Jan. 27
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
Prosecutors call for death penalty of UAE torture dad and his girlfriend
The couple accused of torturing an 8-year-old Emirati girl to death should be
executed, prosecutors told a court today.
Wadeema's badly beaten body was found buried in the desert, and her father and
his girlfriend have been charged with killing her.
Her brutal death has since inspired new child-protection legislation, known as
Wadeema's law.
At Dubai Criminal Court yesterday, the family and juvenile prosecutor, Shihab
Ahmed, told the Attorney General, Essam Al Humaidan, and the Advocate General,
Khalifa bin Dimas, that he would be seeking the death penalty.
Wadeema's father, HS, a 29-year-old security supervisor, and his girlfriend,
AM, 27, also Emirati, are accused of torturing the child and her sister Mira,
7, who survived.
"This case shocks Emirati society," Mr Ahmed said. "It doesn't reflect our
traditions and Islamic principles and today is the day of judgment and
punishment."
Mr Ahmed said neither of the accused had shown any remorse after Wadeema's
death and had continued to torture Mira.
"The punishment of death will be the only consolation to Wadeema's loved ones,"
he said. "According to law number 344 from the UAE Penal Code, we seek the
death penalty."
Acting for Wadeema's father, Hani Al Jasmi insisted the evidence was
inconclusive. He said his client should not be charged with imprisoning the
girls because he had been awarded custody.
"The tools of torture mentioned in the case file were not fatal," said Mr Al
Jasmi. He added that the father loved his daughters and meant only to
discipline them. "It was AM who tortured the girls."
The lawyer expressed surprise that forensic experts were unable to determine
the cause of death.
"Scientists managed to find out the cause of death for many Egyptian Pharoahs
from 7,000 years ago. How come the forensic expert couldn't specify the cause
of death in a 6-month-old case?" he asked.
Hamdi Al Sheewi, defending the girlfriend, said the girls' mother "should be
standing next to the defendants and face charges as well". He claimed the
mother had given up her daughters and had not enquired about them for months.
"The only evidence here is the testimony of Mira," Mr Al Sheewi added. "The
other testimonies were from people who had heard of what happened but did not
see it."
The girlfriend, who has had a son with Wadeema's father, had previously
confessed to all the charges. The father had denied all charges except for
hiding Wadeema's body.
"A?M's confession should not be taken seriously because it was given so that
she could save her love," Mr Al Sheewi said.
At the end of the hearing, the father told the court: "I confessed to all the
charges because I didn't want A M to be in prison and my son to be brought up
there. I sacrifice myself for my son to be raised outside prison. I loved my
children."
Both defence lawyers asked for leniency. A verdict is expected on February 13.
(source: The National)
****************************
Torture case: Prosecutors seek death penalty; Emirati father and his girlfriend
charged with torturing daughter to death
Prosecutors on Sunday will seek capital punishment for an Emirati father and
his girlfriend charged with torturing the man's 8-year-old daughter Wudeema to
death.
Dubai Attorney General Essam Eisa Al Humaidan has given the go-ahead to Chief
Prosecutor Shehab Ahmad, of Family and Juveniles Prosecution, to present
closing arguments before the Dubai Court of First Instance on Sunday, a
prosecution source told Gulf News.
"The Public Prosecution will ask for the implementation of the death sentence
against 29-year-old Hamad S. and his accomplice 27-year-old Al Onoud A., a
source in the public prosecution said.
Prosecutors charged the defendants with illegally confining Wudeema and her
7-year-old sister Meera. They are also accused of using extensive force,
torturing the sisters and burning their bodies with an iron and electric prods.
They also poured hot water on them. "They tortured the girls physically and
emotionally. They also inflicted 10 per cent permanent disability on Meera,"
the source said.
The chief prosecutor and defence lawyers are scheduled to present their closing
arguments before presiding judge Maher Salama Al Mahdi.
