Constitutional Court upholds the death penalty
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The ruling is expected to revive a debate over the death penalty as South Korea has not carried out a death sentence in 13 years and is classified as “abolitionist in practice”
The Constitutional Court ruled yesterday the death penalty system as prescribed by South Korea’s criminal code is not in violation of the Constitution. However, since six of the nine judges expressed the view that the currently operating system presents misuse and abuse concerns that should be addressed, observers are predicting a revival in the debate over revision and abolition of the death penalty.
In its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of Article 41 in the Criminal Code, containing clauses regarding the death penalty, the Constitutional Court ruled five to four that the article is constitutional. The request for a constitutionality review was submitted earlier by Gwangu High Court. The court stated that the death penalty system “is a type of punishment anticipated by the Constitution.” It also said, “We cannot view the death penalty system as being in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution specifying human dignity and values, and the individual right to life is also included in the limitations on basic rights as specified by Article 37, Item 2 of the Constitution.”
The court added, “The public good, including the protection of the lives of citizens through crime prevention and the realization of justice, is not lesser than the protection of the right to life of a person who has committed a heinous crime.”
In contrast, the four dissenting judges said, “With the right to life, limitation means taking away an entire life, and it is therefore an absolute fundamental right that cannot be taken away by the Constitution.” They also expressed the view that the death penalty system should be abolished through measures such as the implementation of life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
Among the judges who ruled in favor of the death penalty’s constitutionality, Justices Min Hyeong-ki and Song Doo-hwan also suggested improvements to the current system. They stated, “It would be desirable to reduce the crimes subject to the death penalty and to amend or abolish the system through legislation rather than through a constitutionality trial.”
Previously, Gwangju High Court requested a constitutionality ruling from the Constitutional Court in September 2008 after receiving a request from an individual, identified by the surname “Oh,” who was charged with murdering four travelers in the costal waters off Boseong County in South Jeolla Province. The court’s decision over the death penalty is its first in over thirteen years. In November 1996, it issued a seven to two ruling affirming the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Currently, there are 57 prisoners in South Korea with confirmed death sentences, while there are two cases, including Oh’s, where the cases are pending in lower courts following a death sentence in the first trial. Ever since carrying out the execution of 23 people in late 1997, however, South Korea has not carried out the death penalty in twelve years and was classified by Amnesty International as “abolitionist in practice.”
In a statement on the Constitutional Court ruling Thursday, the Korean Bar Association called abolition of the death penalty “not simply an improvement of the criminal justice system but an index symbolizing the prestige of the state.”
The Korean Bar Association statement also said, “It is highly regrettable that the Constitutional Court could not go so far as to issue ruling of unconstitutionality when South Korea has been classified as an abolitionist country in practice.”
Sunday, 28 February 2010
South Korea: "Dangerous decision" upholds death penalty
Editorial: Dated logic in Constitutional Court’s death penalty decision
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”
Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.
There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.
The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”
In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.
We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.
The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.
From: The Hankyoreh, 27 February 2010
The Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that South Korea’s death penalty system is not in violation of the Constitution. Their ruling comes on the heels of the constitutional ruling over the same issue in 1996. At that time, the Constitutional Court said, “Although the death penalty system should be abolished, it is premature to annul the system at this time.”
Since the 1996 ruling, 38 countries around world have joined the list of countries that have abolished the death penalty, bringing the total number of countries who have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice to 139. Abolishing the death penalty is also a precondition of joining the European Union. The abolition of the death penalty has now become a measuring stick to determine which countries are advanced in human rights.
There is no reason for South Korea to lag far behind in this trend. South Korea has been recognized by Amnesty International as “an abolitionist in practice.” Many Korean citizens feel pride when reflecting upon our society’s development and the further enhancement of our collective consciousness. This new era has not changed direction, but rather the Constitutional Court has chosen to remain in the past. We cannot help but to ask whether the Constitutional Court’s decision reflects their attempt to read the minds of conservative factions in our society.
The logic that the Constitutional Court issued a decision in line with the Constitution is dated. The Constitutional Court justices issuing the majority opinion stated, “The death penalty is a legitimate punishment for heinous crimes, and by instating the death penalty, we can prevent those types of crimes from occurring.” The argument that capital punishment is related to crime prevention is an outdated theory. There is a wide consensus that it is difficult to prevent crimes through instating heavy-handed punishments. The possibility also exists that authorities could wield power as they wish using the logic of “proper punishment.”
In fact, current law in South Korea classifies 110 crimes in 20 laws as the subject to a death penalty sentence, however, heinous crimes comprise just 12 of the crimes including murder with intent. Because other crimes subject to a death penalty sentence include political offenses, criminal ideological violations, corporate offenses and administrative offenses, the possibility for serious abuse of the application of the death penalty exists.
We think the Constitutional Court has made a dangerous decision to uphold the death penalty, which will result in the restriction of basic human dignity rights. The Constitutional Court argued that there is no stipulation addressing the recognition of these types of absolute basic human rights. However, restrictions upon the right to life mean that the government can deprive a person of their life as a whole. In extenuating circumstances, no one can bring back a life that was wrongfully terminated by an incorrect application of the death penalty. Therefore, it is our belief that the death penalty infringes upon the basic right to life and is unconstitutional.
The justices who voted to uphold the death penalty, however, also demanded revisions to the death penalty system. This means that they also agree that it would be improper to allow the current death penalty system to continue as is. The lawmakers of the National Assembly should revise related law by accepting the spirit of the Court’s decision. The government also should also continue its past practice and refrain from executing prisoners on death row.
South Korea: Up to parliament to abolish death penalty
Capital Punishment
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010
The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.
Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.
Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.
All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.
Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.
However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.
It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.
Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.
Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.
Editorial: Legislature Should Do What Judicature Failed to Do
From: The Korea Times, 26 February 2010
The Constitutional Court's ruling to uphold the death penalty Thursday shows Koreans' consciousness advances frustratingly slower than their economic development.
In a 5-4 decision, the top court said in effect that although capital punishment should be abolished someday, it is still too early to do so now. It was the same logic the nation's highest tribunal used 13 years ago when it also ruled the state's taking of citizens' lives constitutional.
Equally anachronistic are the reasons the court cited for retaining the ultimate penalty. The majority of judges wrote that capital punishment is the "rightful reward" for and "effective prevention" of heinous crimes. But penal studies both here and abroad have long found the death penalty neither deters crime nor provides a sense of closure for victims' families.
Even more importantly, there remains an unforgivable ― and irrevocable ― risk of executing an innocent person, which explains why the right to life must not be limited in any way and under any excuses, despite what the judges said. This is especially true in Korea, where there are as many as 110 offenses punishable by death with only 12 of them being atrocious crimes, and most others, political, economic and ideological ones.
All this testifies to why 139 countries have either completely or partially done away with capital punishment. Korea for its part has stopped executions since the inauguration of former President Kim Dae-jung, himself a one-time death-row convict, in 1998.
Considering the world's three biggest economies ― the United States, Japan and China ― are among the 58 countries that retain the death penalty, this seems to have more to do with national dignity than economy. The EU has made its abolition as a precondition for membership.
However Koreans may think their country is advanced and prestigious, it would appear as little more than another brutal state to people in the old continent, the birthplace of democracy and modern civilization.
It is hard to deny the top tribunal's ruling reflects the popular sentiment here, which reportedly favors the death penalty at a ratio of 6 to 4. Not many countries, however, have done away with death penalty following public opinion. When France abolished capital punishment in 1981, for example, 60 percent of its people supported it. A decade later, the same percentage approved its abolition.
Probably in light of all these circumstances, the court referred this issue to the court of the legislature. The National Assembly has toyed with its abolition throughout the past decade but taken no concrete action. It is time for the Assembly, especially the governing Grand National Party, to take the lead in the repealing of laws on capital punishment, if for no other reason than lifting the "national prestige," as the Lee Myung-bak administration has been addressing so emphatically.
Koreans should also realize this is not a matter between death-row convicts and the rest of the citizens but an issue between the state power and all citizens. It was only some decades ago that dictatorial regimes committed "judicial murders" of political dissidents and other innocent people under false charges of state subversion.
South Korea: "TIme to move" against death penalty
EDITORIAL: Capital punishment
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010
In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.
However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.
However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.
Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.
A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.
However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.
Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."
There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.
Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.
From: The Korea Herald, 27 February 2010
In its second ever decision on capital punishment, the Constitutional Court ruled that capital punishment is constitutional.
The Constitutional Court's ruling on a petition filed by a provincial appeal court at the request of a 72-year-old man convicted of murdering four people upheld that the death penalty is a necessary punishment to protect the lives of the majority.
However, the 5-4 decision showed the Constitutional Court moving toward the abolition of the death penalty. In the 1996 ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the court had ruled 7-2 to uphold the system. At the time, the court said that it was not proper to immediately abolish the capital punishment system, "given our current culture and reality." That statement had indicated that the Constitutional Court was in favor of abolishing the death penalty over time. Apparently, 13 years was not enough time to move away from the capital punishment system, which its opponents claim is state-sanctioned murder.
However, two of the concurring judges suggested gradually fixing the capital punishment system by limiting the types of crimes that are punishable by the death penalty and also reflecting the social milieu of the time. They said it would be preferable to resolve the issue through legislation at the National Assembly.
Indeed, Thursday's ruling is significant in that it asked the National Assembly to take up the issue. Given the controversial nature of the death penalty - both its opponents and supporters are unequivocal about their stance on the issue - the National Assembly is an appropriate forum for a meaningful discussion of the matter.
A 2006 National Human Rights Commission report said that about 70 percent of the population favored the death penalty. The proponents of capital punishment claim that with some 1,000 murder cases occurring every year, the death penalty should be maintained as a deterrent against heinous crimes.
However, the decision on whether to maintain the capital punishment system or to abolish it should not be left up to public opinion. Our National Assembly has failed to deal with laws on many controversial social issues - including abortion, adultery and the death penalty. Many of these matters have been brought to the courts for the Constitutional Court to decide. The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has suggested that these matters should be decided by the legislature. The National Assembly should take a proactive position and not wait for the Constitutional Court's next ruling on the death penalty system.
Since President Kim Dae-jung - who was himself sentenced to death in 1980 but later pardoned - took office in February 1998, there have been no executions in this country. While there are 59 inmates on death row, Amnesty International in 2007 categorized Korea as having "virtually abolished capital punishment."
There are two bills on abolishing capital punishment that are languishing at the Legislation and Judiciary Committee of the National Assembly. The lawmakers should start deliberating on this crucial issue that is often seen as a mark of a country's level of civilization.
Around the world 95 countries have abolished capital punishment while 58 countries maintain the system. Another 35 countries maintain the death penalty but have not carried out an execution for 10 years or more. Clearly, the trend is toward the abolition of the capital punishment. The time has come for Korea to make the move toward abolishing capital punishment.
Thursday, 25 February 2010
South Korea: "Lost opportunity" to abolish death penalty
Statement from The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
25 Feb, 2010
South Korea: ADPAN regrets the Constitutional Court decision to uphold the death penalty
The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) that is currently attending the 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Geneva regrets today's decision by South Korea’s Constitutional Court to uphold the death penalty.
In a five to four ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that death penalty did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.
South Korea has lost an opportunity to lead on abolition in the region. This decision now goes against a general worldwide trend towards abolition. More than 70 per cent of countries have a moratorium on executions or have abolished the death penalty. It is particularly disappointing given South Korea has not executed in over 12 years and has joined many other countries in the world that have become abolitionist in practice. There are currently 57 people on the death row in South Korea.
