sentence for a large number of drug crimes.
The 'most serious' issue
Professor Alston's report said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) first introduced the "basic requirement" restricting the application of the death penalty.
Article 6(1) states that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
This right is elaborated by Article 6(2), which specificies that: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes..."
He said the term was not defined in human rights treaties, but its meaning had been clarified over time through debate, principles of interpretation and the practice of international human rights bodies.
The UN Secretary-General and the Commission on Human Rights have stated and reinforced this principle, and it has also been elaborated through a large number of specific cases decided by the Human Rights Committee.
These developments "have all combined to clarify the meaning and significance of the phrase", which is now taken to refer to crimes where there is a deliberate loss of life.
'Not up to governments'
The report argued that it should be international law, rather than the laws or views of individual governments, which decides the crimes that are "most serious" and therefore liable to the death penalty.
Professor Alston said "a vast array of offences might understandably be classified by any given individual or Government as being among the "most serious"."
He cited work by a previous Special Rapporteur, which found death sentences had been imposed for offences and conduct ranging from corruption, drug possession and blasphemy, to prostitution, 'speculation' and vaguely defined 'crimes against the State'.
While these death sentences may have been considered legal within the country's criminal code and sentencing practices, he said it was not acceptable to leave individual governments to take a "subjective approach" to the issue.
Leaving it to governments to decide the meaning of the term was "not viable".
He said "such an approach would render the relevant international law standard meaningless".
The report found in its summary that, after a wide-ranging survey of legal principles and practice, "if it is to comply with the most serious crimes restriction, the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
Professor Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said where it is used, the death penalty should be restricted to the "most serious crimes".
In a detailed analysis in his latest annual report to the Human Rights Council, he concluded the death penalty "must be limited to the most serious crimes, in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
The offences considered to be among the "most serious crimes" did not include those relating to drugs.
The death penalty is widely used across Asia for drug offences, including in China, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, where it is a mandatory sentence for a large number of drug crimes.
The 'most serious' issue
Professor Alston's report said the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) first introduced the "basic requirement" restricting the application of the death penalty.
Article 6(1) states that: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
This right is elaborated by Article 6(2), which specificies that: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes..."
He said the term was not defined in human rights treaties, but its meaning had been clarified over time through debate, principles of interpretation and the practice of international human rights bodies.
The UN Secretary-General and the Commission on Human Rights have stated and reinforced this principle, and it has also been elaborated through a large number of specific cases decided by the Human Rights Committee.
These developments "have all combined to clarify the meaning and significance of the phrase", which is now taken to refer to crimes where there is a deliberate loss of life.
'Not up to governments'
The report argued that it should be international law, rather than the laws or views of individual governments, which decides the crimes that are "most serious" and therefore liable to the death penalty.
Professor Alston said "a vast array of offences might understandably be classified by any given individual or Government as being among the "most serious"."
He cited work by a previous Special Rapporteur, which found death sentences had been imposed for offences and conduct ranging from corruption, drug possession and blasphemy, to prostitution, 'speculation' and vaguely defined 'crimes against the State'.
While these death sentences may have been considered legal within the country's criminal code and sentencing practices, he said it was not acceptable to leave individual governments to take a "subjective approach" to the issue.
Leaving it to governments to decide the meaning of the term was "not viable".
He said "such an approach would render the relevant international law standard meaningless".
The report found in its summary that, after a wide-ranging survey of legal principles and practice, "if it is to comply with the most serious crimes restriction, the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life".
Tuesday, 16 January 2007
India: The politics of hanging
The death penalty is claimed as an act of justice, whereas in truth it is an act of politics.
It is a tool for those in power, or aspiring to power, to demonstrate politically 'desirable' qualities: strength, resolve, decisiveness, empathy with the victims of crimes that haven't been effectively prevented, legitimacy in the face of challenges to the state's authority.
These factors have been clearly in evidence in India in recent months, following a court's decision in September 2006 to set an execution date for Mohammad Afzal Guru.
Afzal was scheduled to hang in Tihar Jail on 20 October for conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India, waging war against India and murder. The execution was stayed after his wife filed a mercy petition.
He was charged after an armed attack on India's Parliament complex on 13 December 2001, in which several security guards and the five attacking gunmen were killed.
The attack was linked to militant Kashmiri separatist groups.
Political issue
When the execution date was first set, leaders of some Kashmiri separatist organisations encouraged Afzal not to appeal to the Indian President for mercy, preferring him to die a martyr, according to the Kashmir Observer.
Other Kashmiri leaders had argued that going ahead with the execution would damage the peace process in Kashmir.
