The Singapore Government has brushed aside appeals from Nigeria's President and Parliament to spare a Nigerian footballer from execution.
Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, 21, is set to be hanged in Changi jail at dawn on 26 January for trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2004.
Appeals from Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo and House of Representatives have failed to move the Singapore government from its plans to carry out the execution.
'Strong signals' not rehabilitation
Yesterday African newspaper This Day Online reported Singapore's prisons department had defended the death penalty for drug offences.
The Singapore Prisons Department, whose website features the slogan "REHAB * RENEW * RESTART", said in a statement: "The death penalty is imposed for the most serious of crimes, which sends a strong signal to would-be offenders to deter them from committing such crimes as drug trafficking, murder and use of firearms.
"We weigh the right to life of the convicted against the rights of victims and the right of the community to live and work in peace and security," the statement said.
'Earnest' appeals
This Day Online reported on 23 January that President Olusegun Obasanjo had asked Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to personally intervene in the case.
The report said the President wrote to Prime Minister Loong appealing for presidential clemency to save Tochi, citing the "excellent relationship" that existed between the two countries.
"It is for the reason of obtaining your kind pardon and clemency for the convicted Nigerian that I write this letter to you, conscious of the excellent relations that exist between our two countries, to earnestly urge you to reconsider the conviction of the Singaporean Court of Appeal and to commute the death sentence to imprisonment," the President wrote in his letter.
The same day, a House of Representatives plenary held to discuss the case urged President Obasanjo to do everything within his power to intervene in the case.
A motion sponsored by Hon. Halims Agoda urged members of the House and the government to act on the case.
Agoda said: "We as a people and parliament must defend the right of our people in and outside the country. If South African president could rise to the aid of its citizen [Okele Nelson Malachy] who was also convicted with Tochi and his sentence was deferred, the Nigerian government should also do what is right for its citizen."
After the plenary discussion, House Speaker Alhaji Aminu Bello Masari said he would personally convey the message from the House to the President.
In August 2006, Nigeria's parliament rejected a call from the House Committee on Human Rights for it to intervene in the case.
Related stories:
Singapore activists: Rethink death penalty -- 23 January, 2007
Singapore to hang Tochi next week -- 18 January, 2007
Nigeria won't act to save man in Singapore -- 01 September, 2006
Singapore forum against death penalty -- 21 August , 2006
Thursday, 25 January 2007
Tuesday, 23 January 2007
Singapore activists: Rethink death penalty
Activists in Singapore have condemned this Friday's planned execution of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi, and called for a rethink on the country's use of the death penalty.
Tochi is due to hang at dawn for allegedly trafficking heroin into Singapore on 27 November 2004. He claimed he thought he was carrying a package of herbal medicine for a 'Mr Smith'.
The Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) said the impending execution was "particularly disturbing", since the trial judge had acknowledged there were reasonable doubts as to whether Tochi knew he was carrying drugs.
The SADPC said trial judge Mr Kan Ting Chiu made the following finding: "There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out of his own." (Paragraph 42 of the judgment [2005] SGHC 233).
The campaign group pointed to a seeming contradiction in Singapore between the death penalty and a prison system increasingly focused on rehabilition.
"At a time when the Singapore prison system has a renewed emphasis upon rehabilitation, and when the Yellow Ribbon campaign asks us to give even seasoned criminals a second chance, can we not find it in our hearts to extend this to a person who--if he indeed is guilty--made a desperate mistake at the age of 19?" an SADPC statement said.
They also highlighted the country's rigid mandatory death penalty for drug offences.
"The death sentence for drug trafficking in Singapore continues to be "mandatory", which means that judges are not able to take into significance and mitigating circumstances (such as the age and general naivity of the accused) when passing their verdict.
"And at a time when even the hangings of persons responsible for mass killings and genocide, such as Saddam Hussein and his cronies are being regarded with disgust by the world at large; are seen as reproducing the criminal cruelty of the original perpetrators, is it not time that we in Singapore reconsider our stance on the repeated, mandatory hanging of small-fry drug mules?" SADPC said.
The SADPC describes itself as "a concerned group of Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds who have come together over the issue of the Death Penalty". It organises debates and other events "to foster a public debate on the practice of capital punishment in Singapore and throughout the world".
In August 2006, the group organised a forum to discuss the case of Tochi and his co-accused Okele Nelson Malachy, who had also received a death sentence.
Related stories:
Singapore to hang Tochi next week -- 18 January, 2007
Nigeria won't act to save man in Singapore -- 01 September, 2006
Singapore forum against death penalty -- 21 August , 2006
Tochi is due to hang at dawn for allegedly trafficking heroin into Singapore on 27 November 2004. He claimed he thought he was carrying a package of herbal medicine for a 'Mr Smith'.
The Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC) said the impending execution was "particularly disturbing", since the trial judge had acknowledged there were reasonable doubts as to whether Tochi knew he was carrying drugs.
The SADPC said trial judge Mr Kan Ting Chiu made the following finding: "There was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine. There was nothing to suggest that Smith had told him they contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out of his own." (Paragraph 42 of the judgment [2005] SGHC 233).
The campaign group pointed to a seeming contradiction in Singapore between the death penalty and a prison system increasingly focused on rehabilition.
"At a time when the Singapore prison system has a renewed emphasis upon rehabilitation, and when the Yellow Ribbon campaign asks us to give even seasoned criminals a second chance, can we not find it in our hearts to extend this to a person who--if he indeed is guilty--made a desperate mistake at the age of 19?" an SADPC statement said.
They also highlighted the country's rigid mandatory death penalty for drug offences.