Asia holds the record for the highest number of executions in the world. ADPAN representing a regional voice for abolition calls on South Korean government to take a lead and follow other countries in the region that have abolished death penalty: the Philippines in 2006 and the Cooke Islands in 2007.
The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN) is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries. Members are attending 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty which is being held in Geneva from 24 – 26 February.
25 Feb, 2010
South Korea: ADPAN regrets the Constitutional Court decision to uphold the death penalty
The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) that is currently attending the 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Geneva regrets today's decision by South Korea’s Constitutional Court to uphold the death penalty.
In a five to four ruling, the Constitutional Court stated that death penalty did not violate "human dignity and worth" protected in the Constitution.
South Korea has lost an opportunity to lead on abolition in the region. This decision now goes against a general worldwide trend towards abolition. More than 70 per cent of countries have a moratorium on executions or have abolished the death penalty. It is particularly disappointing given South Korea has not executed in over 12 years and has joined many other countries in the world that have become abolitionist in practice. There are currently 57 people on the death row in South Korea.
Asia holds the record for the highest number of executions in the world. ADPAN representing a regional voice for abolition calls on South Korean government to take a lead and follow other countries in the region that have abolished death penalty: the Philippines in 2006 and the Cooke Islands in 2007.
The Anti Death Penalty Asia Network(ADPAN) is a cross-regional network made up of over 40 members including lawyers, NGOs and human rights activists from 22 countries. Members are attending 4th World Congress against the Death Penalty which is being held in Geneva from 24 – 26 February.
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Australian laws to ban death penalty
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP
20 February 2010
STATEMENT ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty.
The death penalty has been formally abolished by all jurisdictions in Australia.
It was abolished for Commonwealth and Territory offences in 1973 by the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act.
Each State has also independently and separately abolished the death penalty and there are no proposals by any State Government to reinstate it.
The Australian Government has also introduced legislation – which has been supported by the Opposition – to amend the Death Penalty Abolition Act to extend the application of the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to State laws.
The passage of this comprehensive federal legislation, which is currently being debated in the Parliament, will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.
Internationally, Australia is also a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol which requires all necessary measures be taken to ensure that no one is subject to the death penalty.
ROBERT McCLELLAND MP
20 February 2010
STATEMENT ON THE DEATH PENALTY
Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty.
The death penalty has been formally abolished by all jurisdictions in Australia.
It was abolished for Commonwealth and Territory offences in 1973 by the Commonwealth Death Penalty Abolition Act.
Each State has also independently and separately abolished the death penalty and there are no proposals by any State Government to reinstate it.
The Australian Government has also introduced legislation – which has been supported by the Opposition – to amend the Death Penalty Abolition Act to extend the application of the current Commonwealth prohibition on the death penalty to State laws.
The passage of this comprehensive federal legislation, which is currently being debated in the Parliament, will ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced anywhere in Australia in the future.
Internationally, Australia is also a party to both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Second Optional Protocol which requires all necessary measures be taken to ensure that no one is subject to the death penalty.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
China: Guidelines for executions and "mercy"
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.
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.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Indonesia: Legal doubts delay executions
Indonesian Executions Stalled as Judicial-Review Question Languishes Unanswered
From The Jakarta Globe, 31 January, 2010
By Heru Andriyanto
The absence of executions in 2009 was the result not of an intentional moratorium but because the Supreme Court has failed to provide a specific timeframe within which death row inmates are allowed to request a judicial review, the Attorney General’s Office said.
The AGO last year proposed that the top court issue a ruling to limit the period, to prevent inmates from buying time. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.
"There is no ruling from the Supreme Court that provides us legal standing to execute inmates who have yet to take a stance [on whether to ask for a judicial review] within a certain period," AGO spokesman Didiek Darmanto said.
Inmate Gunawan Santosa has exploited the weak point. The Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for Gunawan for hiring Navy officers to kill his father-in-law. Gunawan has notified the AGO he would ask for a judicial review, but has continuously delayed doing so.
"Why should he hurry? There is no law that limits our time to ask for a judicial review so we take our time," said Alamsjah Hanafiah, Gunawan’s lawyer.
Under Indonesian law, after a Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, the death row inmate has two possible extraordinary measures to escape the death sentence — judicial review and presidential pardon.
Requesting a judicial review by the Supreme Court requires the inmate to provide new evidence supporting his innocence. Asking for a presidential pardon must be preceded by an admission to the crime.
Alamsjah said he would refer to the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who also hired someone to murder a Supreme Court judge but was sentenced to just 15 years in prison.
"Many death row inmates don’t use their rights to extraordinary legal options, but at the last minute might request presidential clemency or a judicial review," Didiek said.
"In addition, carrying out the death sentence costs us a huge amount of money," he said.
Last year’s execution hiatus was a sharp contrast to 2008, when the AGO ordered the execution of 10 inmates — a record in the post-Suharto era.
The flurry of executions started after a humiliating bribery scandal rocked the AGO in March 2008. Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
International human rights group Amnesty International noted that the executions in 2008 totaled only one less than the 11 recorded in the "entire preceding decade."
Amnesty International strongly criticized Indonesia for voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions.
According to the AGO, the country has 107 inmates on death row. Including Gunawan, six have been declared ready to face the firing squad.
The five others include drug trafficker Meirika Franola and convicted murderers Bahar bin Matsar, Jurit bin Abdullah, Ibrahim bin Ujang and Suryadi Swabhuana.
The AGO also said six death-row inmates — Irwan Sadawa Hia, Taroni Hia, Dody Marshal, Jufry, alias Muh Dahri, Imran Sinaga and Rambe Hadipah Paulus Purba — had escaped from prison and were at large.
Although no inmate was put to death in 2009, the number of inmates on death row has fallen from 112 last year. Two condemned inmates, Banged Siahaan and Edith Yunita Sianturi, died of natural causes while in custody, and three other inmates had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by the Supreme Court following judicial reviews.
The three were Australian nationals Matthew Norman, Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali Nine. They were arrested in April 2005 for attempting to smuggle heroin out of Bali.
"The death sentence is cruel and inhuman. It fails as a deterrent so we need to take a lesson from other countries who have abolished capital punishment but at the same time successfully reduced crime and corruption," said Usman Hamid, the chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a human rights group.
From The Jakarta Globe, 31 January, 2010
By Heru Andriyanto
The absence of executions in 2009 was the result not of an intentional moratorium but because the Supreme Court has failed to provide a specific timeframe within which death row inmates are allowed to request a judicial review, the Attorney General’s Office said.
The AGO last year proposed that the top court issue a ruling to limit the period, to prevent inmates from buying time. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.
"There is no ruling from the Supreme Court that provides us legal standing to execute inmates who have yet to take a stance [on whether to ask for a judicial review] within a certain period," AGO spokesman Didiek Darmanto said.
Inmate Gunawan Santosa has exploited the weak point. The Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for Gunawan for hiring Navy officers to kill his father-in-law. Gunawan has notified the AGO he would ask for a judicial review, but has continuously delayed doing so.
"Why should he hurry? There is no law that limits our time to ask for a judicial review so we take our time," said Alamsjah Hanafiah, Gunawan’s lawyer.
Under Indonesian law, after a Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, the death row inmate has two possible extraordinary measures to escape the death sentence — judicial review and presidential pardon.
Requesting a judicial review by the Supreme Court requires the inmate to provide new evidence supporting his innocence. Asking for a presidential pardon must be preceded by an admission to the crime.
Alamsjah said he would refer to the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who also hired someone to murder a Supreme Court judge but was sentenced to just 15 years in prison.
"Many death row inmates don’t use their rights to extraordinary legal options, but at the last minute might request presidential clemency or a judicial review," Didiek said.
"In addition, carrying out the death sentence costs us a huge amount of money," he said.
Last year’s execution hiatus was a sharp contrast to 2008, when the AGO ordered the execution of 10 inmates — a record in the post-Suharto era.
The flurry of executions started after a humiliating bribery scandal rocked the AGO in March 2008. Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
International human rights group Amnesty International noted that the executions in 2008 totaled only one less than the 11 recorded in the "entire preceding decade."
Amnesty International strongly criticized Indonesia for voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions.
According to the AGO, the country has 107 inmates on death row. Including Gunawan, six have been declared ready to face the firing squad.
The five others include drug trafficker Meirika Franola and convicted murderers Bahar bin Matsar, Jurit bin Abdullah, Ibrahim bin Ujang and Suryadi Swabhuana.
The AGO also said six death-row inmates — Irwan Sadawa Hia, Taroni Hia, Dody Marshal, Jufry, alias Muh Dahri, Imran Sinaga and Rambe Hadipah Paulus Purba — had escaped from prison and were at large.
Although no inmate was put to death in 2009, the number of inmates on death row has fallen from 112 last year. Two condemned inmates, Banged Siahaan and Edith Yunita Sianturi, died of natural causes while in custody, and three other inmates had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by the Supreme Court following judicial reviews.
The three were Australian nationals Matthew Norman, Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali Nine. They were arrested in April 2005 for attempting to smuggle heroin out of Bali.
"The death sentence is cruel and inhuman. It fails as a deterrent so we need to take a lesson from other countries who have abolished capital punishment but at the same time successfully reduced crime and corruption," said Usman Hamid, the chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a human rights group.
Bangladesh: Coup executions condemned
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Amnesty International public statement
1 February 2010
Amnesty International condemns last week’s execution in Bangladesh of five men found guilty of killing the country’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Six other men sentenced to death in their absence in the same case are living outside Bangladesh, and the government is seeking their extradition. The execution of these five men will make their extradition highly unlikely. There is a high risk that they, too, might be executed.
Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. According to a United News of Bangladesh (UNB) report, Awami League activists led by a local Awami League leader attacked the house of Aziz Pasha, one of 12 men sentenced to death for killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in Tetra village in Harirampur Upazila in Manikganj on 31 January. Witnesses have told UNB reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house on fire. Aziz Pasha who was sentenced in his absence reportedly died outside Bangladesh but his brother lives in his house. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.
The five who were executed on 28 January were found guilty of the murder by the Supreme Court on 27 January and according to media reports in Bangladesh they were executed shortly after midnight on 28 January 2010, less than twenty four hours after their conviction.
Amnesty International opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions. Amnesty International calls on the government of Bangladesh to ensure transparency about its handling of this case.
In Bangladesh it is standard practice for mercy petitions calling for the commutation of death sentences to be considered by the President after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
However, the President dismissed the mercy petitions of three of the men, before the Supreme Court’s final review of their sentences.
The mercy petition of one of the condemned men was considered after the Supreme Court’s final decision was announced on 27 January, but it was dismissed within hours of it being sent to the President. Lawyers for the man say the speed with which a decision was given for a mercy petition is unprecedented in a death penalty case in the history of Bangladesh.
The fifth man did not submit a mercy petition to the President.
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences against the five men on 27 January. No other judicial remedy was available to the five former army officers convicted of carrying out the killing. Their lawyers say the men’s execution so close to the final judicial review of their sentences is unprecedented in Bangladesh.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members were killed when a group of military officers entered his house and opened fire on them in an attempted coup on August 15th
Acting President Kondaker Mushtaq Ahmed, who took office following the death of Sheik Mujobur Rahman as well as his successor, President Ziaur Rahman, had granted the accused officers immunity from prosecution. The immunity was lifted by Sheikh Hasina when she became Prime Minister in 1996.