Final appeals
The Supreme Court last week rejected an appeal from Afzal that argued he had been denied adequate legal representation during his trial.
His last hope lies with a petition for clemency which is now before India's President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
Judge 'opposed to death penalty'
The Supreme Court Judge who chaired the panel rejecting Afzal's appeal said on Saturday that courts had to impose the death penalty in the 'rarest of the rare' cases.
Outgoing Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said when he retired at the weekend that he was personally opposed to the death penalty but the courts were bound to impose it.
"Once a court arrives at a conclusion that a case falls in the category of 'rarest of rare' it has no option but to award death penalty," he said at a news conference on Saturday.
"My personal view that death penalty should be abolished doesn't matter.
"It's up to the legislature to decide whether to retain death penalty," Sabharwal said.
It is a tool for those in power, or aspiring to power, to demonstrate politically 'desirable' qualities: strength, resolve, decisiveness, empathy with the victims of crimes that haven't been effectively prevented, legitimacy in the face of challenges to the state's authority.
These factors have been clearly in evidence in India in recent months, following a court's decision in September 2006 to set an execution date for Mohammad Afzal Guru.
Afzal was scheduled to hang in Tihar Jail on 20 October for conspiracy to attack the Parliament of India, waging war against India and murder. The execution was stayed after his wife filed a mercy petition.
He was charged after an armed attack on India's Parliament complex on 13 December 2001, in which several security guards and the five attacking gunmen were killed.
The attack was linked to militant Kashmiri separatist groups.
Political issue
India's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has sought to make political gains out of the case, circulating a pamphlet outlining why Afzal should be executed and repeatedly calling on the government to reject clemency and hang him as soon as possible.
One report this week suggested the BJP would try to link the case to issues of terrorism, security and nationalism in forthcoming state elections.
When the execution date was first set, leaders of some Kashmiri separatist organisations encouraged Afzal not to appeal to the Indian President for mercy, preferring him to die a martyr, according to the Kashmir Observer.
Other Kashmiri leaders had argued that going ahead with the execution would damage the peace process in Kashmir.
Final appeals
The Supreme Court last week rejected an appeal from Afzal that argued he had been denied adequate legal representation during his trial.
His last hope lies with a petition for clemency which is now before India's President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.
Judge 'opposed to death penalty'
The Supreme Court Judge who chaired the panel rejecting Afzal's appeal said on Saturday that courts had to impose the death penalty in the 'rarest of the rare' cases.
Outgoing Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said when he retired at the weekend that he was personally opposed to the death penalty but the courts were bound to impose it.
"Once a court arrives at a conclusion that a case falls in the category of 'rarest of rare' it has no option but to award death penalty," he said at a news conference on Saturday.
"My personal view that death penalty should be abolished doesn't matter.
"It's up to the legislature to decide whether to retain death penalty," Sabharwal said.
Thursday, 23 November 2006
Mirza Tahir Hussain: Safe, free and home
UK national Mirza Tahir Hussain has returned home from Pakistan following President Pervez Musharaff's decision to commute his death sentence.
Hussain had endured three trials, two death sentences, four stays of execution and eighteen years in prison.
President Musharaff commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on Wednesday 15 October. A life sentence in Pakistan usually means a minimum term of 14 years in prison, making him immediately eligible for release. He was freed on Friday and he flew out for the UK the same day.
Hussain was scheduled to hang after 31 December, when a fourth stay of execution was due to expire.
After his family received confirmation of the decision, his brother Amjad said: "I welcome the news and I'm grateful to President Musharraf that he has taken this decision on humanitarian grounds.
"We are near the finishing line. At last, this 18 years of nightmare appears to be coming to an end."
Amjad Hussain said his brother would need time to recover and adjust after his years of imprisonment.
"There will be help and there will be counselling, he will have the best he can get.
"He needs to catch up on all the news that he's missed, the world has moved on and he's been living a life of standstill for the last 18 years," he said.
The BBC News website quoted a statement read on Mirza Hussein's behalf after his release: "It has been a tremendous strain to be separated from my family and loved ones.
"Freedom is a great gift. I want to use this freedom to get to know my family again, to adjust back to living here and to come to terms with my ordeal.
"My thoughts remain with all the prisoners I have left behind."
Under the shadow
Hussain was convicted of murdering taxi driver Jamshed Khan who died in Punjab Province on 17 December 1988. He had always claimed he was physically and sexually assaulted at gunpoint by the taxi driver, and the gun went off in the struggle that followed.