"The death sentence for drug trafficking in Singapore continues to be "mandatory", which means that judges are not able to take into significance and mitigating circumstances (such as the age and general naivity of the accused) when passing their verdict.
"And at a time when even the hangings of persons responsible for mass killings and genocide, such as Saddam Hussein and his cronies are being regarded with disgust by the world at large; are seen as reproducing the criminal cruelty of the original perpetrators, is it not time that we in Singapore reconsider our stance on the repeated, mandatory hanging of small-fry drug mules?" SADPC said.
The SADPC describes itself as "a concerned group of Singaporeans from diverse backgrounds who have come together over the issue of the Death Penalty". It organises debates and other events "to foster a public debate on the practice of capital punishment in Singapore and throughout the world".
In August 2006, the group organised a forum to discuss the case of Tochi and his co-accused Okele Nelson Malachy, who had also received a death sentence.
Related stories:
Singapore to hang Tochi next week -- 18 January, 2007
Nigeria won't act to save man in Singapore -- 01 September, 2006
Singapore forum against death penalty -- 21 August , 2006
Thursday, 18 January 2007
Singapore to hang Tochi next week
Singapore's Ministry of Home affairs has informed lawyers for a 19 year-old Nigerian that he would be executed on Friday 26 January.
Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi was arrested at Changi Airport on 27 November 2004 allegedly in possession of heroin. He was sentenced to death along with Okele Nelson Malachy, 33, whose nationality cannot be confirmed.
They were convicted under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act, which specifies a mandatory death sentence for anyone found guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin.
Action in Nigeria
On 15 December 2006, Nigeria's largest human rights organisation, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), announced it would launch legal action to compel the Nigerian Government to intervene in the case.
A CLO statement said it would take action in the federal high court in an attempt to force the government to file a complaint against Singapore in the International Court of Justice. In August, the Nigerian Parliament voted down a motion calling on the government to appeal for clemency in the case.
CLO said the trial judge found Tochi innocent on the facts of the case, and yet "went on to find Tochi guilty, in contradiction to his own findings of fact".
It said there was also "a clear case of racial discrimination against African nationals", with lawyers from the organisation refused access to the prisoner, despite acting under instructions from his family.
The statement said the "Singaporean authority could not have done this to an American or a German national".
Related stories:
Nigeria won't act to save man in Singapore -- 01 September, 2006
Singapore forum against death penalty -- 21 August , 2006
Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi was arrested at Changi Airport on 27 November 2004 allegedly in possession of heroin. He was sentenced to death along with Okele Nelson Malachy, 33, whose nationality cannot be confirmed.
They were convicted under Singapore's Misuse of Drugs Act, which specifies a mandatory death sentence for anyone found guilty of trafficking more than 15 grams of heroin.
Action in Nigeria
On 15 December 2006, Nigeria's largest human rights organisation, the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), announced it would launch legal action to compel the Nigerian Government to intervene in the case.
A CLO statement said it would take action in the federal high court in an attempt to force the government to file a complaint against Singapore in the International Court of Justice. In August, the Nigerian Parliament voted down a motion calling on the government to appeal for clemency in the case.
CLO said the trial judge found Tochi innocent on the facts of the case, and yet "went on to find Tochi guilty, in contradiction to his own findings of fact".
It said there was also "a clear case of racial discrimination against African nationals", with lawyers from the organisation refused access to the prisoner, despite acting under instructions from his family.
The statement said the "Singaporean authority could not have done this to an American or a German national".
Related stories:
Nigeria won't act to save man in Singapore -- 01 September, 2006
Singapore forum against death penalty -- 21 August , 2006
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Iran: Good news points to legal flaws
The acquittal of an Iranian teenager who killed a man when he attacked her has highlighted the need for "urgent legal reforms" to protect juveniles accused of a crime, according to Amnesty International.
Mahabad Fatehi, known as Nazanin, was cleared of murder by a Tehran court on 14 January. In March 2005, when she was 17 years old, she stabbed one man in a group of three who attempted to rape her and her 15 year-old neice in a Tehran park.
In January 2006 Nazanin was convicted of pre-meditated murder and sentenced to death.
Following an international campaign against her death sentence, including a global petition organised by Canadian singer and former beauty contestant Nazanin Afshin-Jam, who was born in Iran, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial in May 2006.
Amnesty International said the latest court verdict highlighted the need for changes to the law to ensure people accused of crimes committed before they were 18 years old could not be sentenced to death.
For several years Iran has considered legislation that would ban the use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Amnesty International said a reform bill had "not yet been approved by the Council of Guardians, which vets Iran's legislation for conformity with Islamic principles".
Sina Paymard was scheduled to be executed in September 2006, but he was spared at the gallows by the family of his victim. Family members were reportedly moved to mercy when he played the ney, a Middle Eastern flute.
In November 2006 his lawyer requested a review of the case and submitted new evidence that Sina Paymard suffered from mental illness.
Twenty-three more
Amnesty International reported that at least 23 other child offenders are reportedly on death row in Iran.
In December, the organisation said that Hossein Gharabaghloo was at risk of imminent execution for a murder committed when he was 16. The Supreme Court had confirmed his death sentence on 13 December, and AI said "he could now be executed at any time".
Related story:
Iran world leader executing juveniles -- 04 October, 2006
Mahabad Fatehi, known as Nazanin, was cleared of murder by a Tehran court on 14 January. In March 2005, when she was 17 years old, she stabbed one man in a group of three who attempted to rape her and her 15 year-old neice in a Tehran park.
In January 2006 Nazanin was convicted of pre-meditated murder and sentenced to death.
