Nov. 27
INDIA:
Indians See Justice in a Terrorist's Execution
The Pakistani militant Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, 25, sentenced to death in an
Indian court 2 years ago, was hanged at the Yerwada jail in Pune last week.
Kasab was the lone surviving member of the 10-man terrorist squad that, in an
operation meticulously planned by the Pakistan-based militant group
Lashkar-e-Taiba, slipped into Mumbai from the sea and attacked several soft
targets on Nov. 26, 2008, killing 166 people. It was the 1st death sentence to
be carried out in India since 2004.
In the 4 years between his rampage in Mumbai and his hanging in Pune, Kasab was
housed at great expense in a high-security cell and was given a fair hearing by
the many tiers of the Indian justice system. Sentenced to death by a trial
court in 2010, Kasab appealed unsuccessfully in both the Mumbai High Court and
the Supreme Court of India, which upheld the sentence in August. In September,
he wrote to the president in Hindi, a language taught to him by Abu Jundal, one
of the handlers who directed the attack on Mumbai and who was recently handed
over to India by the government of Saudi Arabia. A few days after President
Pranab Mukherjee rejected Kasab's mercy petition, the convict was spirited away
to Pune in a top-secret operation and executed early on Nov. 21.
The language of the government communique that announced Kasab's death was
commendably restrained, with no mention of his nationality or his crime:
New Delhi, Kartik 30, 1934
November 21, 2012
The petition for clemency filed by condemned prisoner Mohammed Ajmal Mohammed
Amir Kasab was rejected by the President on 5th November, 2012. The sentence
was executed today at 7.30am at Yerwada Central Prison, Yerwada, Pune.
The message is worded so that it isn't the prisoner who was executed but the
sentence; what is emphasized is that the law has taken its course and that all
available channels of reprieve have been exhausted. When broadcast on news
channels and in newspapers, however, reports of Kasab's execution were
accompanied by images of his crimes, and reactions on the street were much
stronger. The news was received with jubilation in many parts of the country,
with many Indians seeing it as a fit reply to, even revenge for, the carnage
and horror of 26/11. The families of policemen and citizens who were killed in
the rampage saw it, quite naturally, as a small compensation for their
suffering.
Human-rights activists condemned the decision to carry out Kasab's sentence,
which occurred just a day after the United Nations General Assembly adopted a
draft resolution against the death penalty. (India was one of 39 countries that
voted against the resolution.) Some of the common arguments against the death
penalty, though -- particularly the one that in many instances there is a small
margin for error in the judgment -- don't apply to the Kasab case: Extensive
footage of the crimes is available, some of it taken by photojournalists who
risked getting killed in the in the bloodbath by Kasab and his compatriots at
Mumbai's CST station.
Some very nuanced and cogent thoughts were offered by the political theorist
Pratap Bhanu Mehta in an essay called "Our Humanity And Theirs." Mehta
cautioned against interpretations of the death penalty that emphasized either
deterrence or retribution, and pointed to a welcome restraint on the part of
the Indian state to actually implement the ultimate penalty:
The Indian legal system, for once, dealt with the Kasab case matter of factly,
with due process, under existing law. The final outcome was consistent with the
law as it exists. This particular matter should rest there. But the attempt to
construct the exercise of the death penalty as the expression of some
collective retribution is deeply problematic in two ways. It privileges
retribution as the only legitimate moral discourse. But even more dangerous for
democracy, it constructs a false idea of collectivity. ...
The argument that the death penalty deters crimes is empirically untenable. The
most complex moral argument for it was Immanuel Kant???s, who, paradoxically,
thought that the death penalty was a way of recognising the humanity of the
perpetrator. For Kant, the most important aspect of our humanity is that we are
responsible agents. Punishing perpetrators in accordance with their crime,
under the principle of ius talionis, is attributing responsibility to them, and
therefore acknowledging their humanity. ...