The accused father Hamad and Al Onoud have pleaded not guilty. They claim they
did not intend to kill Wudeema. Hamad said he didn't treat his daughter Meera
badly and that he took her to hospital when she sustained an injury to her arm
and shoulder.
Al Onoud had earlier asked the court to sentence her to death. "Hamad has got
nothing to do with what happened. I did it all by myself," she told the court.
The Misdemeanor Court jailed the couple for 1 year each for having consensual
sex that resulted in the birth of a boy. Al Onoud carries the child with her
whenever she attends proceedings.
Al Humaidan told the media earlier that prosecutors asked for the
implementation of the Penal Code's Article 344.
"The article stipulates that a suspect could face capital punishment or life
imprisonment if he/she locks up a victim against his/her will and the
confinement leads to the victim's death," the attorney general said.
(source: Gulf News)
IRAN:
Iranian Judiciary Must Halt Death Sentences and Investigate Torture Claims
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has not yet directly talked
to eyewitnesses in the case. But, emphasizing the right to a fair and impartial
trial, which according to the evidence and investigation by a collection of
human rights organizations, the suspects in this case have been denied, the
Campaign is demanding suspension of the court ruling and also implementation of
an independent investigation about the statements relating to prison torture
and abuse for the purpose of extracting forced confections.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran demands that the Iranian
Judiciary suspend the execution sentences of 5 Ahvazi Arab activists, conduct
an independent investigation into the judicial process of the case, and
investigate the suspects' allegations of torture during their investigations.
The 5 men are said to be activists in or founders of the Alhavar (Dialogue)
Sciencande Culture Institute and have been charged with "enmity against God."
"Mohammad Ali Amouri (a fisheries engineer and school teacher), Hadi Rashedi
(Master of Applied Chemistry and high school chemistry teacher), Hashem Shabani
(Arabic Literature high school teacher and graduate student of political
science at the University of Ahvaz), Jabber Alboshokeh (associate of computer
and military conscript), and Mokhtar Alboshokeh (employed in a quarry), who are
the founding and active members of Alhavar, were accused of enmity with God and
conducting armed operations and acting against national security by Branch 32
of the Supreme Court, presided by Judge Reza Farajallahi, and were sentenced to
execution by firing squad. They have explicitly stated in numerous trial
sessions that they were forced to make false confessions about participating in
armed operations and overthrowing of the Islamic Republic of Iran after
undergoing several months of torture," London-based Justice for Iran, an
organization focused on documenting human rights violations, wrote about this.
Parts of these confessions were repeatedly broadcast by Press TV of the Islamic
Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB).
These 5 prisoners face the death sentence for the severe charge of "enmity
against God," and they did not benefit from the process of a fair trial,
including access to a lawyer. In the process of the upholding their death
sentences, statements by suspects about their arrest process and prison abuse
and torture were not independently investigated by the judicial system. Zanyar
and Loghman Moradi, 2 Kurdish prisoners who have also been sentenced to death,
have stated many times in published letters that in the process of their
interrogation and investigation they were subjected to torture, and death
sentences were issued for them while no independent investigation was ever
conducted about the process that led to the extraction of their confessions for
the alleged crimes.
"'Alhavar' means dialogue, and the name is inspired by the policies of the
Khatami government about the promotion of dialogue among civilizations. The
organization is a registered group in the National Youth Organization that was
conducting conferences, Arabic poetry reading nights, and education and art
classes for young Arabs of the city of Ramshir (Khalaf Abad). Because of the
large number of high school teachers from the Education and Development
Ministry who were members of Alhavar, all of the poetry nights and celebrations
were conducted at the center location, which belonged to the Education and
Development Ministry. The activities of the organization were declared illegal
after widespread protests against discrimination against Arab people in May
2005, and because of the security alert in Khuzestan. Close to 20 active
members of the organization were arrested in February 2010 and were placed in a
secrete Intelligence Ministry detention center in Ahvaz, and they were
subjected to severe physical and psychological torture to confess to armed
operations," Justice for Iran wrote about the organizational activities in
which the Arab activist were involved.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran has not yet directly talked
to eyewitnesses in the case. But, emphasizing the right to a fair and impartial
trial, which according to the evidence and investigation by a collection of
human rights organizations, the suspects in this case have been denied, the
Campaign is demanding suspension of the court ruling and also implementation of
an independent investigation about the statements relating to prison torture
and abuse for the purpose of extracting forced confections. Also, once again,
the Campaign asks Ezzatolah Zarghami, Head of the Islamic Republic of Iran's
Broadcasting (IRIB), to stop broadcasting forced confessions extracted by
intelligence organizations, as this is a violation of the rights of the
citizens.