Following an international campaign against her death sentence, including a global petition organised by Canadian singer and former beauty contestant Nazanin Afshin-Jam, who was born in Iran, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial in May 2006.
Amnesty International said the latest court verdict highlighted the need for changes to the law to ensure people accused of crimes committed before they were 18 years old could not be sentenced to death.
For several years Iran has considered legislation that would ban the use of the death penalty against juvenile offenders. Amnesty International said a reform bill had "not yet been approved by the Council of Guardians, which vets Iran's legislation for conformity with Islamic principles".
The human rights organisation said Iran and Pakistan were the only countries in the world to execute child offenders in 2006, and Iran had executed at least 21 child offenders since 1990.
But as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Iran had committed not to execute juvenile offenders.
Stay of execution for musician
In a second case, Sina Paymard, who was convicted of a murder committed when he was 16, was reportedly granted a stay of execution by the Head of the Judiciary.Sina Paymard was scheduled to be executed in September 2006, but he was spared at the gallows by the family of his victim. Family members were reportedly moved to mercy when he played the ney, a Middle Eastern flute.
In November 2006 his lawyer requested a review of the case and submitted new evidence that Sina Paymard suffered from mental illness.
Twenty-three more
Amnesty International reported that at least 23 other child offenders are reportedly on death row in Iran.
In December, the organisation said that Hossein Gharabaghloo was at risk of imminent execution for a murder committed when he was 16. The Supreme Court had confirmed his death sentence on 13 December, and AI said "he could now be executed at any time".
Related story:
Iran world leader executing juveniles -- 04 October, 2006
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.
Friday, 12 January 2007
Abolition debate for Taiwan in 2007
Taiwan's Ministry of Justice has announced that during 2007 it would encourage debate about abolishing the death penalty, including a program of research, seminars and public hearings across the country.
The China Post reported that the ministry would encourage the public to think about and debate the issues, according to Chang Chi-yun, the director of the ministry's Department of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Protection.
Chang said the ministry would encourage members of the public to participate in hearings in northern, central and southern Taiwan during the year.
He said he had also met with members of groups opposed to the death penalty and family members of the victims of crime.
The ministry would also commission research into the issue from the Crime Research Center of the National Chung Cheng University, Chung said.
Gradual move
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty. But he said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
According to a report in the Taipei Times, he said the Ministry of Justice had filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners.
Where the Supreme Court had rejected these appeals, the MOJ had also attempted to stay the executions.
Last month Amnesty International condemned the final approval for the execution of Chong Deshu, issued by the Ministry of Justice just three weeks after the Justice Minister said execution was "not the answer" to crime. (ADP story here.)
Following the approval, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) made an urgent application to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review documents relating to Chung's case.
Related stories:
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
The China Post reported that the ministry would encourage the public to think about and debate the issues, according to Chang Chi-yun, the director of the ministry's Department of Prevention, Rehabilitation and Protection.
Chang said the ministry would encourage members of the public to participate in hearings in northern, central and southern Taiwan during the year.
He said he had also met with members of groups opposed to the death penalty and family members of the victims of crime.
The ministry would also commission research into the issue from the Crime Research Center of the National Chung Cheng University, Chung said.
Gradual move
In February 2006, Justice Minister Morley Shih said the government was moving towards abolition of the death penalty. But he said a majority of people believed it was needed as a deterrent against crime.
According to a report in the Taipei Times, he said the Ministry of Justice had filed extraordinary appeals to the Supreme Court in an effort to delay the execution of some prisoners.
Where the Supreme Court had rejected these appeals, the MOJ had also attempted to stay the executions.
Last month Amnesty International condemned the final approval for the execution of Chong Deshu, issued by the Ministry of Justice just three weeks after the Justice Minister said execution was "not the answer" to crime. (ADP story here.)
Following the approval, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) made an urgent application to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review documents relating to Chung's case.
Related stories:
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion' -- 14 December 2006
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 21 February 2006
Wednesday, 10 January 2007
No death penalty plans in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka has no plans to use its death penalty laws, according to a report in the Daily Mirror e-Edition on 10 January.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa indicated in a wide-ranging meeting with newspaper editors on 9 January that he had no intention of implementing the death penalty in the near future.
President Rajapaksa said: "Ours is a country where there are protests even if we try to kill a dog. Implementing the death penalty, is therefore something that we have to do, after weighing the pros and cons, carefully."
Sri Lanka retains the death penalty on its statute books, although no executions have been carried out since June 1976. Successive presidents have automatically commuted all death sentences.
Amnesty International considers Sri Lanka to be an abolitionist country "in practice", a term it applies to countries which "have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions".
In March 1999 the government announced that death sentences would no longer be automatically commuted, although this policy was not implemented.
On 20 November 2004, the office of the then President announced that "the death penalty will be effective from today for rape, murder and narcotics dealings". The announcement followed the murder of a High Court judge and a policeman who was protecting him.
Amnesty International said in July 2005 that the Justice Ministry and the Attorney General had reportedly recommended the death penalty be carried out on the men convicted of a gruesome rape and murder.
President Mahinda Rajapaksa indicated in a wide-ranging meeting with newspaper editors on 9 January that he had no intention of implementing the death penalty in the near future.
President Rajapaksa said: "Ours is a country where there are protests even if we try to kill a dog. Implementing the death penalty, is therefore something that we have to do, after weighing the pros and cons, carefully."
Sri Lanka retains the death penalty on its statute books, although no executions have been carried out since June 1976. Successive presidents have automatically commuted all death sentences.
Amnesty International considers Sri Lanka to be an abolitionist country "in practice", a term it applies to countries which "have not executed anyone during the past 10 years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions".