The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, bringing people to justice must not in itself violate the human rights of the accused.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
For Immediate Release
1 February 2010
AI Index: ASA 13/003/2010
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Amnesty International public statement
1 February 2010
Amnesty International condemns last week’s execution in Bangladesh of five men found guilty of killing the country’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Six other men sentenced to death in their absence in the same case are living outside Bangladesh, and the government is seeking their extradition. The execution of these five men will make their extradition highly unlikely. There is a high risk that they, too, might be executed.
Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. According to a United News of Bangladesh (UNB) report, Awami League activists led by a local Awami League leader attacked the house of Aziz Pasha, one of 12 men sentenced to death for killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in Tetra village in Harirampur Upazila in Manikganj on 31 January. Witnesses have told UNB reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house on fire. Aziz Pasha who was sentenced in his absence reportedly died outside Bangladesh but his brother lives in his house. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.
The five who were executed on 28 January were found guilty of the murder by the Supreme Court on 27 January and according to media reports in Bangladesh they were executed shortly after midnight on 28 January 2010, less than twenty four hours after their conviction.
Amnesty International opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions. Amnesty International calls on the government of Bangladesh to ensure transparency about its handling of this case.
In Bangladesh it is standard practice for mercy petitions calling for the commutation of death sentences to be considered by the President after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
However, the President dismissed the mercy petitions of three of the men, before the Supreme Court’s final review of their sentences.
The mercy petition of one of the condemned men was considered after the Supreme Court’s final decision was announced on 27 January, but it was dismissed within hours of it being sent to the President. Lawyers for the man say the speed with which a decision was given for a mercy petition is unprecedented in a death penalty case in the history of Bangladesh.
The fifth man did not submit a mercy petition to the President.
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences against the five men on 27 January. No other judicial remedy was available to the five former army officers convicted of carrying out the killing. Their lawyers say the men’s execution so close to the final judicial review of their sentences is unprecedented in Bangladesh.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members were killed when a group of military officers entered his house and opened fire on them in an attempted coup on August 15th
Acting President Kondaker Mushtaq Ahmed, who took office following the death of Sheik Mujobur Rahman as well as his successor, President Ziaur Rahman, had granted the accused officers immunity from prosecution. The immunity was lifted by Sheikh Hasina when she became Prime Minister in 1996.
The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, bringing people to justice must not in itself violate the human rights of the accused.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
For Immediate Release
1 February 2010
AI Index: ASA 13/003/2010
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Friday, 15 January 2010
Mongolia declares moratorium: President
President Tsakhia ELBEGDORJ of Mongolia delivered the following speech in the country's parliament yesterday, announcing a moratorium on executions in the country. Given the Mongolia's extraordinary level of secrecy regarding its death penalty system -- where event the method of execution was considered a 'state secret' -- the moratorium, and the speech itself, is highly significant. The translation below, from the President’s website, is therefore reproduced in full.
Please note: long post
The Path of Democratic Mongolia Must be Clean and Bloodless
Speech by President Tsakhia ELBEGDORJ on Capital Punishment at the State Great Khural
14 January 2010
My dear people,
Distinguished Members of the State Great Khural,
Dear guests,
Only yesterday did we solemnly mark the 18th anniversary of Mongolia’s Democratic Constitution. It is the fundamental goal of our Constitution to uphold human rights and liberties, rule of law and justice. The Constitution is the firm guarantee of the democratic choice of the Mongolian people and the source of the consistent exercise of this choice.
Upholding our Constitution, we achieved some notable successes in our course to strengthen human rights, freedom and justice in our society. Yet, much remains to be accomplished.
As is dearly enshrined in the Constitution of Mongolia, the most supreme human right is the right to life. Mongolia strictly prohibits deprivation of life except in cases pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
In my capacity of the President of Mongolia, I wish to express from this respectful rostrum my position on the right of a Mongolian citizen to life, and the only cause to deprive him of life – the death penalty. I will speak using only accessible and public information, but not those prohibited by law.
Seven months have passed since I was sworn in as the President of Mongolia. I have to mention that during these seven months, no death penalty was carried out. The decision whether to accept or deny a request to commute a death sentence rests ultimately with the Head of State. At the moment, when the decision whether to spare a precious human life hung in the balance, at the time when the tip of my pen was poised to render my decision, I was faced with a need to make a crucial decision within my full powers.
There could be a multitude of reasons and varying circumstances and settings for committing a crime that carries a death penalty. Yet the guiding principle for the Head of State on whether to approve a death penalty must be single. That single principle is to pardon the offender. As the Head of State of Mongolia, I will remain faithful to this principle because it guarantees and safeguards the value of human life.
I believe, I must cite the reasons for my decision.
Reason One: Pardoning a life does not mean pardoning the penalty. In case the President of Mongolia pardons an offender who has been sentenced to death, the offender is prescribed a penalty of 30 years imprisonment. According to the available official statistics, not a single convict has ever survived this term. This means that offenders sentenced to death who have been pardoned from the death penalty have either died in prison or are still in prison; none of them escaped detention. In other words, Mongolian law does make sure that, provided the sentence is fair, the prisoner ends his life in prison for a crime he committed.
Pardoned offenders in detention die either due to illness or they commit a suicide. As of today, there are 2 convicts with death penalty who, having spent 15 years in the prison of strict regime, are now enduring punishment in a prison of a less strict regime. Others are undergoing sentence in the prison of strongest regime.
Reason Two: The punishment for serious and cruel felonies must be severe. However, capital punishment cannot fully assure that this happens. Everything is over with the execution of the sentence – it’s final, it’s irreparable. However, what if a mistake was made when imposing a sentence, what if the State deprived its innocent citizen of life because of a miscarriage of justice in court proceedings; what if a lighter punishment was to be imposed for the crime committed. These questions remain unanswered.
Moreover, I do not exclude a possibility whereby the execution of a death sentence, might circumvent some organized crimes from being investigated and tried. A death penalty is not serving as a fair punishment either for a person being executed or a person who should not be punished with it. So the issues of justice and injustice, avoiding or enduring the sentence, the intentional and unintentional nature of crimes are a source of serious concern. Let me cite some examples.
In Bayanzurkh district of the capital city five citizens of Mongolia suspected of murder, were detained for 207-1252 days. A court imposed the death penalty on four of the five suspects. However, the court of the last resort exonerated the convicts and closed the alleged murder case. One of the five citizens died while in detention due to tuberculosis. If the court of appeals had chosen to leave the verdict of the primary court as it was and didn’t spare the lives of the defendants, the Mongolian State would have killed innocent citizens.
Another example – a citizen was under investigation for 6 years 8 months and 23 days. During this period a prosecutor filed charges six times and the court sentenced him to death three times. At the court of the last resort, the case was closed upon adjudication and the citizen exonerated.
Amnesty International Mongolia reports, upon concrete facts, that one of three death penalties awarded at courts of different levels are eventually invalidated or changed. You do all very well understand that the Mongolian State should not make such mistakes on the issue of life and death for its citizens. Yet, this is the reality.
Reason Three: There are instances where the death penalty was imposed on an innocent individual instead of the actual offender. There are also cases where the death penalty was used as a means of for furthering the narrow interests of those closer to power and those who are able to influence people in power. Mongolians, too, were not immune to these bitter experiences. For decades we’ve tried, but have not yet completed rehabilitating the victims of past political purges. Mongolia ranks shamefully high in the number of repressed per capital.
According to our Criminal Code, a death penalty – shooting a person dead – is not dangerous for a criminal, but dangerous for a person who did not commit a crime. A death penalty is imposed to men between 18 to 60 years of age. We haven’t closed the door to risks of imposing death penalty to any person aged between 18 and 60, who did not commit a crime or who could have been given a lighter punishment. Mongolians have suffered enough from the death sentence option.
History reveals these facts: Between October 1937 to April 1939, in just 16 months, by 51 sessions of the Special Full-Power Committee, which was then established in place of courts, 20474 Mongolian citizens were repressed and sentenced to death. At just one session, a mass death sentence for 1228 people was issued. Facts read that there were 8 women among those repressed.
Many Mongols believe that foreigners did lend a hand in these purges. Retained death penalty may also lead to situations when it is used not only by domestic, but external forces. Majority of repressed people were those who were sentenced to death in the prime of their life.
Obviously the political and legal settings of those times are incomparable with those of today. Tremendous changes have taken place. However, the nature of death penalty remains. It is the deprivation of life on behalf of the State. That hasn’t changed. Some 67% of the Mongolian citizens, sentenced to death, are young men in their 20s to 40s. And most of them happen to have committed a crime for the first time.
Reason Four: A state-sanctioned execution is not a punishment worth praising. It is a punishment of the highest and most serious nature which degrades a human dignity.
A death penalty involves an offender on one side, and a victim on the other. It leaves families and kin with pain, hurt, and resentment. The victims of a felony often demand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Even then issues are not exhausted. Some victims just wish they become the last victims of such a crime. And I express my condolences and beg a pardon from those left orphaned, left hurt.
There are mistakes we just can’t afford to make. There are mistakes which can be prevented only by closing the doors. The death penalty is one. Without fully abolishing it, we cannot completely do away with miscarriages of justice surrounding this form of penalty. Only when the death penalty is abolished, shall we be able to genuinely enhance the value of human life and human rights and create conditions to safeguard them. The responsibility of people and organizations involved in making penalty decisions are heightened as well.
One of the intrinsic features of a human being is his or her want for justice. There goes a saying, "a living dog is better than a dead lion". Even if unjustly judged, those alive are able to have the truth reinstated.
Mongols view that a human life is more precious than all the wealth that the earth can carry. And it is precisely because of this view that we describe a human life as a "golden life". None of the known human societies have fully secured the guarantees to prevent humans from killing one another. Yet, the State does have the possibility to stop depriving its citizens of their lives. None of the abolitionist countries have repealed death penalty under the pressure of their peoples. But the number of countries whose governments have abolished the application of this punishment grows year by year.
It may not be so soon that our blue planet Earth enjoys the guarantees against humans killing humans. But I believe that one day all countries of the world will come to stop killing their citizens on behalf of states and governments. And so Mongolia, even belatedly, even after many other countries, should abandon death penalty.
Reason Five: Mongolia is a member of the one global family. The United Nations does not support the imposition of the death penalty. It has constantly been calling its member States for abolition of the death penalty. And it does make decisions. The United Nations regularly reports to the international community on developments and international trends in the use of the death penalty, on progress achieved and retreats observed.
Generally countries are classified as either fully abolitionist, countries which have declared a moratorium on execution, and countries maintaining the punishment.
Of the 42 countries of Europe, 40 have abandoned capital punishment. And one country established a moratorium on execution of the penalty. In other words, Europe is 98% abolitionist.
Of 43 countries of Africa, 18 countries have fully abolished the death penalty. Another 11 countries have declared suspension on the use of the punishment. That makes Africa 67.5% abolitionist and opposed to the death penalty.
Fourteen out of 18 Latin American countries made their region 78% abolitionist by repealing capital punishment. In Asia, 17 out of its 46 countries abolished capital punishment, and one country suspended the use of the penalty. Asia, being the home to the most number of countries, is 40% abolitionist.
The number of countries in our continent fully abandoning capital punishment and declaring moratoriums is on an ascending trend. The "STAN" countries which often are criticized for infringements upon human rights and democracy have achieved a notable progress in repealing capital punishment. For instance, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – all four of them - have abolished capital punishment. In addition, Tajikistan, announced a moratorium on execution of death penalty.