It could be argued that even in India, despite the surface frenzy, norms are
shifting. The Supreme Court has said that the death penalty should be applied
in the rarest of rare cases, though the number of crimes to which it can be
applied has not shrunk. We have about five hundred inmates on death row. And
while uncertainty is psychologically torturous for the convicted, our
reluctance to execute even those who have been sentenced does suggest that
there is more healthy ambivalence about exercising the death penalty in our
system than before.
It seems fair to suggest that if there should be a justice system in which the
death penalty is applied "in the rarest of rare cases" (unlike, say, in China),
then Kasab's was such a case. Here was a man who approached a terrorist group
seeking to be part of its cadre, and then traveled to another country as one of
a squad of would-be martyrs seeking to take the lives of as many innocents as
possible. Kasab voluntarily accepted the loss of his own life the moment he
agreed to be part of the attacks, which is one good reason his case can't be
used as a completely sound argument for the pro-life camp on capital
punishment. Were Kasab's case to be taken as a test case for the abolition of
the death penalty, most Indians would vote against it. As a writer for The
Economist wrote on its Asia blog, The Banyan, in "Killing Kasab":
It is hard to feel particularly sorry at the hanging of Ajmal Kasab, in Pune,
India, early on November 21st. He was the sole surviving gunman from a 2008
Mumbai terrorist attack, in which Pakistani infiltrators killed at least 166
people during a prolonged and traumatising rampage in the city. The assault on
ordinary residents and tourists, at a busy train station, a Jewish centre and
most notably a prominent hotel, was vicious, intended to spread terror and
possibly to provoke a wider conflict between India and Pakistan.
Mr Kasab, who was 21 in November 2008, presumably expected to be killed during
the abhorrent attack. Instead he was arrested, interrogated, tried and
imprisoned fairly. Now he has been executed according to Indian law, which
allows the use of the death penalty only in the "rarest of rare" cases. A
majority of Indians almost certainly support the hanging in this case and
probably back the death penalty in general.
Further, there was a practical reason for executing Kasab swiftly, as explained
by Namrata Biji Ahuja in a piece in the Deccan Chronicle. The convict belonged
to a terrorist group based in a neighboring country, which could launch a 2nd
attack on an Indian target to obtain Kasab's return:
One reason for the swift execution of Ajmal Kasab was a warning from the
Intelligence Bureau that if he was kept alive any longer, the country might
once again face a situation like the hijacking of Flight IC-814 in December
1999 [in Afghanistan] that forced the then NDA government to negotiate and
release three Pakistani terrorists who had been held in Indian jails for a long
time -- Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, Ahmed Saeed Omar Sheikh and Maulana Masood Azhar
-- on December 31, 1999.
As much as arguments about the legitimacy of the death penalty, retribution or
closure, an aspect of the Kasab execution that needed emphasizing was flagged
by Y.P. Rajesh in the Indian Express:
By all accounts, Kasab was an illiterate LeT footsoldier, radicalised like
thousands others of his ilk in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and sent to his death
as part of a delusional strategy of conflict pursued by the jihad factory
across the border. ...
But any way you see it, the execution of Kasab on Wednesday provides absolutely
no reason to gloat. It is not a "victory" for India, as some have made it out
to be, or a "tribute" to the innocent victims, as some leaders have claimed.
And closure it certainly is not. ...
The most critical, unfinished business on the post-26/11 agenda is the
prosecution of the seven men held in Pakistan for planning and organising the
bloodshed. But the speed at which the trial, held in an anti-terrorism court in
Rawalpindi, has progressed, the frequent change in the judges presiding over
the case, and the judicial obstructionism over considering evidence from India,
have only raised more questions about Pakistan???s proclaimed commitment to see
the process through.
India can't complete this "unfinished business" on its own; it requires
pressure on the Pakistani government from the international community,
particularly the U.S., as much in its own interest as in India's (as the
discovery last year of Osama bin Laden's hideout in Abbottabad, close to
Pakistan's premier military academy, made clear).