In March 1999 the government announced that death sentences would no longer be automatically commuted, although this policy was not implemented.
On 20 November 2004, the office of the then President announced that "the death penalty will be effective from today for rape, murder and narcotics dealings". The announcement followed the murder of a High Court judge and a policeman who was protecting him.
Amnesty International said in July 2005 that the Justice Ministry and the Attorney General had reportedly recommended the death penalty be carried out on the men convicted of a gruesome rape and murder.
Wednesday, 3 January 2007
Japan: Christmas hangings draw protest
Human rights activists have condemned the execution of four men in Japan on Christmas Day.
The four, including two men over seventy years of age, were hanged just days after Japan's Diet (parliament) closed for the year.
The men hanged on 25 December were:
- Yoshimitsu Akiyama, 77 (Tokyo Detention Center)
- Hiroaki Hidaka, 44 (Hiroshima Detention Center
- Yoshio Fujinami, 75 (Tokyo Detention Center)
- Michio Fukuoka, 64 (Osaka Detention Center)
Executions in Japan are usually timed to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and minimise publicity.
Under the country's execution procedures, a prisoner can spend decades on death row and be executed with little or no warning they are about to die. Their families are not notified until after the hangings have been carried out.
The executions were condemned in statements issued by the Diet Members' League Against the Death Penalty, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations,Amnesty International Japan, Forum 90 and other NGOs.
AFP reported that the Japan Federation of Bar Associations called for the suspension of the death penalty, saying innocent people could be killed and citing the international trend towards the abolition of the death penalty.
Justice Minister Jinen Nagase defended the hangings, saying the majority of Japanese people supported the death penalty.
"I am aware of various opinions on the issue, but nearly 80% of the people in this country have no objection to the existence of the death penalty," Justice Minister Jinen Nagase said.
"I don't have any plan to change the current justice system."
Protests encouraged
Japanese activists have called for people around the world to send messages of protest against the resumption of the death penalty.
Please send messages of protest to the Ministry of Justice at: webmaster@moj.go.jp.
Justified fears
In December 2006, activists and lawyers said they were concerned the government would resume executions after the final parliamentary session for the year.
The country's new Justice Minister Jinen Nagase said after his appointment in September 2006 that he was prepared to sign execution orders, in contrast to his predecessor who did not approve any during his term in office.
Amnesty International and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations urged the government to suspend executions and take steps towards abolition of the death penalty.
Related stories:
Executions may resume in Japan -- 21 December, 2006
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 April 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 March 2006
Thursday, 21 December 2006
Executions may resume in Japan
Lawyers and human rights activists in Japan fear the government may soon resume executions, after a break of about 15 months.
The recent appointment of a new Justice Minister, and the end of sittings of the Japanese Diet (parliament), have raised concerns that the country may again activate its secretive death penalty system.
Executions in Japan are usually carried out when the Diet is not in session, which campaigners say is deliberately timed to avoid scrutiny and debate about the death penalty.
The last execution in Japan was reported to have been on 16 September 2005.
Makoto Teranaka, secretary general of Amnesty International Japan, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that the end of the current parliamentary session "raises the possibility that executions will be carried out".
Last week Japan's bar association appealed to Justice Minister Jinen Nagase not to approve any executions.
The organisation warned him of the potential for innocent people to be executed and cited the worldwide trend towards the abolition of the death penalty.
Minister 'ready to sign'
Following Jinen Nagase's appointment as Justice Minister on 26 September, The Japan Times reported he would sign execution orders when a prisoner's death sentence was finalised.
"I realise there have been voices against the death penalty itself," he said.
"But considering the feelings of the victims and maintaining order in the society, I do not dispute the death penalty."
The report said the minister told his inaugural media conference that a finalised verdict under law must be carried out.
"It's about ending a person's life, so it must be given careful consideration," Nagase said.
"But rulings by the courts must not be ignored."
'Personal feelings'
Japan's previous Justice Minister Seiken Sugiura, a Buddhist, had said he would not sign execution orders due to his religious beliefs, a move that divided legal opinion in the country.
After he was appointed in October 2005, he told a media conference: "I'll not sign (execution orders). It's a matter of my thoughts, religious beliefs and philosophy."
He later ‘clarified’ his remarks and said: "I only described my personal feelings. I didn't talk about performing my official duties."
He said if he was presented with an execution order to sign, he would "make judgments in an appropriate manner".
No prisoners were executed during his time in office.
Legal opinion divided
Legal commentators were divided on Sugiura's remarks.
Ryukoku University Professor Shinichi Ishizuka told Mainichi Newspapers that the minister's caution was appropriate in relation to death penalty cases.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a justice minister to issue execution orders because the law calls for cautious judgment," he said.
"The law may expect a justice minister to exercise leadership in such decisions depending on the trends of the times.
"It's an international trend to decrease the death penalty. I appreciate Sugiura's cautious attitude toward the death penalty," Ishizuka said.
Other academics argued the minister had failed to perform his official duties.
Chuo University Professor Emeritus Toyo Atsumi said: "It's a matter of course that he must abide by the Code of Criminal Procedure that stipulates that a just minister must issue execution orders.
"His refusal to do so means he has failed to fulfill his official duty as justice minister. The prime minister should dismiss such a minister," he said.
"Mr. Sugiura is a lawyer, so if he had no intention of issuing execution orders, he shouldn't have accepted the post of justice minister in the first place," Atsumi said.
Related stories:
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 Apr 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 Mar 2006
The recent appointment of a new Justice Minister, and the end of sittings of the Japanese Diet (parliament), have raised concerns that the country may again activate its secretive death penalty system.