Every country has its own road to go. So does Mongolia. We will make our own path. Mongolians can carefully observe whether action matches words. If we truly have chosen to uphold human rights and freedom, and have declared this choice, we must spare no effort to assure that human rights and freedoms are in fact exercised in this country. Just like accomplishments, or failures are assessed against criteria, our efforts to safeguard human rights and freedom must also have a criterion to be checked against. And this dear criterion is full and complete exercise of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, the State of Mongolia is to revisit its capital punishment policy, although belatedly as the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world have already chosen to abandon capital punishment. And we must join their path. The road democratic Mongolia has to take ought to be clean and bloodless.
Reason Six: A State that cannot guarantee to pardon the life of its innocent citizens cannot enjoy a moral right to tell its people "Trust Your State, Have Faith In the Government". As the Head of State of a country that maintains the death penalty, I cannot pronounce these mighty words.
I want to be a President who can tell its citizens: "I will not deprive you of your life under any circumstances, knowingly, on behalf of the State".
A moral right cannot be measured -- not in meters, or liters, or ounces. It’s just a matter of fact – a right does exist, or it does not. Period. And this right does not depend on who is the Head of State, or on who the Mongolian state decision makers happen to be. It is a matter of the ability of the State of Mongolia to state, to tell our people: "In order to prevent shooting you, dear person, one day, we are pardoning the life of the offender under a sentence of death and replacing the penalty with a 30-year sentence to prison".
It is not the fault of the people of Mongolia that Mongolia maintains the death penalty. And it is not the fault of our judiciary to practice this punishment. Our judges have endeavored to render just judgments and have been working to repair those decisions deemed unjust. Yet, I cannot firmly say, no mistakes have been made here. Similarly, I cannot say, no mistakes will be made. The price we pay for mistakes in delivering the truth is measured in human lives. Humans work in courts, judiciaries. After all, no human being is alien to mistakes.
In any country, it is the authority of the State to change the practice of capital punishment. If this punishment does exist, the guilt should rest with the politicians, it is the guilt, the fault of us, the Mongolian decision makers. It is not easy for me, as President, as an elected official, to raise the death penalty issue. I believe, the fate of a politician shouldn’t be easy. Who else, if not us, the politicians, would raise difficult issues, would wrestle with difficulties with our bare hands?
Politicians, when tackling an issue to resolve, try to take into account social psychology. The State should initiate, should enlighten, should set examples, should lead on and should resolve the issue of capital punishment. Our Mongolian State is a state of a dear tradition and history of mercy and forgiveness. It was only the State of Mongolia which enshrined the merciful and dignified policy of forgiving its citizens his 9 blunders. But what we do with vengeance which sprouts in human mind? What to do with violence in the society? The profound wisdom of our ancestors teaches us that respect for humanity is to persevere in the heart and mind of the State.
We do have a record, a bright record in our most recent history as well. On August 5, 1953, the Presidium of the People’s Great Khural adopted Decree #93 which resolved:"…to abandon the capital punishment, enforced by effective Laws of the Mongolian People’s Republic". However, in 10 months, due to certain reasons, it retreated from its decision. There are few countries which reintroduced capital punishment. Since 1985 over 50 countries abolished capital punishment. And the records show that only 4 of them retreated from their decisions.
Any community demands from its State a severe punishment for felons and criminals. The risk of making a bad decision under the anger of people increases. Therefore, flexibility is to be provided for the punishment policy to be reviewed as the decisions have to be stable and must endure the tests of time. It is not accidental to change the capital punishment, when decreeing a commutation, to a 30-year imprisonment. It is not wrong to review a complicated case and punish a felon with a lengthy imprisonment.
Reason Seven: Mongolia does have all the difficulties and challenges that a democratic country faces. And we do have the capacity to resolve them. My country is the inspiring role model of freedom in the entire region. But there is a blemish on the shiny name of Mongolia. This black spot is capital punishment which degrades to the supreme human right to life.
As the President of Mongolia, I sent a New Year Greetings message to the mobile phones to my people, to youth and elders, to men and women, on the first day of the New Year. I tried in my message to tell our people that they can forge the Good Name of Mongolia.
If Mongolia declares a moratorium on the execution of capital punishment, and eventually, becomes a country free of the death penalty, Mongolia’s Good Name and Fame will further be enhanced. At home, we may disagree and argue about the rightness of the execution moratorium and abolition. Yet, our Good Name and Solid Fame will be embraced by the world. As the Head of State of Mongolia I commit myself to ideas and initiatives to consolidate Mongolia’s integrity and honor. I appeal to you, the distinguished Members of the Parliament and Government, my dear citizens, the entire Mongolian people, to join me in the march.
As of today, Mongolia de jure maintains capital punishment. De facto, we refrain from practicing capital punishment and replace the death penalty with a penalty of 30-year imprisonment. Two clarifications need to be made here.
First, this policy is practiced when a convict with a death penalty appeals to the President for pardon. Since I assumed Presidency, there wasn’t a single convict with death penalty who didn’t appeal to me for pardon. In fact, it’s very rare for a death-sentenced convict not to ask for a mercy. The second note, 2009 was a year when Mongolia held no execution at all. The reason is I pardoned the convicts on the death row. And in future, those on the death row will be pardoned from death to imprisonment.
On the other hand, today, as the President of Mongolia, I declare to our Parliament, to my people, and to the international community that the change made in Mongolia’s capital punishment in 2009 will continue. From today on Mongolia is a country which suspends the execution of capital punishment, and becomes a country which announces a moratorium on execution of the death penalty. Mongolia will further aim to become a fully abolitionist country and shall conform our laws and legislation to this end.
This policy, I am convinced, is consistent with the historic choice our people made 20 years ago, and with the path and aspiration of Mongolia to safeguard human rights and democracy. From tomorrow, from being a country depriving her citizens of life on behalf of the State, Mongolia will come to be a country that doesn’t practice executions, and instead, imprisons its convicts for a long-term. And, understandably, from tomorrow on, the struggle to abolish capital punishment as I describe it now, will not be easy. However, as the Head of State of Mongolia, I have zero intention to retreat from the course I start because this is a right, pure and just goal.
Mr. Chairman of the State Great Khural, dear Members of the State Great Khural, I am about to reach the end of my speech. But I do have one more reason to state and two special notes to make. Please exert patience to listen to them.
Reason Eight: One of the justifications for maintaining capital punishment has been the view that it deters criminality. Not a single survey produced to date has proven that abolition of capital punishment leads either to an increase, or opposite, to a shrinkage in criminality. However, some argue that keeping the death sentence leads to an increase in serious felonies. These may be related to those as felons may conclude that they have nothing more to lose having already committed a death sentence crime.
We cannot repair a death with a death. A water drop hollows out a stone. Some fear death, but the prospect of a death makes others crueler. Criminals fear justice, fear just judgment. A just judgment in addition to being fitting to the felony is also about the truth established and reinstituted.
Let me cite an example from afar: some sources indicate that in the US, in states where capital punishment is maintained, the rate of criminality and the extent of cruelty is higher than in those states that have abandoned the punishment. However, the US cannot set a model for us in capital punishment. Whole 4 decades have elapsed since the UK abandoned the death penalty. Over this period, over 20 attempts were made to reintroduce the punishment in that country. The policy makers in the UK have, however, sought to unwaveringly protect the integrity of their State and remained faithful to their 40-year old choice. It decided to abolish capital punishment once and for all, not to revoke even in times of war.
There are quite a few distortions in Mongolia’s punishment policy that deviate from common international practices. An offender charged with a death penalty has 10 days to appeal to the court of higher jurisprudence, and has merely 15 days for appeal for a pardon. International organizations take the view that the minimum term of appeal should be no shorter than 3 years. In some developed countries, where it is possible to include the DNA test into evidences, there are occasions when those in detention have been exonerated and released.
The Mongolian Criminal Code lists many crimes as death penalty offences. Professional and official institutions list them differently. In other words, the Criminal Code lists specific provisions and terms, that can be interpreted in varying ways. The Mongolian Criminal Code names 7 offences for which the death penalty is imposed. However, these 7 offences are broken down to 59 crimes, according to a list made by an official source. Fifty nine crimes for which the death penalty can be applied. The possibility to issue a perfect, thoroughly fair judgment on such a wide premise of offences is extremely slim. Therefore, abolition of the death penalty is becoming a common practice.
Mongolia is also not immune to practices that are common for countries maintaining capital punishment. However, there are extremely grave, shameful practices that exist only in Mongolia, and already known to the rest of the world. I have just stated eight reasons for abolishing the death penalty. The fact that I am about to share is not just a reason, but it is a misery of Mongolia, it is about the humiliating nature of the practice in Mongolia. These are special situations that need to be immediately rectified.
SPECIAL SITUATION ONE: If someone is sentenced to death, it becomes practically impossible to monitor the person’s fate from outside. An international human rights organization writes time and again in its annual reports that of all countries with capital punishment there are four that are of greatest concern. One of those four is Mongolia. International organizations note that some of the four countries record improvement in the control of the capital punishment, some review the application of the punishment, and even introduce humane methods of execution.
As far as Mongolia is concerned, we lack information on executions; if there are records, they are in the form of arbitrary observations. Mongolia is the worst record keeper on the matter. This is our reality. To make this speech today before Parliament, I received information from relevant organizations and officials. There were discrepancies in those data on capital punishment. This is one of the issues that worries me gravely.
As is prescribed by law, execution procedures, the act itself, and execution documents are kept in strict confidentiality. As we all know, the State is obliged to maintain justice in society. Justice cannot be practiced in an environment of hidden information, without transparency. Justice is about humans, it’s about human rights. There is no justice without a human who this very justice is to serve.
After all, even a felon with a death penalty is entitled to certain rights, and simple human respect. If a citizen of Mongolia receives a death sentence, and if the President doesn’t grant him a pardon, there is virtually no room for national and international organizations to exercise any control over the life of the offender and seek information. These bars are equally tightly placed in front of the offender’s advocate and family. State secrecy on execution of death penalty is a blind and dark hole, just like hell.
We Mongols have embodied in our Constitution, which anniversary we marked yesterday, our will to build a humane, democratic society, which can close this black hole, at least, shed some light on it. Why ought we to care? It’s because if the hole, this bottomless pit, persists, it can soak up everything we value and cherish in our society. To seal the black hole, I decided, it would be right, first, to keep the death-sentenced alive and punish him severely with a more appropriate penalty.
I, the President of the country, as well, lack the information on citizens executed. The most I can do is just inquire. At best, I listen to a report. Your President as well, is not aware, does not see what is unheard and unseen by someone else. If, as is practiced elsewhere, a representative of the victim, at least his advocate attends the process as an observer, a source of external monitoring, a person, this very advocate will know of what has just happened.
There are many rumors about the application of capital punishment. I don’t doubt, the punishment is executed. But because it is secret, there are things that I do not know. A secret is a secret. What is kept in utmost secrecy becomes the source of utmost gossip. And as such, arouses, I would say, legitimate suspicions. This leads me to the second special situation, which I elaborate further.
SPECIAL SITUATION TWO: After the sentence is executed, issues arise about the body of the executed person. This is a serious issue. The body is not given to the family of the executed. While the State imposes its utmost and gravest punishment to the offender, it must not punish the dead body of the offender and his family.