Justice for Iran was able to talk to one of the arrested members of the
organization about what happened to him during his detention. "They beat me
with a cable. Of course I was blindfolded, but I think it was a cable. I was
hearing the screams of the others when I was going to the restroom, or when I
was going through the hallway. I could recognize their voices, like hearing
Hadi Rashedi's screams. Imagine, how long Hadi Rashedi, with that frail body
and rheumatic heart disease, could last under such torture?! They treated those
people the way no animal gets treated. Mental torture also started from the
moment of arrest. They were asking me to confess that Alhavar - the
Intelligence agents themselves were calling us 'Havarioon' [disciples,
derogatory term for Judas] - were in contact with political groups outside
Iran. They asked me to confess that we were receiving foreign aid, money, and
weapons from the outside, that we were aiming to topple the regime, and we were
spies for foreign countries. This is while in our organization we were not in
collaboration with any political parties and organizations, not even with
internal Iranian political parties," the member told Justice for Iran.
Previously, Press TV, the English network of IRIB, broadcast the forced
confessions of 2 members of the group, and the program was released before the
individuals' sentences were finalized. After refusing to pay a fine, Press TV
lost its broadcasting license in England because it had previously broadcast
the forced confessions of journalist Maziar Bahari, who had been imprisoned
following the post-2009 election events. The television program "Al-Ahwazi
Terrorist Group's Bloody Attacks in Iran" showed the confessions of 2 members
of Alhavar, Hadi Rashidi and Hashem Shabani, in which Hadi Rashidi was
introduced as the person in charge of the military branch of a group called
"Al-Moghavameh Al-Shabiyeh."
According to Justice for Iran, indictments have been issued for 13 arrested
members of Alhavar, in which 5 of them were sentenced to death in June 2012 by
Sayyed Bagher Mousavi, the judge presiding over Branch 2 of the Ahvaz
Revolutionary Court, without any investigation into the claims of the
defendants, alleging severe torture by the Intelligence Ministry agents in the
secretive detention center of the security agency. 4 others were sentenced to
long-term imprisonment. The court ruling was issued even though none of the
accused had the right to meet with a lawyer prior to the court session. In
fact, the accused in this case not only were deprived of a fair trial, the
security authorities responsible for their torture and forced confession
extraction continue to enjoy full impunity, and all grievance venues were
denied to the defendants.
Justice for Iran reports that a relative of 1 of the death-row inmates who
requested anonymity for security reasons said, "We went to visit with the case
judge. He said, 'If it were up to me, I would exonerate all of them right now,
but it is not I who is issuing the ruling, it is the Intelligence [Ministry]
that determines the rulings.'" The ruling, referred to Branch 32 of the Supreme
Court on November 7, 2012, was reviewed out of turn and was upheld in full
after less than 1 months. Normally, reviews of cases by the Supreme Court take
a long time, in some cases several years. Heavy sentences for four other
members of Alhavar were also upheld in full by Judge Farajollahi, Head of
Branch 32, and Judges Ghaem Maghami and Lotfi, branch counsels. Rahman
Asakereh, a chemistry graduate who at the time of arrest was principal at a
high school in Ramshir (Khalaf Abad), was sentenced to 20 years in exile in
Khorasan Province Prison. Judge Reza Farajollahi, a high-ranking judge with
Branch 32 of the Supreme Court, has upheld several other death sentences for
political prisoners including Saeed Malekpour and Vahid Asghari, Internet
activists currently on death row at Evin Prison in Tehran.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
************************
Call to save lives of 5 minority Arab political prisoners on death row
The Iranian Resistance movement, NCRI, today called on the international
community for urgent action to help save the lives of 5 political prisoners
from the Arab minority in Ahwaz, Iran.