Indeed, it might be argued that the U.S.'s military and strategic response to
the Sept. 11 attacks has, in strengthening Pakistan's army, and thereby
army-backed jihadist groups, at the expense of the state, had the effect of
making India much more vulnerable to terrorist attacks from across the border.
That is why, to many Indians registering the news of Kasab's execution last
week after a full and fair trial, it seemed logical that death can't just be
interpreted as a penalty for a man who first sought it as a prize.
(source: Chandrahas Choudhury, a novelist, is the New Delhi correspondent for
World View--Bloomberg News)
*****************
Terrorism--A President's pardon
President Rajendra Prasad. He asserted his moral authority over the executive
and persuaded it to reconsider its initial advice to reject mercy petitions in
several cases.
India's 1st President, Rajendra Prasad, had set a healthy convention with
regard to the exercise of his powers under Article 72 of the Constitution,
dealing with pardon and commutation of sentences, before demitting office in
May 1962 as President for the 2nd consecutive term. Conscious of his limited
powers, he asserted his moral authority over the executive, persuading it to
reconsider its initial advice to reject mercy petitions in several cases. The
lawyer and scholar Bikramjeet Batra says that Prasad's notings on petitions
suggest that he was not a vocal supporter of the death penalty and tended not
to disagree when the government recommended commutation of a death penalty.
Batra further notes that President Prasad was able to put his legal expertise
to sound use in cases where the government recommended rejection but he had
concerns about the culpability and role of the petitioner and recommended
reconsideration of such petitions.
Thus, when the file of Parmatma Saran reached President Prasad from the office
of the then Home Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, it appeared to be an
open-and-shut case. Minister of State for Home B.N. Datar recommended rejection
of Saran's petition on January 2, 1962, and the President rejected it on
January 10, 1962. The execution of Saran was scheduled to take place at the
Meerut Central Jail on January 24, 1962.
Saran was an educated young employee of the Indian Railways. Infatuated with
another woman, Saran took the extreme step of killing his wife in order to
become eligible for a 2nd marriage. The trial court sentenced him to death, and
the High Court and the Supreme Court confirmed it. Both Shastri and Datar were
convinced that the courts had correctly sentenced Saran to death in view of the
barbaric offence committed by him. President Prasad too concurred with the view
and rejected his mercy petition.
On January 18, 1962, Shastri's office received a fresh mercy petition from
Saran's father-in-law, Pt. Sheel Chand Sharma, praying for the life of Saran,
especially in the interest of the only son born to Saran and his daughter.
Sharma pointed out that his grandson's future, in the absence of his father,
would be quite dark and his schooling and upbringing would virtually be
neglected. He believed that Saran, if alive, though in jail, could be expected
to make some arrangements to that extent.
The Home Minister received another representation from the 87-year-old
grandmother of Saran, Ganeshi Devi. She brought to Shastri's attention the fact
that her son (Saran's father) had virtually become insane after he learnt the
rejection of Saran's mercy petition.
These 2 petitions forced the government to stop Saran's execution and consider
the mercy pleas afresh.
Datar noted in the file: "If he [Saran] were to be executed, further and
perhaps irreparable tragedies are likely to happen in this family for no fault
of its members. The child is only 4 1/2 years old. We might leave him [Saran]
to pass his long life behind the prison bars and return to freedom in the
fullness of time a really repentant and changed man." Datar further observed:
"The circumstances that weighed with me most in this respect was the highly
humanitarian appeal made by the murdered woman's father himself in the interest
of his grandson - the only son of the prisoner and his murdered wife. It is not
unlikely that the boy would thereby remain uncared for and perhaps go astray or
might meet with an early end, in as much as he is at present only 4 1/2 years
old."
President Rajendra Prasad, based on this fresh advice from the Home Ministry,
commuted Saran's death sentence to life imprisonment on March 30, 1962.