Mongolia lacks monitoring over such bodies, not speaking about a monitoring over a death-sentenced offender. It’s not a secret that the last will of those who attempted a suicide or did commit one while on death-row is mainly a plea to give his dead body to his family and the will to be buried by his family. A newspaper recently carried an article about this issue. There were incidences when a buried body of an executed offender would surface in the floods and cause consternation.
Mongols do respect the afterlife of a person. I was shocked to learn during briefings and reports on capital punishment and corpses of executed that some of the provisions of the strictly confidential decrees of the President are not implemented, or cannot be implemented at all. Clearly, we cannot let this continue.
An official was assigned and got acquainted with the state of affairs around the death penalty and its execution. The findings and observations were reported to me. I also met with certain official people who reported attending executions. We exchanged views. While listening to the reports and findings, my conviction to repeal execution grew stronger. And the relevant officials I met also agreed that Mongolia has to end the current practice of execution.
Criminals do conceal their horrendous acts. But the State doesn’t need to fully keep in secret the fate of a criminal. There are no secrets forever. One day Mongolian society will talk about the issue. The earlier we talk, the earlier we will be able to resolve the issue. A lot of work must be done in the areas I have addressed in this speech – change our laws and rules, scrutinize and streamline the facts and data, a lot of things to check, to confirm and also, there is a need to invite more external control. We must act and immediately.
This is not the first time I am appealing to Mongolia’s law-making authority to abolish capital punishment. Nineteen years ago, when I was one of the deputees (members) of the People’s Great Khural, elected by the first ever democratic election in Mongolia, I expressed my views during the discussions of the draft of our Constitution. Back then we held two-day discussions and debates on issues relating to the abolition of capital punishment.
I recall citing eight grounds for abolition of the death penalty when I shared with my position during those discussions. Today, I am addressing the Parliament with eight groups of reasons and two special circumstances to consider. Today, when reminding the words I pronounced 19 years ago, I do not mean to flatter myself, but wish to note that back 19 years ago, there were many deputees – representatives of the people – who supported abolition of death penalty.
Mongols have fought through many decades and centuries to secure our freedom, independence and sovereignty. In 2011 we will mark the centenary of Mongolia’s restoration of our independence and freedom. Freedom and independence of any country is measured by the freedoms and liberties, and self-sustaining power of its individual citizens. I ask my people, the people of Mongolia to make a present to ourselves on this auspicious centennial of our country – let us become a country where a citizen is not deprived of life by the State, and more precisely, as a democratic country, let us be a people where a citizen is not killed by another citizen.
Mongolia is a dignified country, both in terms of the legacies of our history, and in the way we practice freedom. And our citizens are dignified people. Therefore, I ask Mongolia to put behind us this death penalty which degrades our dignity to death.
A Mongol man, a Mongol fate is not a fate to be degraded by the death penalty. Mongols are people of celestial destiny and noble fortune. Mongols, my dear people, let us live this life with dignity, with integrity, with Good Name and Solid Fame.
Thank you.
Please note: long post
The Path of Democratic Mongolia Must be Clean and Bloodless
Speech by President Tsakhia ELBEGDORJ on Capital Punishment at the State Great Khural
14 January 2010
My dear people,
Distinguished Members of the State Great Khural,
Dear guests,
Only yesterday did we solemnly mark the 18th anniversary of Mongolia’s Democratic Constitution. It is the fundamental goal of our Constitution to uphold human rights and liberties, rule of law and justice. The Constitution is the firm guarantee of the democratic choice of the Mongolian people and the source of the consistent exercise of this choice.
Upholding our Constitution, we achieved some notable successes in our course to strengthen human rights, freedom and justice in our society. Yet, much remains to be accomplished.
As is dearly enshrined in the Constitution of Mongolia, the most supreme human right is the right to life. Mongolia strictly prohibits deprivation of life except in cases pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.
In my capacity of the President of Mongolia, I wish to express from this respectful rostrum my position on the right of a Mongolian citizen to life, and the only cause to deprive him of life – the death penalty. I will speak using only accessible and public information, but not those prohibited by law.
Seven months have passed since I was sworn in as the President of Mongolia. I have to mention that during these seven months, no death penalty was carried out. The decision whether to accept or deny a request to commute a death sentence rests ultimately with the Head of State. At the moment, when the decision whether to spare a precious human life hung in the balance, at the time when the tip of my pen was poised to render my decision, I was faced with a need to make a crucial decision within my full powers.
There could be a multitude of reasons and varying circumstances and settings for committing a crime that carries a death penalty. Yet the guiding principle for the Head of State on whether to approve a death penalty must be single. That single principle is to pardon the offender. As the Head of State of Mongolia, I will remain faithful to this principle because it guarantees and safeguards the value of human life.
I believe, I must cite the reasons for my decision.
Reason One: Pardoning a life does not mean pardoning the penalty. In case the President of Mongolia pardons an offender who has been sentenced to death, the offender is prescribed a penalty of 30 years imprisonment. According to the available official statistics, not a single convict has ever survived this term. This means that offenders sentenced to death who have been pardoned from the death penalty have either died in prison or are still in prison; none of them escaped detention. In other words, Mongolian law does make sure that, provided the sentence is fair, the prisoner ends his life in prison for a crime he committed.
Pardoned offenders in detention die either due to illness or they commit a suicide. As of today, there are 2 convicts with death penalty who, having spent 15 years in the prison of strict regime, are now enduring punishment in a prison of a less strict regime. Others are undergoing sentence in the prison of strongest regime.
Reason Two: The punishment for serious and cruel felonies must be severe. However, capital punishment cannot fully assure that this happens. Everything is over with the execution of the sentence – it’s final, it’s irreparable. However, what if a mistake was made when imposing a sentence, what if the State deprived its innocent citizen of life because of a miscarriage of justice in court proceedings; what if a lighter punishment was to be imposed for the crime committed. These questions remain unanswered.
Moreover, I do not exclude a possibility whereby the execution of a death sentence, might circumvent some organized crimes from being investigated and tried. A death penalty is not serving as a fair punishment either for a person being executed or a person who should not be punished with it. So the issues of justice and injustice, avoiding or enduring the sentence, the intentional and unintentional nature of crimes are a source of serious concern. Let me cite some examples.
In Bayanzurkh district of the capital city five citizens of Mongolia suspected of murder, were detained for 207-1252 days. A court imposed the death penalty on four of the five suspects. However, the court of the last resort exonerated the convicts and closed the alleged murder case. One of the five citizens died while in detention due to tuberculosis. If the court of appeals had chosen to leave the verdict of the primary court as it was and didn’t spare the lives of the defendants, the Mongolian State would have killed innocent citizens.
Another example – a citizen was under investigation for 6 years 8 months and 23 days. During this period a prosecutor filed charges six times and the court sentenced him to death three times. At the court of the last resort, the case was closed upon adjudication and the citizen exonerated.
Amnesty International Mongolia reports, upon concrete facts, that one of three death penalties awarded at courts of different levels are eventually invalidated or changed. You do all very well understand that the Mongolian State should not make such mistakes on the issue of life and death for its citizens. Yet, this is the reality.
Reason Three: There are instances where the death penalty was imposed on an innocent individual instead of the actual offender. There are also cases where the death penalty was used as a means of for furthering the narrow interests of those closer to power and those who are able to influence people in power. Mongolians, too, were not immune to these bitter experiences. For decades we’ve tried, but have not yet completed rehabilitating the victims of past political purges. Mongolia ranks shamefully high in the number of repressed per capital.
According to our Criminal Code, a death penalty – shooting a person dead – is not dangerous for a criminal, but dangerous for a person who did not commit a crime. A death penalty is imposed to men between 18 to 60 years of age. We haven’t closed the door to risks of imposing death penalty to any person aged between 18 and 60, who did not commit a crime or who could have been given a lighter punishment. Mongolians have suffered enough from the death sentence option.
History reveals these facts: Between October 1937 to April 1939, in just 16 months, by 51 sessions of the Special Full-Power Committee, which was then established in place of courts, 20474 Mongolian citizens were repressed and sentenced to death. At just one session, a mass death sentence for 1228 people was issued. Facts read that there were 8 women among those repressed.
Many Mongols believe that foreigners did lend a hand in these purges. Retained death penalty may also lead to situations when it is used not only by domestic, but external forces. Majority of repressed people were those who were sentenced to death in the prime of their life.
Obviously the political and legal settings of those times are incomparable with those of today. Tremendous changes have taken place. However, the nature of death penalty remains. It is the deprivation of life on behalf of the State. That hasn’t changed. Some 67% of the Mongolian citizens, sentenced to death, are young men in their 20s to 40s. And most of them happen to have committed a crime for the first time.
Reason Four: A state-sanctioned execution is not a punishment worth praising. It is a punishment of the highest and most serious nature which degrades a human dignity.
A death penalty involves an offender on one side, and a victim on the other. It leaves families and kin with pain, hurt, and resentment. The victims of a felony often demand "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Even then issues are not exhausted. Some victims just wish they become the last victims of such a crime. And I express my condolences and beg a pardon from those left orphaned, left hurt.
There are mistakes we just can’t afford to make. There are mistakes which can be prevented only by closing the doors. The death penalty is one. Without fully abolishing it, we cannot completely do away with miscarriages of justice surrounding this form of penalty. Only when the death penalty is abolished, shall we be able to genuinely enhance the value of human life and human rights and create conditions to safeguard them. The responsibility of people and organizations involved in making penalty decisions are heightened as well.
One of the intrinsic features of a human being is his or her want for justice. There goes a saying, "a living dog is better than a dead lion". Even if unjustly judged, those alive are able to have the truth reinstated.
Mongols view that a human life is more precious than all the wealth that the earth can carry. And it is precisely because of this view that we describe a human life as a "golden life". None of the known human societies have fully secured the guarantees to prevent humans from killing one another. Yet, the State does have the possibility to stop depriving its citizens of their lives. None of the abolitionist countries have repealed death penalty under the pressure of their peoples. But the number of countries whose governments have abolished the application of this punishment grows year by year.
It may not be so soon that our blue planet Earth enjoys the guarantees against humans killing humans. But I believe that one day all countries of the world will come to stop killing their citizens on behalf of states and governments. And so Mongolia, even belatedly, even after many other countries, should abandon death penalty.
Reason Five: Mongolia is a member of the one global family. The United Nations does not support the imposition of the death penalty. It has constantly been calling its member States for abolition of the death penalty. And it does make decisions. The United Nations regularly reports to the international community on developments and international trends in the use of the death penalty, on progress achieved and retreats observed.
Generally countries are classified as either fully abolitionist, countries which have declared a moratorium on execution, and countries maintaining the punishment.
Of the 42 countries of Europe, 40 have abandoned capital punishment. And one country established a moratorium on execution of the penalty. In other words, Europe is 98% abolitionist.
Of 43 countries of Africa, 18 countries have fully abolished the death penalty. Another 11 countries have declared suspension on the use of the punishment. That makes Africa 67.5% abolitionist and opposed to the death penalty.
Fourteen out of 18 Latin American countries made their region 78% abolitionist by repealing capital punishment. In Asia, 17 out of its 46 countries abolished capital punishment, and one country suspended the use of the penalty. Asia, being the home to the most number of countries, is 40% abolitionist.