The 5 have been sentenced to death on the pretext of "Moharebeh (waging war
against God)," "conspiring against state security" and "propaganda against the
regime" the statement from NCRI stated.
According to sources reporting to the Iranian Resistance, the political
prisoners have been transferred from Karoon Prison in Ahwaz to an unknown
location in order to obtain forced confessions under torture.
On January 24, Amnesty International also called on Iran's judiciary to cancel
the death sentences of the 5 men.
On June 18, another 4 political prisoners from the Arab minority in Ahwaz,
including 3 brothers were executed. All of the said prisoners were arrested
during popular demonstrations in Ahwaz in April 2011.
(source: National Council of Resistance of Iran - Foreign Affairs Committee)
INDONESIA:
A Call to Abolish the Death Penalty in 2013
This week we learned that Lindsay Sandiford, a British citizen, was sentenced
to death for drug trafficking charges by a Bali court. The prosecution asked
for a 15-year sentence. But the judges decided instead to give her the maximum
penalty: death.
Just last month, the Attorney General's Office stated that it intended to
follow through with the executions of 10 prisoners in 2013.
The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (Kontras) is deeply
troubled by this turn of events because it is inconsistent with the current
government policy aimed at protecting Indonesian citizens abroad.
In recent years, Indonesia has shifted away from the death penalty, in line
with the global trend toward abolition. No one has been executed here since
2008, and the number of new death sentences appear to be decreasing annually.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has commuted a total of 19 death sentences
out of 126 pleas for clemency during his 2 terms, including 3 new commutations
in 2012. Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has said that the granting of
clemency was part of a broader move away from capital punishment.
This shift was apparent in foreign affairs, as well. Last year, Indonesia
changed its vote on the UN Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty from
opposition to abstention. Indonesia's delegate stated that public debate on
capital punishment in Indonesia was "ongoing, including concerning a possible
moratorium."
Yudhoyono's strategic shift reflects the demands of an increasingly globalized
society. Some 6.5 million Indonesian citizens are employed abroad as domestic
workers and laborers. More than 200 of them are currently facing the death
penalty overseas, much to the dismay of their fellow citizens back home.
In response, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the newly formed Task Force on
Migrant Worker Protection (Satgas TKI) have negotiated clemency on behalf of
110 Indonesian citizens in 2012, according to a statement by the ministry last
year. Satgas TKI stated that it was instrumental in the commutation of death
sentences for 37 workers in Saudi Arabia, 14 in Malaysia, 11 in China and one
in Iran.
The Bali court's action this week stands in stark contrast to Indonesia's
stated and demonstrated death penalty policy. It diminishes the recent
successes of the Satgas TKI and puts millions of Indonesians who work and
travel abroad at risk of execution. Sandiford's case has received international
publicity, with potentially negative consequences for Indonesia's global image.
The time has come for Indonesia to abolish the death penalty outright. More
than 2/3 of the countries in the world have abolished capital punishment. This
should be the year that Indonesia joins them.
Indonesia should abolish the death penalty because it is the right thing to do
and would show the world that we are committed to the protection of all human
rights, including the right to life.
Yet a commitment to human rights does not mean being soft on crime. Justice can
still be attained under a model of restorative justice. Restorative justice
principles emphasize reparations for the victim and community and
rehabilitation for the offender. In lieu of executions, lengthy prison terms
can be handed out.
Capital punishment is wrong because our justice system is man-made and
fallible. It is well documented that the American death penalty system, for
example, is rife with error. In the United States, 2 out of 3 death penalty
cases are overturned on appeal for mistakes made by lawyers, judges and
investigating officials at the original trial.