Saran's case tells us 2 things: 1, even if Saran's father-in-law and
grandmother had not sent fresh mercy pleas to the government after the
rejection of Saran's mercy petition by the President, nothing prevented the
government from finding out, on its own, whether there were any circumstances
of the criminal which could be considered mitigating, and, therefore, in favour
of commutation. These circumstances might not have been made out in the
convict's mercy petition; but it did not mean that they did not exist or were
not sufficient grounds in favour of commuting the sentence.
Secondly, compassionate grounds in favour of the convict would not disappear
simply because the crime committed by the convict was horrific or barbaric. The
executive and the President must assess these compassionate grounds
independently of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court and the
courts below it have found to have been committed by a person.
(source: V. Venkatesan, Frontline--India's National Magazine)
*********************************
Honour killings: Law panel says no to death penalty
Against the backdrop of the latest case of alleged honour killing, the Law
Commission has recommended making it a non-bailable offence but disagreed with
Supreme Court's suggestion that death sentence be applied to all such cases.
The Commission had also asked the government to explore the possibility of a
new law to prohibit unlawful caste assemblies (like Khaps) which take decisions
to condemn marriages not prohibited by law.
The Centre today said it was seriously considering a Constitution amendment to
deal with honour killings, as it sought a report from the UP government on the
murder of a man featured in Aamir Khan's show on the problem.
The Centre, which had constituted a Group of Ministers on honour crimes, had
earlier proposed making honour killings a separate offence under the IPC to
bring clarity to law enforcement agencies.
"No person or any group shall assemble to condemn any marriage not prohibited
by law, on the basis that it dishonoured the caste or community," the report
stated.
"These offending acts which imperil the liberty of young persons marrying or
intending to marry according to their wishes are being perpetrated in certain
parts of the country and need to be effectively checked," Commission chief
Justice P V Reddi wrote to the Law Ministry before he demitted office recently.
The Cabinet has recently approved the setting up of a new Law Commission for a
3-year period but its chairman and members have not yet been appointed.
Sources in the Law Ministry said, the August, 2012 report has been forwarded to
the Home Ministry for further action.
The wife of 29-year-old Abdul Hakim, who was shot dead on Thursday last,
yesterday alleged that her family members were behind the death of her husband.
According to the Hakim's wife Mahvish, the victim was shot dead by her family
members on November 22 after he had just entered a Bulandshahr village in Uttar
Pradesh along with her and their 2-year-old daughter.
Another proposal was to amend the Indian Evidence Act to put the burden of
proof on the accused, which means khap panchayats and family members who
perpetrated killings would have to prove their innocence.
The Commission, however, has rejected the government's suggestion of defining
honour killing as a specific offence in the Indian Penal Code (Section 300),
stating that the existing provisions were sufficient.
It has also turned down the government's view that onus of proving innocence in
honour killings cases must be shifted on the accused.
The new law proposed by the Commission has defined 3 separate offences, with a
maximum jail term of 7 years for those found guilty of criminally intimidating
married couples.
It has disagreed with the Supreme Court???s suggestion that death sentence be
applied to all honour killing cases. "With great respect, we are constrained to
say that such a blanket direction given by the Supreme Court making death
sentence a rule in 'honour killings' cases, makes a departure from the
principles firmly entrenched in our criminal jurisprudence by virtue of a
series of decisions rendered by larger Benches of Supreme Court," the
Commission said.
It said that it is settled law that aggravating and mitigating circumstances
should be weighed and it is only in very exceptional and rare cases, death
sentence should be imposed.
"Death sentence, in other words, is a last resort. Further, where there is more
than one accused, the degree of participation and culpability may vary," it
added.
(source: FirstPost India)
THAILNAD:
Thai 'red shirt' protest leaders to go on trial
Thai leaders of "red shirt" opposition protests that rocked Bangkok in 2010 are
set to stand trial on Thursday for terrorism, in a case that risks inflaming
the kingdom's political tensions.