The number of countries in our continent fully abandoning capital punishment and declaring moratoriums is on an ascending trend. The "STAN" countries which often are criticized for infringements upon human rights and democracy have achieved a notable progress in repealing capital punishment. For instance, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – all four of them - have abolished capital punishment. In addition, Tajikistan, announced a moratorium on execution of death penalty.
Every country has its own road to go. So does Mongolia. We will make our own path. Mongolians can carefully observe whether action matches words. If we truly have chosen to uphold human rights and freedom, and have declared this choice, we must spare no effort to assure that human rights and freedoms are in fact exercised in this country. Just like accomplishments, or failures are assessed against criteria, our efforts to safeguard human rights and freedom must also have a criterion to be checked against. And this dear criterion is full and complete exercise of human rights and freedoms. Therefore, the State of Mongolia is to revisit its capital punishment policy, although belatedly as the overwhelming majority of the countries of the world have already chosen to abandon capital punishment. And we must join their path. The road democratic Mongolia has to take ought to be clean and bloodless.
Reason Six: A State that cannot guarantee to pardon the life of its innocent citizens cannot enjoy a moral right to tell its people "Trust Your State, Have Faith In the Government". As the Head of State of a country that maintains the death penalty, I cannot pronounce these mighty words.
I want to be a President who can tell its citizens: "I will not deprive you of your life under any circumstances, knowingly, on behalf of the State".
A moral right cannot be measured -- not in meters, or liters, or ounces. It’s just a matter of fact – a right does exist, or it does not. Period. And this right does not depend on who is the Head of State, or on who the Mongolian state decision makers happen to be. It is a matter of the ability of the State of Mongolia to state, to tell our people: "In order to prevent shooting you, dear person, one day, we are pardoning the life of the offender under a sentence of death and replacing the penalty with a 30-year sentence to prison".
It is not the fault of the people of Mongolia that Mongolia maintains the death penalty. And it is not the fault of our judiciary to practice this punishment. Our judges have endeavored to render just judgments and have been working to repair those decisions deemed unjust. Yet, I cannot firmly say, no mistakes have been made here. Similarly, I cannot say, no mistakes will be made. The price we pay for mistakes in delivering the truth is measured in human lives. Humans work in courts, judiciaries. After all, no human being is alien to mistakes.
In any country, it is the authority of the State to change the practice of capital punishment. If this punishment does exist, the guilt should rest with the politicians, it is the guilt, the fault of us, the Mongolian decision makers. It is not easy for me, as President, as an elected official, to raise the death penalty issue. I believe, the fate of a politician shouldn’t be easy. Who else, if not us, the politicians, would raise difficult issues, would wrestle with difficulties with our bare hands?
Politicians, when tackling an issue to resolve, try to take into account social psychology. The State should initiate, should enlighten, should set examples, should lead on and should resolve the issue of capital punishment. Our Mongolian State is a state of a dear tradition and history of mercy and forgiveness. It was only the State of Mongolia which enshrined the merciful and dignified policy of forgiving its citizens his 9 blunders. But what we do with vengeance which sprouts in human mind? What to do with violence in the society? The profound wisdom of our ancestors teaches us that respect for humanity is to persevere in the heart and mind of the State.
We do have a record, a bright record in our most recent history as well. On August 5, 1953, the Presidium of the People’s Great Khural adopted Decree #93 which resolved:"…to abandon the capital punishment, enforced by effective Laws of the Mongolian People’s Republic". However, in 10 months, due to certain reasons, it retreated from its decision. There are few countries which reintroduced capital punishment. Since 1985 over 50 countries abolished capital punishment. And the records show that only 4 of them retreated from their decisions.
Any community demands from its State a severe punishment for felons and criminals. The risk of making a bad decision under the anger of people increases. Therefore, flexibility is to be provided for the punishment policy to be reviewed as the decisions have to be stable and must endure the tests of time. It is not accidental to change the capital punishment, when decreeing a commutation, to a 30-year imprisonment. It is not wrong to review a complicated case and punish a felon with a lengthy imprisonment.
Reason Seven: Mongolia does have all the difficulties and challenges that a democratic country faces. And we do have the capacity to resolve them. My country is the inspiring role model of freedom in the entire region. But there is a blemish on the shiny name of Mongolia. This black spot is capital punishment which degrades to the supreme human right to life.
As the President of Mongolia, I sent a New Year Greetings message to the mobile phones to my people, to youth and elders, to men and women, on the first day of the New Year. I tried in my message to tell our people that they can forge the Good Name of Mongolia.
If Mongolia declares a moratorium on the execution of capital punishment, and eventually, becomes a country free of the death penalty, Mongolia’s Good Name and Fame will further be enhanced. At home, we may disagree and argue about the rightness of the execution moratorium and abolition. Yet, our Good Name and Solid Fame will be embraced by the world. As the Head of State of Mongolia I commit myself to ideas and initiatives to consolidate Mongolia’s integrity and honor. I appeal to you, the distinguished Members of the Parliament and Government, my dear citizens, the entire Mongolian people, to join me in the march.
As of today, Mongolia de jure maintains capital punishment. De facto, we refrain from practicing capital punishment and replace the death penalty with a penalty of 30-year imprisonment. Two clarifications need to be made here.
First, this policy is practiced when a convict with a death penalty appeals to the President for pardon. Since I assumed Presidency, there wasn’t a single convict with death penalty who didn’t appeal to me for pardon. In fact, it’s very rare for a death-sentenced convict not to ask for a mercy. The second note, 2009 was a year when Mongolia held no execution at all. The reason is I pardoned the convicts on the death row. And in future, those on the death row will be pardoned from death to imprisonment.
On the other hand, today, as the President of Mongolia, I declare to our Parliament, to my people, and to the international community that the change made in Mongolia’s capital punishment in 2009 will continue. From today on Mongolia is a country which suspends the execution of capital punishment, and becomes a country which announces a moratorium on execution of the death penalty. Mongolia will further aim to become a fully abolitionist country and shall conform our laws and legislation to this end.
This policy, I am convinced, is consistent with the historic choice our people made 20 years ago, and with the path and aspiration of Mongolia to safeguard human rights and democracy. From tomorrow, from being a country depriving her citizens of life on behalf of the State, Mongolia will come to be a country that doesn’t practice executions, and instead, imprisons its convicts for a long-term. And, understandably, from tomorrow on, the struggle to abolish capital punishment as I describe it now, will not be easy. However, as the Head of State of Mongolia, I have zero intention to retreat from the course I start because this is a right, pure and just goal.
Mr. Chairman of the State Great Khural, dear Members of the State Great Khural, I am about to reach the end of my speech. But I do have one more reason to state and two special notes to make. Please exert patience to listen to them.
Reason Eight: One of the justifications for maintaining capital punishment has been the view that it deters criminality. Not a single survey produced to date has proven that abolition of capital punishment leads either to an increase, or opposite, to a shrinkage in criminality. However, some argue that keeping the death sentence leads to an increase in serious felonies. These may be related to those as felons may conclude that they have nothing more to lose having already committed a death sentence crime.
We cannot repair a death with a death. A water drop hollows out a stone. Some fear death, but the prospect of a death makes others crueler. Criminals fear justice, fear just judgment. A just judgment in addition to being fitting to the felony is also about the truth established and reinstituted.
Let me cite an example from afar: some sources indicate that in the US, in states where capital punishment is maintained, the rate of criminality and the extent of cruelty is higher than in those states that have abandoned the punishment. However, the US cannot set a model for us in capital punishment. Whole 4 decades have elapsed since the UK abandoned the death penalty. Over this period, over 20 attempts were made to reintroduce the punishment in that country. The policy makers in the UK have, however, sought to unwaveringly protect the integrity of their State and remained faithful to their 40-year old choice. It decided to abolish capital punishment once and for all, not to revoke even in times of war.
There are quite a few distortions in Mongolia’s punishment policy that deviate from common international practices. An offender charged with a death penalty has 10 days to appeal to the court of higher jurisprudence, and has merely 15 days for appeal for a pardon. International organizations take the view that the minimum term of appeal should be no shorter than 3 years. In some developed countries, where it is possible to include the DNA test into evidences, there are occasions when those in detention have been exonerated and released.
The Mongolian Criminal Code lists many crimes as death penalty offences. Professional and official institutions list them differently. In other words, the Criminal Code lists specific provisions and terms, that can be interpreted in varying ways. The Mongolian Criminal Code names 7 offences for which the death penalty is imposed. However, these 7 offences are broken down to 59 crimes, according to a list made by an official source. Fifty nine crimes for which the death penalty can be applied. The possibility to issue a perfect, thoroughly fair judgment on such a wide premise of offences is extremely slim. Therefore, abolition of the death penalty is becoming a common practice.
Mongolia is also not immune to practices that are common for countries maintaining capital punishment. However, there are extremely grave, shameful practices that exist only in Mongolia, and already known to the rest of the world. I have just stated eight reasons for abolishing the death penalty. The fact that I am about to share is not just a reason, but it is a misery of Mongolia, it is about the humiliating nature of the practice in Mongolia. These are special situations that need to be immediately rectified.
SPECIAL SITUATION ONE: If someone is sentenced to death, it becomes practically impossible to monitor the person’s fate from outside. An international human rights organization writes time and again in its annual reports that of all countries with capital punishment there are four that are of greatest concern. One of those four is Mongolia. International organizations note that some of the four countries record improvement in the control of the capital punishment, some review the application of the punishment, and even introduce humane methods of execution.
As far as Mongolia is concerned, we lack information on executions; if there are records, they are in the form of arbitrary observations. Mongolia is the worst record keeper on the matter. This is our reality. To make this speech today before Parliament, I received information from relevant organizations and officials. There were discrepancies in those data on capital punishment. This is one of the issues that worries me gravely.
As is prescribed by law, execution procedures, the act itself, and execution documents are kept in strict confidentiality. As we all know, the State is obliged to maintain justice in society. Justice cannot be practiced in an environment of hidden information, without transparency. Justice is about humans, it’s about human rights. There is no justice without a human who this very justice is to serve.
After all, even a felon with a death penalty is entitled to certain rights, and simple human respect. If a citizen of Mongolia receives a death sentence, and if the President doesn’t grant him a pardon, there is virtually no room for national and international organizations to exercise any control over the life of the offender and seek information. These bars are equally tightly placed in front of the offender’s advocate and family. State secrecy on execution of death penalty is a blind and dark hole, just like hell.
We Mongols have embodied in our Constitution, which anniversary we marked yesterday, our will to build a humane, democratic society, which can close this black hole, at least, shed some light on it. Why ought we to care? It’s because if the hole, this bottomless pit, persists, it can soak up everything we value and cherish in our society. To seal the black hole, I decided, it would be right, first, to keep the death-sentenced alive and punish him severely with a more appropriate penalty.
I, the President of the country, as well, lack the information on citizens executed. The most I can do is just inquire. At best, I listen to a report. Your President as well, is not aware, does not see what is unheard and unseen by someone else. If, as is practiced elsewhere, a representative of the victim, at least his advocate attends the process as an observer, a source of external monitoring, a person, this very advocate will know of what has just happened.
There are many rumors about the application of capital punishment. I don’t doubt, the punishment is executed. But because it is secret, there are things that I do not know. A secret is a secret. What is kept in utmost secrecy becomes the source of utmost gossip. And as such, arouses, I would say, legitimate suspicions. This leads me to the second special situation, which I elaborate further.
SPECIAL SITUATION TWO: After the sentence is executed, issues arise about the body of the executed person. This is a serious issue. The body is not given to the family of the executed. While the State imposes its utmost and gravest punishment to the offender, it must not punish the dead body of the offender and his family.