Executions in Japan are usually carried out when the Diet is not in session, which campaigners say is deliberately timed to avoid scrutiny and debate about the death penalty.
The last execution in Japan was reported to have been on 16 September 2005.
Makoto Teranaka, secretary general of Amnesty International Japan, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that the end of the current parliamentary session "raises the possibility that executions will be carried out".
Last week Japan's bar association appealed to Justice Minister Jinen Nagase not to approve any executions.
The organisation warned him of the potential for innocent people to be executed and cited the worldwide trend towards the abolition of the death penalty.
Minister 'ready to sign'
Following Jinen Nagase's appointment as Justice Minister on 26 September, The Japan Times reported he would sign execution orders when a prisoner's death sentence was finalised.
"I realise there have been voices against the death penalty itself," he said.
"But considering the feelings of the victims and maintaining order in the society, I do not dispute the death penalty."
The report said the minister told his inaugural media conference that a finalised verdict under law must be carried out.
"It's about ending a person's life, so it must be given careful consideration," Nagase said.
"But rulings by the courts must not be ignored."
'Personal feelings'
Japan's previous Justice Minister Seiken Sugiura, a Buddhist, had said he would not sign execution orders due to his religious beliefs, a move that divided legal opinion in the country.
After he was appointed in October 2005, he told a media conference: "I'll not sign (execution orders). It's a matter of my thoughts, religious beliefs and philosophy."
He later ‘clarified’ his remarks and said: "I only described my personal feelings. I didn't talk about performing my official duties."
He said if he was presented with an execution order to sign, he would "make judgments in an appropriate manner".
No prisoners were executed during his time in office.
Legal opinion divided
Legal commentators were divided on Sugiura's remarks.
Ryukoku University Professor Shinichi Ishizuka told Mainichi Newspapers that the minister's caution was appropriate in relation to death penalty cases.
"The Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a justice minister to issue execution orders because the law calls for cautious judgment," he said.
"The law may expect a justice minister to exercise leadership in such decisions depending on the trends of the times.
"It's an international trend to decrease the death penalty. I appreciate Sugiura's cautious attitude toward the death penalty," Ishizuka said.
Other academics argued the minister had failed to perform his official duties.
Chuo University Professor Emeritus Toyo Atsumi said: "It's a matter of course that he must abide by the Code of Criminal Procedure that stipulates that a just minister must issue execution orders.
"His refusal to do so means he has failed to fulfill his official duty as justice minister. The prime minister should dismiss such a minister," he said.
"Mr. Sugiura is a lawyer, so if he had no intention of issuing execution orders, he shouldn't have accepted the post of justice minister in the first place," Atsumi said.
Related stories:
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Japan: Lonely wait for the noose -- 5 Apr 2006
Japan's death row hell -- 3 Mar 2006
Tuesday, 19 December 2006
Death penalty victims speak out
Execution leaves a prisoner dead, but it leaves their families serving a deeply painful life sentence. Yet we rarely hear their stories, and we are almost never confronted with the consequences for them of having a loved one killed by the state.
A new report in the USA has broken this silence surrounding the families of executed people.
The report by Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR), released on Human Rights Day -- 10 December, documents the experiences of the families and how they suffer similar effects to others who have experienced violent loss.
MVFHR said it produced the report Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind "to highlight the similarities between the experiences of survivors of homicide victims and survivors of people who are executed".
MVFHR is an organisation of the families of people killed through murder and terrorist acts, and the families of people killed by the state. It works against the death penalty, based on a human rights perspective.
"Family members of the executed are the death penalty's invisible victims," said Renny Cushing, executive director of MVFHR.
"With each execution, we create a new grieving family who experience many familiar symptoms of trauma, some of them long-lasting. As a society, what are we doing to address the suffering of these families?"
Hearing their voices
The report is based on the deeply moving testimony of many families from "this new group of victims".
"I don't think people understand what executions do to the families of the person being executed," said Billie Jean Mayberry, whose brother Robert Coe was executed in Tennessee in 2000.
"To us, our brother was murdered right in front of our eyes. It changed all of our lives."
Robert Meeropol, whose parents Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed when he was six years old, emphasised the devastating effect of execution on children.
"What impact does this event have on children’s impressionable lives, and what cost does society pay for that impact?"
The report makes recommendations for mental health professionals, educators, and child welfare advocates.
MVFHR has also sent a copy to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with a request that she undertake a study of the impact of executions on surviving families.
Read their stories
Our colleagues at the Abolish the Death Penalty blog are running a two-week, ten-part series with the families' stories from the MVFHR report.
The first post is available here.
The full report is available here. (Please note the file is 2.46Mb.)
A new report in the USA has broken this silence surrounding the families of executed people.
The report by Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR), released on Human Rights Day -- 10 December, documents the experiences of the families and how they suffer similar effects to others who have experienced violent loss.
MVFHR said it produced the report Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind "to highlight the similarities between the experiences of survivors of homicide victims and survivors of people who are executed".
MVFHR is an organisation of the families of people killed through murder and terrorist acts, and the families of people killed by the state. It works against the death penalty, based on a human rights perspective.
"Family members of the executed are the death penalty's invisible victims," said Renny Cushing, executive director of MVFHR.
"With each execution, we create a new grieving family who experience many familiar symptoms of trauma, some of them long-lasting. As a society, what are we doing to address the suffering of these families?"
Hearing their voices
The report is based on the deeply moving testimony of many families from "this new group of victims".
"I don't think people understand what executions do to the families of the person being executed," said Billie Jean Mayberry, whose brother Robert Coe was executed in Tennessee in 2000.
"To us, our brother was murdered right in front of our eyes. It changed all of our lives."