The 24 accused, who include five current lawmakers, could in theory face the
death penalty for their roles in the demonstrations, which at their height drew
around 100,000 people, mostly supporters of ousted ex-premier Thaksin
Shinawatra.
About 90 people were killed and nearly 1,900 were wounded in a series of street
clashes between demonstrators and security forces, which culminated in a bloody
military crackdown. 2 foreign journalists were among those killed.
The reds were demanding immediate elections, accusing the previous government
of being undemocratic because it took office in 2008 through a parliamentary
vote, after a court stripped Thaksin's allies of power.
The "red shirt" leaders, most of whom surrendered to police after the
government sent in armoured vehicles and troops firing live rounds, say they
are confident they can prove their innocence.
"In many countries, those in power will find any accusations to support their
use of force against the people," said top Red Shirt Nattawut Saikuar, now
deputy commerce minister in Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's cabinet.
He denied the protest leaders incited their followers to cause violence.
"I'm certain that the protesters did not need any speeches to provoke them.
They saw more and more people injured and dying. The situation was already very
heated," Nattawut said in an interview.
After the May crackdown, protest leaders asked their supporters to disperse,
but authorities accused hardcore demonstrators of setting fire to dozens of
buildings, including a shopping mall and the stock exchange.
The leaders pleaded not guilty in August 2010 to terrorism charges. Their trial
is expected to last months or even years because hearings can only be held when
parliament is not in session as sitting lawmakers have immunity.
No government or military officials who oversaw the riots have been charged
over the deaths, prompting accusations by the red shirts of double standards.
Their hero Thaksin, adored by many poor Thais for his populist policies while
in power, was toppled by royalist generals in a 2006 coup that unleashed years
of street protests by the Reds and the rival royalist Yellow Shirts.
The bloody 2010 crackdown followed weeks of rallies by the Red Shirts which
brought parts of central Bangkok to a standstill.
Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who oversaw the military crackdown,
insisted the protest leaders should accept responsibility and said his
government had no choice but to take tough action.
"It was the job of the government of that day to also restore order," he said
ahead of the trial.
Rights campaigners, however, said both the protesters and the authorities of
the time should be held accountable.
"The military, the security forces were responsible for larger casualties but
both sides were clearly responsible," said Sunai Pasuk, a Thai researcher with
New York-based Human Right Watch.
Elections last year brought Thaksin's red shirt-backed Puea Thai party to power
and swept his sister Yingluck into office.
A proposed amnesty might allow Thaksin back from self-imposed exile, to the
dismay of his opponents who staged their own anti-government protests in
Bangkok on Saturday, sparking clashes with the police.
Activists fear an amnesty would let perpetrators of the unrest on both sides
off the hook.
"It may help political leaders and military leaders to co-exist and the
survival of the government is guaranteed but this is not justice for victims of
violence," said Sunai.
(source: Agence France-Presse)
GAMBIA:
Amnesty Int'l Urged ACHPR To Put Pressure On Gambia
Amnesty International has called on the African Commission on Human and
People's Rights (ACHRP) to put pressure on the Gambian authorities to remove
the controversial capital punishment laws from its constitution.
The London based organisation said provisions for capital punishment in the
Gambian constitution are in breach of international human rights law and should
not be made mandatory for crimes which do not meet the threshold of "most
serious crimes".
It added that under the Gambian Criminal Procedural Code, the death penalty is
mandatory for murder and making it a mandatory death sentence is preventing
judges from exercising their discretion and from considering all extenuating
circumstances of the individual case.
In its statement on the Gambia at the 52nd ordinary session of the African
Commission on Human And People's Rights in Yamoussoukro, Cote d'Ivoire, Amnesty
International renewed calls for Gambian authorities to put in place a permanent
and unconditional moratorium on execution of death row inmates in the country
with a view to abolishing the death penalty, in line with resolutions of the UN
General Assembly and the African Commission.