Mongolia lacks monitoring over such bodies, not speaking about a monitoring over a death-sentenced offender. It’s not a secret that the last will of those who attempted a suicide or did commit one while on death-row is mainly a plea to give his dead body to his family and the will to be buried by his family. A newspaper recently carried an article about this issue. There were incidences when a buried body of an executed offender would surface in the floods and cause consternation.
Mongols do respect the afterlife of a person. I was shocked to learn during briefings and reports on capital punishment and corpses of executed that some of the provisions of the strictly confidential decrees of the President are not implemented, or cannot be implemented at all. Clearly, we cannot let this continue.
An official was assigned and got acquainted with the state of affairs around the death penalty and its execution. The findings and observations were reported to me. I also met with certain official people who reported attending executions. We exchanged views. While listening to the reports and findings, my conviction to repeal execution grew stronger. And the relevant officials I met also agreed that Mongolia has to end the current practice of execution.
Criminals do conceal their horrendous acts. But the State doesn’t need to fully keep in secret the fate of a criminal. There are no secrets forever. One day Mongolian society will talk about the issue. The earlier we talk, the earlier we will be able to resolve the issue. A lot of work must be done in the areas I have addressed in this speech – change our laws and rules, scrutinize and streamline the facts and data, a lot of things to check, to confirm and also, there is a need to invite more external control. We must act and immediately.
This is not the first time I am appealing to Mongolia’s law-making authority to abolish capital punishment. Nineteen years ago, when I was one of the deputees (members) of the People’s Great Khural, elected by the first ever democratic election in Mongolia, I expressed my views during the discussions of the draft of our Constitution. Back then we held two-day discussions and debates on issues relating to the abolition of capital punishment.
I recall citing eight grounds for abolition of the death penalty when I shared with my position during those discussions. Today, I am addressing the Parliament with eight groups of reasons and two special circumstances to consider. Today, when reminding the words I pronounced 19 years ago, I do not mean to flatter myself, but wish to note that back 19 years ago, there were many deputees – representatives of the people – who supported abolition of death penalty.
Mongols have fought through many decades and centuries to secure our freedom, independence and sovereignty. In 2011 we will mark the centenary of Mongolia’s restoration of our independence and freedom. Freedom and independence of any country is measured by the freedoms and liberties, and self-sustaining power of its individual citizens. I ask my people, the people of Mongolia to make a present to ourselves on this auspicious centennial of our country – let us become a country where a citizen is not deprived of life by the State, and more precisely, as a democratic country, let us be a people where a citizen is not killed by another citizen.
Mongolia is a dignified country, both in terms of the legacies of our history, and in the way we practice freedom. And our citizens are dignified people. Therefore, I ask Mongolia to put behind us this death penalty which degrades our dignity to death.
A Mongol man, a Mongol fate is not a fate to be degraded by the death penalty. Mongols are people of celestial destiny and noble fortune. Mongols, my dear people, let us live this life with dignity, with integrity, with Good Name and Solid Fame.
Thank you.
Mongolia: Activists welcome moratorium on executions
Mongolia announces moratorium on executions
Statement from Amnesty International
14 January 2010
Amnesty International has welcomed the announcement made by the government of Mongolia on Thursday declaring an official moratorium on executions in the country.
The organization said it believes President Tsakhia Elbegdorj has taken a bold move for the protection of human rights in Mongolia and welcomed this important development as a key step toward full abolition of the death penalty.
"The government of Mongolia has shown that it has a strong commitment to human rights by introducing a moratorium on the death penalty. Amnesty International urges other countries in the region to follow Mongolia’s example," said Roseann Rife, Amnesty International Asia-Pacific deputy director.
Asia continues to execute more individuals than the rest of the world combined. Amnesty International estimates at least 1,838 individuals were executed in 11 countries in Asia in 2008.
In China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and North Korea, executions and death penalty proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and a lack of transparency.
"Mongolia must quickly amend its law on state secrecy to end the lack of transparency in the application of the death penalty. Transparency is an essential element of an open and free society but also an important step towards abolition," said Roseann Rife.
The President of Mongolia commuted the death sentences of at least three people in 2009. Executions are carried out in secret in Mongolia and no official statistics on death sentences or executions are made available. Prison conditions for death row inmates are reported to be poor. Families are not notified in advance of the execution and the bodies of those executed are not returned to the family.
More than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for a moratorium on executions.
"We look forward to Mongolia’s support for the UNGA resolution in 2010 and urge other nations in the region to follow suit," said Roseann Rife.
In 2010 Mongolia’s human rights situation will also be reviewed under the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review.
The UN General Assembly will consider a third resolution calling for a moratorium on executions in 2010. Mongolia voted against the UNGA resolutions adopted in 2007 and 2008, as has China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 46 voted against and 34 abstained.
Amnesty International said it believes the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and opposes the death penalty in all cases.
The organization said that the death penalty is discriminatory, used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities and it the ultimate act of state violence. There is no evidence that it is any more effective in reducing crime than other harsh punishments.
Statement from Amnesty International
14 January 2010
Amnesty International has welcomed the announcement made by the government of Mongolia on Thursday declaring an official moratorium on executions in the country.
The organization said it believes President Tsakhia Elbegdorj has taken a bold move for the protection of human rights in Mongolia and welcomed this important development as a key step toward full abolition of the death penalty.
"The government of Mongolia has shown that it has a strong commitment to human rights by introducing a moratorium on the death penalty. Amnesty International urges other countries in the region to follow Mongolia’s example," said Roseann Rife, Amnesty International Asia-Pacific deputy director.
Asia continues to execute more individuals than the rest of the world combined. Amnesty International estimates at least 1,838 individuals were executed in 11 countries in Asia in 2008.
In China, Mongolia, Vietnam, and North Korea, executions and death penalty proceedings are shrouded in secrecy and a lack of transparency.
"Mongolia must quickly amend its law on state secrecy to end the lack of transparency in the application of the death penalty. Transparency is an essential element of an open and free society but also an important step towards abolition," said Roseann Rife.
The President of Mongolia commuted the death sentences of at least three people in 2009. Executions are carried out in secret in Mongolia and no official statistics on death sentences or executions are made available. Prison conditions for death row inmates are reported to be poor. Families are not notified in advance of the execution and the bodies of those executed are not returned to the family.
More than two-thirds of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution calling for a moratorium on executions.
"We look forward to Mongolia’s support for the UNGA resolution in 2010 and urge other nations in the region to follow suit," said Roseann Rife.
In 2010 Mongolia’s human rights situation will also be reviewed under the United Nations Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review.
The UN General Assembly will consider a third resolution calling for a moratorium on executions in 2010. Mongolia voted against the UNGA resolutions adopted in 2007 and 2008, as has China, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. In 2008, 106 countries voted in favour of the resolution, 46 voted against and 34 abstained.
Amnesty International said it believes the death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and opposes the death penalty in all cases.
The organization said that the death penalty is discriminatory, used disproportionately against the poor, minorities and members of racial, ethnic and religious communities and it the ultimate act of state violence. There is no evidence that it is any more effective in reducing crime than other harsh punishments.
Australia: Alabama seeks death for dive death
Alabama A-G: death penalty 'still on table'
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
From: The Brisbane Times, 14 January 2010
The Attorney General of Alabama has refused to back down from a possible capital murder charge against honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, despite knowing Australia will not extradite a person if they may face the death penalty.
Gabe Watson, 32, was convicted this year of manslaughter after leaving his wife of just 11 days, Christine 'Tina' Watson, to drown on the floor of the Great Barrier Reef in 2003 during a scuba diving trip.
Alabama Attorney General Troy King has maintained Watson evaded the full weight of the law under a plea bargain with the Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions and is determined to pursue a capital murder charge against Gabe Watson in the United States.
Alabama authorities believe they can mount a case that Watson plotted and planned the 'murder' in the US state.
"I won't add to the dishonour of [Tina's] memory by allowing Australia's view of what is just to affect what we do," Mr King told Fairfax Radio 4BC today.
"If we become convinced that we can prove a capital murder charge, we will go to an Alabama grand jury and seek the most severe charge."
But under the Australian Extradition Act, a person cannot be deported to face prosecution for a capital offence, unless there was an undertaking that the death penalty would not be carried out.
"One way [to have Watson extradited] would be for Alabama to water down its law the way you have watered down yours," Mr King told 4BC.
"But I believe that for us to seek any punishment and any penalty less than that which we think is appropriate doesn't make matters worse, it compounds what's already a very tragic and sad situation.
"If we get the evidence, and as I am anticipating, [it] does support a [capital murder charge], then of course I'm not going to take it off the table."
But Tina's father Tommy Thomas told brisbanetimes.com.au today he would be disappointed if Mr King's refusal to take the death penalty off the table would see Watson "escape justice again".
"I would be disappointed if something were to allow him to escape extradition and continue to allow him to freely escape a trial by jury," Mr Thomas said.
But Mr Thomas stopped short of calling for Mr King to drop a possible capital murder charge against Watson.
"The fact of the matter is the decision to that end is really not in our hand to begin with," he said.
"What we've always wanted is to see Gabe stand trial for what he was indicted for in Australia."
Yesterday, Acting Police Minister Andrew Fraser said double jeopardy laws and Australia's objection to the death penalty would hamper any attempts to extradite Watson.
Should Australia refuse to extradite Watson, Mr King said "it would remain pending until and unless he returned to the United State voluntarily".
"It's our citizen who went to Australia. It's our citizen who did not come home. It's our citizen who lost their life. And I intend to do everything in my power to see that justice is done by the state of Alabama for citizens of the state of Alabama," he said.
Mr King maintained Queensland authorities had refused to co-operate with the state's prosecutors, although the Queensland Attorney General's department found no record of any formal request from Alabama, "despite an extensive search".
It is understood, however, that a request has been made by Mr King's office to the Queensland Police for the investigation material.
University of Queensland international law expert Professor Andreas Schloenhardt told brisbanetimes.com.au any transmission of investigation material must be made between the Australian and United States federal governments, by way of a formal request.
MARISSA CALLIGEROS
From: The Brisbane Times, 14 January 2010
The Attorney General of Alabama has refused to back down from a possible capital murder charge against honeymoon dive killer Gabe Watson, despite knowing Australia will not extradite a person if they may face the death penalty.
Gabe Watson, 32, was convicted this year of manslaughter after leaving his wife of just 11 days, Christine 'Tina' Watson, to drown on the floor of the Great Barrier Reef in 2003 during a scuba diving trip.
Alabama Attorney General Troy King has maintained Watson evaded the full weight of the law under a plea bargain with the Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions and is determined to pursue a capital murder charge against Gabe Watson in the United States.
Alabama authorities believe they can mount a case that Watson plotted and planned the 'murder' in the US state.
"I won't add to the dishonour of [Tina's] memory by allowing Australia's view of what is just to affect what we do," Mr King told Fairfax Radio 4BC today.
"If we become convinced that we can prove a capital murder charge, we will go to an Alabama grand jury and seek the most severe charge."
But under the Australian Extradition Act, a person cannot be deported to face prosecution for a capital offence, unless there was an undertaking that the death penalty would not be carried out.
"One way [to have Watson extradited] would be for Alabama to water down its law the way you have watered down yours," Mr King told 4BC.
"But I believe that for us to seek any punishment and any penalty less than that which we think is appropriate doesn't make matters worse, it compounds what's already a very tragic and sad situation.