Robert Meeropol, whose parents Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed when he was six years old, emphasised the devastating effect of execution on children.
"What impact does this event have on children’s impressionable lives, and what cost does society pay for that impact?"
The report makes recommendations for mental health professionals, educators, and child welfare advocates.
MVFHR has also sent a copy to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with a request that she undertake a study of the impact of executions on surviving families.
Read their stories
Our colleagues at the Abolish the Death Penalty blog are running a two-week, ten-part series with the families' stories from the MVFHR report.
The first post is available here.
The full report is available here. (Please note the file is 2.46Mb.)
Friday, 15 December 2006
No execution for Canberra murder: Report
China is ready to guarantee it will not execute the suspect in a Canberra murder case, according to a recent report in The Canberra Times.
The newspaper reported on 29 November that Chinese authorities have agreed not to impose the death penalty on Zhang Long if he is convicted of murdering his girlfriend Zhang Hong Jie (also known as Zhang Hongjie or Steffi Zhang).
Her badly decomposed body was found in January 2005 in their apartment in Belconnen, Canberra, several months after she was believed to have been strangled.
According to The Canberra Times, a spokesman for Australia's Justice Minister Chris Ellison said it was likely Zhang would be spared if he was found guilty.
"China has indicated it will give a written undertaking not to apply the death penalty," he said.
Zhang Long has reportedly been held in Chinese custody since 3 March, 2005.
The government of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) refused to hand over evidence in the case until China gave an undertaking the death penalty would not be imposed.
The ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the government would hand over the evidence once it had received a written undertaking.
"If that commitment is formally given then we would be willing to assist Chinese authorities with prosecution," he said.
"This person is accused of a very serious crime and obviously we need to ensure justice is carried out."
Mr Corbell said the case showed "the importance of insisting the death penalty is unacceptable".
"It reinforces the importance of refusing to be complicit in actions that may lead to the death penalty and shows you can be successful in averting it," he said.
Sensitive negotiations
In June 2005, the Australian Government confirmed it was negotiating with Chinese authorities over the case.
The government confirmed that sensitive negotiations were continuing when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Australia in April 2006.
Debate in China
In the past year, Chinese legal experts have suggested its death penalty system may need reforming, to ensure suspects in criminal cases can be extradited from countries which oppose the death penalty.
Under Australian law, an international request for assistance in criminal cases can be refused where that assistance may result in the death penalty.
Related story:
Australia China talks over murder case -- 3 April, 2006
The newspaper reported on 29 November that Chinese authorities have agreed not to impose the death penalty on Zhang Long if he is convicted of murdering his girlfriend Zhang Hong Jie (also known as Zhang Hongjie or Steffi Zhang).
Her badly decomposed body was found in January 2005 in their apartment in Belconnen, Canberra, several months after she was believed to have been strangled.
According to The Canberra Times, a spokesman for Australia's Justice Minister Chris Ellison said it was likely Zhang would be spared if he was found guilty.
"China has indicated it will give a written undertaking not to apply the death penalty," he said.
Zhang Long has reportedly been held in Chinese custody since 3 March, 2005.
The government of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) refused to hand over evidence in the case until China gave an undertaking the death penalty would not be imposed.
The ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell said the government would hand over the evidence once it had received a written undertaking.
"If that commitment is formally given then we would be willing to assist Chinese authorities with prosecution," he said.
"This person is accused of a very serious crime and obviously we need to ensure justice is carried out."
Mr Corbell said the case showed "the importance of insisting the death penalty is unacceptable".
"It reinforces the importance of refusing to be complicit in actions that may lead to the death penalty and shows you can be successful in averting it," he said.
Sensitive negotiations
In June 2005, the Australian Government confirmed it was negotiating with Chinese authorities over the case.
The government confirmed that sensitive negotiations were continuing when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited Australia in April 2006.
Debate in China
In the past year, Chinese legal experts have suggested its death penalty system may need reforming, to ensure suspects in criminal cases can be extradited from countries which oppose the death penalty.
Under Australian law, an international request for assistance in criminal cases can be refused where that assistance may result in the death penalty.
Related story:
Australia China talks over murder case -- 3 April, 2006
Thursday, 14 December 2006
Taiwan: Death penalty benefit an 'illusion'
Taiwan approved plans to execute a man only three weeks after its Justice Minister wrote to Amnesty International saying the government believed "that execution is not the answer" to crime.
Amnesty International (AI) said Chong Deshu (also reported as Chung Te-shu or 鍾德樹) was at risk of imminent execution after the Ministry of Justice released a notice of final judgment on 1 December.
Executions are usually carried out three days after the notice is issued, but AI said the Proesecutor-General appears to have delayed the execution to allow Chong Deshu's lawyer extra time to review the case.
His lawyer was reportedly examining whether there were any legal options that could prevent the execution, however AI has warned that he "could be executed at any moment without notice".
Chong Deshu was convicted of arson after an April 2001 fire killed three people and injured eighteen others.
On Saturday, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) applied to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review legal documents relating to Chung's case.
According to a report in The Taipei Times, the group hoped to stop the execution.
"The review of the case's legal documents may lead to an extraordinary application [to stop the execution] if the documents reveal anything suspicious," said Y.C. Kao (高湧誠) from the TAEDP.
Take action
Please write to the President of Taiwan, urging him to stop the execution of Chong Deshu, commute his sentence and take steps towards the full abolition of the death penalty. Send letters to:
President CHEN Shui-bian
Office of the President
122 Chungching S. Road, Sec.1
Taipei 10048
Taiwan
Fax: +886 2 23115877
Salutation: Your Excellency
'Serious thought'
Minister of Justice Shih Mao-Lin wrote to AI on 8 November saying he would "give serious thought to your suggestion not to carry out any executions over the coming months".