It added that although treason is not listed as a capital crime in Section
18(2) of the Gambian Constitution, which only permits the death penalty for
crimes "resulting in the death of another person," death sentences are being
repeatedly imposed in the Gambia for alleged crimes of treason.
Citing the case of General Long Tombong Tamba and others as example, it said
the men were found guilty of treason and sentenced to death in a trial that
violated international standards of fairness.
The organisation criticised the secret execution of 9 death row inmates in
August by the Jammeh regime and its continuous refusal to return the bodies of
the inmates to their families.
It described the executions as a violation of international and regional human
rights standards, as well as applicable national law, in relation to use of the
death penalty.
It said that 3 of the 9 prisoners executed, Malang Sonko, Tabara Samba and Buba
Yarboe, had not yet exhausted their legal appeals, and their execution is a
violation of the Gambian Constitution and international human rights standards
The organisation added: "Refusing to provide convicted persons and family
members with advance notice of the date and time of execution is contrary to
international human rights standards, which require inmates on death row and
their families to be given reasonable advance notice of the scheduled date and
time of the execution, with a view to reducing the psychological suffering
caused by the lack of opportunity to prepare themselves for this event."
Amnesty International expressed concerns at the lack of independence of the
Gambian judiciary from political pressures and the prevalent use of confessions
obtained under duress in trials.
It said that 38 death row prisoners in the Gambia are at imminent risk of
execution, many of whom have been sentenced to death after unfair or
politically-motivated trials.
"Due process safeguards are frequently not observed in the Gambia - many people
sentenced to death have not had access to legal advice or have not been able to
pursue a proper appeals process," the organisation said.
It added that international human rights law and standards require that death
sentences may only be imposed after trials which comply with the most rigorous
internationally recognised standards for fair trial.
The organisation said the death penalty violates the right to life and is the
ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and the government of the
Gambia is obliged to ensure that all defendants in capital cases enjoy the fair
trial and due process safeguards set out in the Gambian Constitution, the
African Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This includes the right to appeal to a higher court, the right to legal counsel
and exclusion of evidence elicited as a result of torture or other
ill-treatment, including confessions obtained under duress.
(source: Jellof News)
MALDIVES:
Last chance for State to decide on President's clemency clause
The High Court has granted opportunity for the State to respond over the matter
of annulling the power afforded to the President to grant clemency to convicts
on death row.
The opportunity to the state was granted today at the high court hearing to
decide over the matter of dismissing the authority given to the President to
grant clemency in accordance to the constitution.
The case was submitted to the High Court as a procedural issue stating that
victim's heirs have the power to pardon convicts in Islamic while the death
penalty can only be enforced with the unanimous consent of all heirs. The case
filed at the court also detailed that the President or any state authority
cannot grant clemency.
The case also questioned why statements of heirs are taken if the President can
decide over granting clemency to murderers while it can be considered as a
violation of the rights given to the victim's heirs. The case claims that the
article 10 of the constitution forbids any laws or regulations which defy the
Islamic Shariah and the article 268 obliges all laws and regulations to adhere
to Islamic principles, while any such law which contradicts it will be void.
Hence, it states that the power afforded to the President to grant clemency is
a clear violation of article 10 of the constitution and that the clemency bill
must not be a power afforded to the President under the article 268 and that
the bill and other laws which defy the article must be annulled.
The case also stated that while the Maldives theoretically has a death penalty
under Islamic Shariah, there has been no leader daring enough to implement it
in practice. The last person to actually be judicially executed was Hakim Didi
in 1953, which was executed by firing squad after being found guilty of
conspiracy to murder using black magic.
In the court hearing today, state attorney Usama Moosa said that the state has
been busy researching over the matter and that the process is ongoing. He added
that as the case relates to capital punishment, the state had requested legal
expertise from various persons. He requested another opportunity to present the
defence in court.