He was first sentenced to death in 1989, later reduced to life, before being acquitted of all charges in 1996. His case was then referred to the religious Federal Shariat Court and in 1998 he was sentenced to death for robbery involving murder, despite the Court's acknowledgement that no robbery was involved.
One of the three judges in his sharia court trial found that police had "fabricated evidence in a shameless manner".
The taxi driver's family later rejected an offer of blood money under Islamic law and insisted that the death sentence be carried out.
Amnesty International (AI), along with other organisations, argued he was convicted after an unfair trial and said "under no circumstances" should the sentence be upheld.
President Musharaff rejected a mercy petition, and he said in October that he did not have the power to override the judgement of a sharia court. But campaigners pointed out that article 45 of the constitution gave him the power to commute "any sentence passed by any court".
Later reports suggested the president was looking for legal grounds to commute the sentence.
UK campaign
Amjad Hussain led a strong campaign for clemency across the UK, including Amnesty International UK, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Catholic Church. Amjad reportedly gave up his job as a computer scientist to lead the campaign for his brother's freedom.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on Hussain's behalf, and Prince Charles made a direct appeal for mercy following an official meeting with President Musharaff in Islamabad on 30 October.
Related stories:
Pakistan: Fourth reprieve for Mirza Hussain -- 22 October, 2006
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October, 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system – 12 October, 2006
Pakistan: Hanging delayed, but how long? -- 03 October, 2006
UK pressure over Pakistan hanging -- 01 October, 2006
Pakistan, Mirza Tahir Hussain, Amjad Hussain, death row
Hussain had endured three trials, two death sentences, four stays of execution and eighteen years in prison.
President Musharaff commuted the sentence to life imprisonment on Wednesday 15 October. A life sentence in Pakistan usually means a minimum term of 14 years in prison, making him immediately eligible for release. He was freed on Friday and he flew out for the UK the same day.
Hussain was scheduled to hang after 31 December, when a fourth stay of execution was due to expire.
After his family received confirmation of the decision, his brother Amjad said: "I welcome the news and I'm grateful to President Musharraf that he has taken this decision on humanitarian grounds.
"We are near the finishing line. At last, this 18 years of nightmare appears to be coming to an end."
Amjad Hussain said his brother would need time to recover and adjust after his years of imprisonment.
"There will be help and there will be counselling, he will have the best he can get.
"He needs to catch up on all the news that he's missed, the world has moved on and he's been living a life of standstill for the last 18 years," he said.
The BBC News website quoted a statement read on Mirza Hussein's behalf after his release: "It has been a tremendous strain to be separated from my family and loved ones.
"Freedom is a great gift. I want to use this freedom to get to know my family again, to adjust back to living here and to come to terms with my ordeal.
"My thoughts remain with all the prisoners I have left behind."
Under the shadow
Hussain was convicted of murdering taxi driver Jamshed Khan who died in Punjab Province on 17 December 1988. He had always claimed he was physically and sexually assaulted at gunpoint by the taxi driver, and the gun went off in the struggle that followed.
He was first sentenced to death in 1989, later reduced to life, before being acquitted of all charges in 1996. His case was then referred to the religious Federal Shariat Court and in 1998 he was sentenced to death for robbery involving murder, despite the Court's acknowledgement that no robbery was involved.
One of the three judges in his sharia court trial found that police had "fabricated evidence in a shameless manner".
The taxi driver's family later rejected an offer of blood money under Islamic law and insisted that the death sentence be carried out.
Amnesty International (AI), along with other organisations, argued he was convicted after an unfair trial and said "under no circumstances" should the sentence be upheld.
President Musharaff rejected a mercy petition, and he said in October that he did not have the power to override the judgement of a sharia court. But campaigners pointed out that article 45 of the constitution gave him the power to commute "any sentence passed by any court".
Later reports suggested the president was looking for legal grounds to commute the sentence.
UK campaign
Amjad Hussain led a strong campaign for clemency across the UK, including Amnesty International UK, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Catholic Church. Amjad reportedly gave up his job as a computer scientist to lead the campaign for his brother's freedom.
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair intervened on Hussain's behalf, and Prince Charles made a direct appeal for mercy following an official meeting with President Musharaff in Islamabad on 30 October.
Related stories:
Pakistan: Fourth reprieve for Mirza Hussain -- 22 October, 2006
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October, 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system – 12 October, 2006
Pakistan: Hanging delayed, but how long? -- 03 October, 2006
UK pressure over Pakistan hanging -- 01 October, 2006
Pakistan, Mirza Tahir Hussain, Amjad Hussain, death row
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