"We must say we agree with you completely that the reliance on the death penalty as a method of crime control is illusory. We also believe that execution is not the answer," Shih Mao-Lin wrote.
AI had written to the Minister of Justice on the World Day Against the Death Penalty (10 October) urging the government "to take immediate and concrete steps towards abolition of the death penalty".
The human rights organisation said it was "encouraged by numerous statements made by Taiwanese officials over recent years indicating support for abolition" and welcomed that no executions had been ordered or carried out to date this year.
"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments," AI said.
Related story:
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 20 February 2006
Amnesty International (AI) said Chong Deshu (also reported as Chung Te-shu or 鍾德樹) was at risk of imminent execution after the Ministry of Justice released a notice of final judgment on 1 December.
Executions are usually carried out three days after the notice is issued, but AI said the Proesecutor-General appears to have delayed the execution to allow Chong Deshu's lawyer extra time to review the case.
His lawyer was reportedly examining whether there were any legal options that could prevent the execution, however AI has warned that he "could be executed at any moment without notice".
Chong Deshu was convicted of arson after an April 2001 fire killed three people and injured eighteen others.
On Saturday, the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP) applied to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office to review legal documents relating to Chung's case.
According to a report in The Taipei Times, the group hoped to stop the execution.
"The review of the case's legal documents may lead to an extraordinary application [to stop the execution] if the documents reveal anything suspicious," said Y.C. Kao (高湧誠) from the TAEDP.
Take action
Please write to the President of Taiwan, urging him to stop the execution of Chong Deshu, commute his sentence and take steps towards the full abolition of the death penalty. Send letters to:
President CHEN Shui-bian
Office of the President
122 Chungching S. Road, Sec.1
Taipei 10048
Taiwan
Fax: +886 2 23115877
Salutation: Your Excellency
'Serious thought'
Minister of Justice Shih Mao-Lin wrote to AI on 8 November saying he would "give serious thought to your suggestion not to carry out any executions over the coming months".
"We must say we agree with you completely that the reliance on the death penalty as a method of crime control is illusory. We also believe that execution is not the answer," Shih Mao-Lin wrote.
AI had written to the Minister of Justice on the World Day Against the Death Penalty (10 October) urging the government "to take immediate and concrete steps towards abolition of the death penalty".
The human rights organisation said it was "encouraged by numerous statements made by Taiwanese officials over recent years indicating support for abolition" and welcomed that no executions had been ordered or carried out to date this year.
"Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments," AI said.
Related story:
Taiwan working towards abolition? -- 20 February 2006
Friday, 8 December 2006
Bali bombers lodge appeals
Three men convicted over the October 2002 Bali bombings have lodged appeals against their death sentences.
The Australian reports the office of the Attorney-General confirmed the men's legal team had applied for judicial review of their sentences.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (also known as Ali Ghufron) were convicted in 2003 for the bombings in Kuta, Bali, which killed 202 people.
Wirawan Adnan, a member of their legal team, said the appeals would include the argument they should not have been convicted under anti-terrorism legislation which was passed after the bombings.
"They should not have been allowed to use the retroactive legislation, and the Supreme Court has made a ruling on this. There are some other points that we will present, but this is the strong point," Mr Adnan told The Australian.
The newspaper report said three separate panels of judges would hear the appeals in Denpasar District Court, after which the findings would be submitted to the Supreme Court in Jakarta. It said a date for the hearings had not yet been set.
The appeals came after a drawn-out game of tactics between their lawyers and Indonesia's Attorney-General Abdul Rahman Saleh.
On Wednesday, the Attorney-General told Reuters he would proceed with the execution process if the men hadn't filed their appeals by the end of the month.
"It is proper enough for the attorney-general's office to wait until the end of this month on whether they would file for a judicial review. If they don't file, the process will go forward," he said.
Related stories:
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006
The Australian reports the office of the Attorney-General confirmed the men's legal team had applied for judicial review of their sentences.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (also known as Ali Ghufron) were convicted in 2003 for the bombings in Kuta, Bali, which killed 202 people.
Wirawan Adnan, a member of their legal team, said the appeals would include the argument they should not have been convicted under anti-terrorism legislation which was passed after the bombings.
"They should not have been allowed to use the retroactive legislation, and the Supreme Court has made a ruling on this. There are some other points that we will present, but this is the strong point," Mr Adnan told The Australian.
The newspaper report said three separate panels of judges would hear the appeals in Denpasar District Court, after which the findings would be submitted to the Supreme Court in Jakarta. It said a date for the hearings had not yet been set.
The appeals came after a drawn-out game of tactics between their lawyers and Indonesia's Attorney-General Abdul Rahman Saleh.
On Wednesday, the Attorney-General told Reuters he would proceed with the execution process if the men hadn't filed their appeals by the end of the month.
"It is proper enough for the attorney-general's office to wait until the end of this month on whether they would file for a judicial review. If they don't file, the process will go forward," he said.
Related stories:
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006
Wednesday, 6 December 2006
Malaysia: Death penalty essay competition
The Malaysian Bar is holding an essay competition on the subject of the death penalty.
Malaysia Star reports the Council's Human Rights Committee has called for essays up to 3,500 words on the topic "Death Penalty: Yes or No?"
Essays must be written in English or Malay.
The competition is open to Malaysians who are "enrolled in the CLP Program, doing their chambering or [are] undergraduates studying in a local public or private university or college".
All essay competition entries should be sent to the Bar Council Secretariat by 31 January, 2007.