"If we get the evidence, and as I am anticipating, [it] does support a [capital murder charge], then of course I'm not going to take it off the table."
But Tina's father Tommy Thomas told brisbanetimes.com.au today he would be disappointed if Mr King's refusal to take the death penalty off the table would see Watson "escape justice again".
"I would be disappointed if something were to allow him to escape extradition and continue to allow him to freely escape a trial by jury," Mr Thomas said.
But Mr Thomas stopped short of calling for Mr King to drop a possible capital murder charge against Watson.
"The fact of the matter is the decision to that end is really not in our hand to begin with," he said.
"What we've always wanted is to see Gabe stand trial for what he was indicted for in Australia."
Yesterday, Acting Police Minister Andrew Fraser said double jeopardy laws and Australia's objection to the death penalty would hamper any attempts to extradite Watson.
Should Australia refuse to extradite Watson, Mr King said "it would remain pending until and unless he returned to the United State voluntarily".
"It's our citizen who went to Australia. It's our citizen who did not come home. It's our citizen who lost their life. And I intend to do everything in my power to see that justice is done by the state of Alabama for citizens of the state of Alabama," he said.
Mr King maintained Queensland authorities had refused to co-operate with the state's prosecutors, although the Queensland Attorney General's department found no record of any formal request from Alabama, "despite an extensive search".
It is understood, however, that a request has been made by Mr King's office to the Queensland Police for the investigation material.
University of Queensland international law expert Professor Andreas Schloenhardt told brisbanetimes.com.au any transmission of investigation material must be made between the Australian and United States federal governments, by way of a formal request.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Indonesia: Call to end death penalty
Repeal Indonesia's Death Penalty: Rights Group
By Camelia Pasandaran
From: Jakarta Globe, 6 January 2010
Indonesian rights group Imparsial on Wednesday expressed concerns over the government’s reluctance to do away with the death penalty.
In its latest report released, the organization said that 21 of the 119 people sentenced to death across the country had been executed between 1998 and December 2009. It said that almost half of those were executed in 2008 alone, when 10 prisoners faced the firing squad.
"From past experience, death row prisoners can wait as long as 20 years before they are finally executed," said Al Araf, a senior research coordinator at the rights group.
He added that of the 119 prisoners on the death row, 55 were foreigners.
"Among the foreigners, the highest number comes from Nigeria, with 11 people," Al Araf said.
The other foreign prisoners on death row are from Australia, Nepal, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the Netherlands.
Al Araf said the government should commute the death sentence to life in prison for psoners that have been on death row for five years or more.
"After five years, the sanction should be changed to a life sentence," he said, adding that more than 60 of those currently on death row have been waiting for more than five years.
Nineteen of the 21 prisoners who have faced the firing squad since 1998 were convicted for murder. Those convicted of drug offenses were the second-largest group, and those convicted of terrorism charges were third.
Indonesia is one of 66 countries around the world that still implements the death penalty. Although the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, it has not adopted the second optional protocol aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.
Despite international pressure, the death penalty is still imposed for crimes in Indonesia.
Al Araf said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, and everyone had the right to life. "As an intrinsic right, there should be no exception in whatever situation," he said. "Instead, the death sentence has been promoted by politicians to show how serious they are in fighting crime. It has become a political commodity to win elections."
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s legal affairs adviser, Denny Indrayana, recently said the government’s stance was in line with a Constitutional Court ruling in March 2007 that threw out a judicial review filed by two Australians on death row, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. They had challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.
By Camelia Pasandaran
From: Jakarta Globe, 6 January 2010
Indonesian rights group Imparsial on Wednesday expressed concerns over the government’s reluctance to do away with the death penalty.
In its latest report released, the organization said that 21 of the 119 people sentenced to death across the country had been executed between 1998 and December 2009. It said that almost half of those were executed in 2008 alone, when 10 prisoners faced the firing squad.
"From past experience, death row prisoners can wait as long as 20 years before they are finally executed," said Al Araf, a senior research coordinator at the rights group.
He added that of the 119 prisoners on the death row, 55 were foreigners.
"Among the foreigners, the highest number comes from Nigeria, with 11 people," Al Araf said.
The other foreign prisoners on death row are from Australia, Nepal, China, Malaysia, Singapore, Brazil, Thailand, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Malawi and the Netherlands.
Al Araf said the government should commute the death sentence to life in prison for psoners that have been on death row for five years or more.
"After five years, the sanction should be changed to a life sentence," he said, adding that more than 60 of those currently on death row have been waiting for more than five years.
Nineteen of the 21 prisoners who have faced the firing squad since 1998 were convicted for murder. Those convicted of drug offenses were the second-largest group, and those convicted of terrorism charges were third.
Indonesia is one of 66 countries around the world that still implements the death penalty. Although the country ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2005, it has not adopted the second optional protocol aimed at the abolition of the death penalty.
Despite international pressure, the death penalty is still imposed for crimes in Indonesia.
Al Araf said the death penalty was not an effective deterrent to crime, and everyone had the right to life. "As an intrinsic right, there should be no exception in whatever situation," he said. "Instead, the death sentence has been promoted by politicians to show how serious they are in fighting crime. It has become a political commodity to win elections."
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s legal affairs adviser, Denny Indrayana, recently said the government’s stance was in line with a Constitutional Court ruling in March 2007 that threw out a judicial review filed by two Australians on death row, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan. They had challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Monday, 21 December 2009
Viet Nam: Blogger may face death penalty
Blogger and activist faces possible death penalty
Published on 14 December 2009
Statement from Reporters Without Borders
Reporters Without Borders is deeply concerned about French-educated blogger and pro-democracy activist Nguyen Tien Trung, now facing a possible death penalty under article 79 of the criminal code after the charges against him were changed to "trying to overthrow the people’s government." Arrested more than five months ago, he is due to be tried at the end of the month.
"We call for Nguyen Tien Trung’s immediate and unconditional release as the charges against him are entirely fabricated," Reporters Without Borders said. "Trung is a pacifist who has never endangered the Vietnamese state. He just exercised his right to free expression, a right he learned to use in France."
The press freedom organisation added: "Trung is a scapegoat. The authorities want to make an example of him in order to intimidate other Vietnamese students who want to press for more freedom when they return home after studying abroad."
Trung’s family told Reporters Without Borders that his father was allowed to visit him on 10 December for the second time since his arrest. The authorities are reportedly now going to allow his family to visit him once a month. Trung seemed to be in good physical and psychological condition and did his best to reassure his father. He asked his father to bring him books, especially economics and French books. The authorities are considering the request.
A former student at the National Institute for Applied Sciences (INSA) in the northern French city of Rennes, where he got a masters in information technology, Trung was arrested at his parents’ home in Ho Chi Minh City on 7 July on a charge of propaganda against the state under article 88 of the criminal code. A government TV station broadcast taped footage in which he made a confession.
He seems to have been arrested because of the pro-democracy views he posted online and, in particular, an open letter to the government about education policies.
The Trung support committee website posted an opinion piece by Philippe Echart, who was one of Trung’s teachers at the INSA.
"It is strange for a teacher to realise that one his students, which whom he had a few talks and to whom he paid special attention because he was a foreigner, is now being in prison at the other end of the world, in his own country, on serious charges," Echard writes. "And why is he in prison? For expressing his views freely. For criticising university education in Vietnam. For calling for more freedoms and more democracy, as many other intellectuals in his country have."
The support committee is calling for a determined campaign on his behalf. "The worst that could happen to Trung is that people gradually forget him," the committee’s appeal says. Trung’s friends and family have relaunched the campaign for his release. Sign a petition at the http://freetrung.tk website.
Published on 14 December 2009
Statement from Reporters Without Borders
Reporters Without Borders is deeply concerned about French-educated blogger and pro-democracy activist Nguyen Tien Trung, now facing a possible death penalty under article 79 of the criminal code after the charges against him were changed to "trying to overthrow the people’s government." Arrested more than five months ago, he is due to be tried at the end of the month.
"We call for Nguyen Tien Trung’s immediate and unconditional release as the charges against him are entirely fabricated," Reporters Without Borders said. "Trung is a pacifist who has never endangered the Vietnamese state. He just exercised his right to free expression, a right he learned to use in France."
The press freedom organisation added: "Trung is a scapegoat. The authorities want to make an example of him in order to intimidate other Vietnamese students who want to press for more freedom when they return home after studying abroad."
Trung’s family told Reporters Without Borders that his father was allowed to visit him on 10 December for the second time since his arrest. The authorities are reportedly now going to allow his family to visit him once a month. Trung seemed to be in good physical and psychological condition and did his best to reassure his father. He asked his father to bring him books, especially economics and French books. The authorities are considering the request.
A former student at the National Institute for Applied Sciences (INSA) in the northern French city of Rennes, where he got a masters in information technology, Trung was arrested at his parents’ home in Ho Chi Minh City on 7 July on a charge of propaganda against the state under article 88 of the criminal code. A government TV station broadcast taped footage in which he made a confession.
He seems to have been arrested because of the pro-democracy views he posted online and, in particular, an open letter to the government about education policies.
The Trung support committee website posted an opinion piece by Philippe Echart, who was one of Trung’s teachers at the INSA.
"It is strange for a teacher to realise that one his students, which whom he had a few talks and to whom he paid special attention because he was a foreigner, is now being in prison at the other end of the world, in his own country, on serious charges," Echard writes. "And why is he in prison? For expressing his views freely. For criticising university education in Vietnam. For calling for more freedoms and more democracy, as many other intellectuals in his country have."
The support committee is calling for a determined campaign on his behalf. "The worst that could happen to Trung is that people gradually forget him," the committee’s appeal says. Trung’s friends and family have relaunched the campaign for his release. Sign a petition at the http://freetrung.tk website.
Australia: Police guidelines announced
Media Release
INTERNATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COOPERATION
18 December 2009
Attorney-General
Hon Robert McClelland MP
Minister for Home Affairs
Brendan O'Connor MP
Attorney-General, Robert McClelland and Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O’Connor, today announced a new policy to govern law enforcement cooperation with countries that may apply the death penalty.
Successive Australian Governments have maintained a long-standing policy of opposition to the death penalty and it is appropriate that this position is reflected in our law enforcement practices.
From today, new Australian Federal Police (AFP) guidelines governing police-to-police assistance in possible death penalty cases will take effect.
The new guidelines will require senior AFP management to consider a set of prescribed factors before providing assistance in matters with possible death penalty implications, including:
* the purpose of providing the information and the reliability of that information;
* the seriousness of the suspected criminal activity;
* the nationality, age and personal circumstances of the person involved;
* the potential risks to the person, and other persons, in providing or not providing the information; and
* Australia’s interest in promoting and securing cooperation from overseas agencies in combating crime.
The new guidelines will also require:
* Ministerial approval of assistance in any case in which a person has been arrested, detained, charged with, or convicted of, an offence which carries the death penalty; and
* the AFP Commissioner to report biannually to the Minister for Home Affairs about the number and nature of cases where information is provided to foreign law enforcement agencies in potential death penalty cases.
These changes follow a thorough examination of existing policy and represent a balanced and responsible approach that provides greater clarity and accountability, while maintaining our commitment to combating transnational crime.
A copy of the new AFP Practical Guide on International Police-to-Police Assistance in Potential Death Penalty Situations is attached and available at http://www.afp.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/21096/Guideline_for_international_death_penalty_situation.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