Chair of the Judges bench Abdul Rauf said that the case is not specific to
capital punishment but it relates to clemency.
The judge's bench residing over the case includes 5 judges. They are Judge
Abdul Ghanee Mohamed, Judge Abdulla Hameed, Judge Ali Sameer, Judge Shuaib
Hussain Zakariah, Judge Abdul Rauf. (source: Haveeru Online)
VATICAN:
No Justice Without Life
The International Day of Cities for Life was inaugurated on Tuesday during the
International Congress of Justice Ministers taking place on the theme "For a
world without the death penalty" Organised by the Rome-based Sant' Egidio
Community the Conference, now at its 7th edition, plays a major role in efforts
to achieve abolition of capital punishment worldwide.
For the occasion, Justice Ministers from 20 countries around the world,
European authorities and anti-death penalty activists are bearing witness to
their own experiences, penning proposals and lending their support for the U.N.
Resolution calling for a universal moratorium. 1.500 cities have so far joined
this planetary mobilization to stop the death penalty.
Speaking to Vatican Radio's Linda Bordoni, Mario Marazziti ??? spokesperson of
the Sant' Egidio Community and Vice President of the Worldwide Coalition
Against the Death Penalty explains that the conference represents a precious
moment of dialogue in the ongoing battle against capital punishment.
"It is a growing movement. We (Sant'Egidio) have started a method that is not
just lobbying. It is putting together people from civil societies, NGOs,
Statesmen and women and people who can make decisions to make a synergy and to
cross-impollinate the good things that each one can give to the other one. So
we listen with great respect to the difficulties of the Ministers of Justice
that come from retentionist countries, and we can accompany them to overcome
the difficulties they face in their nations, to create this tremendous
difference that is made by abolishing the death penalty.
Marazziti says the conference also foresees a private meeting for participants
to that they can gather all suggestions. It is also, he says, a cultural
movement "because we cannot change the world without changing a culture based
on revenge and death into a culture of life."
Marazziti also explains that the presence of the Minister of Justice of
Zimbabwe, a country which practices the death penalty, is part of Sant'Egidio's
wish to not "demonize" a country, but to work with the people there and to help
them take the courage to take the steps that are needed to change things.
He says the death penalty never coincides with the identity to a country.
Marazziti also speaks of the significance of the Pope's voice in the battle to
abolish the death penalty and illustrates the initiative to illuminate the
Colosseum: "a symbol of death that becomes a symbol of hope and life".
Finally, he speaks of his joy at being able to celebrate the abolition of the
death penalty in Connecticut, "a big message to the USA and to every country".
(source: Radio Vaticana)
SAUDI ARABIA:
A Saudi husband was convicted and executed for having murdered his wife
A Saudi man has been convicted who had repeatedly stabbed his wife in the neck
and chest until she died, poured kerosene over and cremated her body until
carbonation and who, after hiding traces of his heinous crime, reported to the
police that his wife had gone missing.
The Saudi Interior Ministry, announced this morning that the security
authorities were able to unravel the crime, pinpoint the husband and arrest
him. Investigations with the man led to incriminating the husband who had
committed this atrocious murder crime.
Then, he was referred to court which has issued a legal writ versus the husband
in which were proven the charges and so he was sentenced to death . The court
writ was upheld by the Court of Cassation and the High Judiciary Council, in
favor of the death penalty.
A Royal decree was issued in favor of implementing the execution of the
criminal.
The Saudi Ministry of the Interior issued a statement in which it has
reiterated keenness on the part of the government of the Custodian of the Two
Holy Mosques to maintain security, achieve justice and implement the provisions
of Islamic Sharia law on anyone who transgresses and sheds the blood of
peaceful people.
The Ministry statement cautioned anyone who commits murder that the legal
penalty shall be his/her ultimate fate and destiny.
(source: Bahrain News Agency)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