For details, call Mohd Rezib 03-2031 3003 ext. 185 or e-mail rezib@malaysianbar.org.my.
In March 2006, the Malaysia Bar's annual general meeting passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
Malaysia Star reports the Council's Human Rights Committee has called for essays up to 3,500 words on the topic "Death Penalty: Yes or No?"
Essays must be written in English or Malay.
The competition is open to Malaysians who are "enrolled in the CLP Program, doing their chambering or [are] undergraduates studying in a local public or private university or college".
All essay competition entries should be sent to the Bar Council Secretariat by 31 January, 2007.
For details, call Mohd Rezib 03-2031 3003 ext. 185 or e-mail rezib@malaysianbar.org.my.
In March 2006, the Malaysia Bar's annual general meeting passed a resolution calling for an end to the death penalty and for all death sentences to be commuted.
Related stories:
Renewed debate on death penalty in Malaysia -- 23 March, 2006
Malaysian lawyers against the death penalty -- 21 March, 2006
China admits organs from prisoners
A senior Chinese health official has admitted that most transplant organs in China - the world's second-largest transplant system, are taken from executed prisoners.
Vice-Minister of Health Huang Jiefu told a conference on organ transplantation in Guangzhou on 14 November: "There are about 1.5 million people in China who need transplants each year, but only around 10,000 operations can be carried out."
"Almost all organ transplants can be performed in China. However, the current big shortfall of organ donations can't meet the demand," he said.
"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," Huang said.
But Vice-Minister Huang denied the organs were taken without the consent of the prisoner or their family.
"The relevant government authorities strongly require the informed consent from the prisoners or their families for the donation of organs," he said.
Ministry of Health spokesman Mao Qun'an said the regulations required the written consent of a prisoner or their relatives in order to donate their organs.
However he admitted that the regulations had not been properly enforced because of poor government supervision.
Rich people, including foreign patients, could jump waiting lists by buying transplant organs.
Official turnaround
The latest admission is a sharp reversal of the Chinese Government's policy of denying that many organs came from executed prisoners.
As recently as 13 September, The Shanghai Daily reported that the "Ministry of Health said most organs in China had been voluntarily donated by citizens. A small number came from death-row inmates who had volunteered."
Large transplant system
Xinhua's report on the conference said according to the Ministry of Health, 2,500 cornea transplants are carried out every year in China, with a further 2 million patients awaiting corneas for transplant.
It said Ministry of Health statistics recorded 34,726 organ transplants in China between 2000 and 2004.
With 10,000 transplants every year, China ranks second in the world for transplants after the United States.
Lucrative trade in death
Amnesty International reported in May that "extracting organs from executed prisoners has been a widespread and highly profitable practice in China since the de facto privatization of health care several years ago".
The human rights organisation said it was estimated that around 99% of transplanted organs in China may come from executed prisoners.
Amnesty International's death penalty update said: "International medical standards state that transplants may only take place voluntarily and with the free and informed consent of the donor; it is unlikely that those faced with the trauma of imminent execution are in a position to provide such consent.
"The secrecy surrounding the application of the death penalty in China also makes it difficult to verify whether such consent was given."
Related stories:
Stop transplant tourism: surgeon -- 28 November, 2006
China restricts organs from executions -- 29 March, 2006
China, death penalty, executed prisoners, human rights, law reform, organ transplant
Vice-Minister of Health Huang Jiefu told a conference on organ transplantation in Guangzhou on 14 November: "There are about 1.5 million people in China who need transplants each year, but only around 10,000 operations can be carried out."
"Almost all organ transplants can be performed in China. However, the current big shortfall of organ donations can't meet the demand," he said.
"Apart from a small portion of traffic victims, most of the organs from cadavers are from executed prisoners," Huang said.
But Vice-Minister Huang denied the organs were taken without the consent of the prisoner or their family.
"The relevant government authorities strongly require the informed consent from the prisoners or their families for the donation of organs," he said.
Ministry of Health spokesman Mao Qun'an said the regulations required the written consent of a prisoner or their relatives in order to donate their organs.
However he admitted that the regulations had not been properly enforced because of poor government supervision.
Rich people, including foreign patients, could jump waiting lists by buying transplant organs.
Official turnaround
The latest admission is a sharp reversal of the Chinese Government's policy of denying that many organs came from executed prisoners.
As recently as 13 September, The Shanghai Daily reported that the "Ministry of Health said most organs in China had been voluntarily donated by citizens. A small number came from death-row inmates who had volunteered."
Large transplant system
Xinhua's report on the conference said according to the Ministry of Health, 2,500 cornea transplants are carried out every year in China, with a further 2 million patients awaiting corneas for transplant.
It said Ministry of Health statistics recorded 34,726 organ transplants in China between 2000 and 2004.
With 10,000 transplants every year, China ranks second in the world for transplants after the United States.
Lucrative trade in death
Amnesty International reported in May that "extracting organs from executed prisoners has been a widespread and highly profitable practice in China since the de facto privatization of health care several years ago".
The human rights organisation said it was estimated that around 99% of transplanted organs in China may come from executed prisoners.
Amnesty International's death penalty update said: "International medical standards state that transplants may only take place voluntarily and with the free and informed consent of the donor; it is unlikely that those faced with the trauma of imminent execution are in a position to provide such consent.
"The secrecy surrounding the application of the death penalty in China also makes it difficult to verify whether such consent was given."
Related stories:
Stop transplant tourism: surgeon -- 28 November, 2006
China restricts organs from executions -- 29 March, 2006
China, death penalty, executed prisoners, human rights, law reform, organ transplant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