142 death-row prisoners have been either exonerated or declared innocent in the
United States since 1973, and new cases of exonerations appear daily.
For example, Carlos DeLuna, a man executed in Texas in 1989, is now widely
believed to have been innocent. Many fear that other innocent people have been
executed over the years as well.
Indonesia is not immune from these same concerns. The case of Sengkon and
Karta, both of whom served 6 years in prison before being exonerated in 1980,
is a bitter reminder of how the justice system can fail us.
Countries such as the United States may be willing to execute people who are
innocent or who did not receive a fair trial, but Indonesia can and should do
better.
We should abolish capital punishment this year, in order to protect our
citizens overseas, demonstrate our commitment to human rights and avoid the
execution of innocents.
The time has come for Indonesia to lead the way for emerging global powers by
abolishing the death penalty once and for all.
(source: Haris Azhar is the coordinator for the Commission for the Disappeared
and Victims of Violence (Kontras) in Jakarta. Andrea Nieves is an American
capital defense attorney and Henry Luce Scholar at Kontras----Jakarta Globe)
EGYPT:
Egypt's Port Said in chaos after death sentences
The Egyptian government appeared to have lost control of the major city of Port
Said on Saturday after a court sentenced 21 fans to death for their role in a
deadly soccer riot, and their supporters attacked the prison where they were
being held, as well as the police and court buildings.
By evening, fighting in the streets of Port Said had left at least 30 people
dead, mostly from gunfire, and injured more than 300. Fearful residents stayed
in their homes. Doctors in the city said the local hospital was overloaded with
casualties and pleaded for help. Water had run out in some places. Rioters
attacked the Port Said power plant, and for a time closed off the main roads to
the city.
A spokesman for the Interior Ministry acknowledged that its security forces
were unable to control the violence and urged political leaders to try to
broker a peace agreement. President Mohamed Morsi met with the National Defence
Council, which includes the nation's top military leaders, and the information
minister announced that the council was considering imposing a curfew and state
of emergency.
By 8pm, a spokesman for the Egyptian military said its troops had moved in and
secured vital facilities, including the prison, the Mediterranean port and the
Suez Canal. But residents said the streets remained lawless. "I'm worried for
my sister and mother," said Ahmed Zangir, 21. "I could run or do something, but
it is not safe for them to get out.
"Thugs are abusing the opportunity. They are everywhere."
Challenge to the new leadership
The violence that engulfed Port Said may be the sharpest challenge yet to
Egypt's new Islamist rulers as they try to re-establish public order after the
2 years of turmoil that have followed the end of Hosni Mubarak's brutal
autocracy.
The uprising in support of the soccer fans sentenced to death coincided with
the 3rd day of clashes between protesters and the police in Cairo and in other
cities around the country, which were set off by the 2nd anniversary of the
revolt against Mr Mubarak. Those battles were more isolated, typically confined
to clashes around symbols of government power, like the Interior Ministry
headquarters in Cairo or the headquarters of the provincial government in Suez.
In Suez on Friday, 2 police officers and 7 protesters died in those clashes,
state media reported.
The anniversary battles were fuelled by a combination of frustration with the
meagre rewards of the revolution so far and hostility toward the new Islamist
leaders. But the escalating chaos in Port Said arising from the soccer riot
verdict posed a far greater challenge to those leaders and their promises to
enforce the rule of law.
It was unclear how the fledgling government might rein in the mob without
either a brutal crackdown or a capitulation to its demands. And either
alternative could further inflame the streets in Cairo and around Egypt.
Illustrating the dilemma, a few hours after the defence council had raised the
possibility of a curfew, Yasser Ali, a spokesman for the president, declared
that there was no intention to impose one.
"The solution isn't a security solution," general Osama Ismail, a spokesman for
the Interior Ministry, said. "We urge the political and patriotic leaders and
forces to intervene to calm the situation."
Egypt's worst soccer riot
The case that set off the riot grew out of a deadly brawl last February between
rival groups of hardcore fans of soccer teams from Cairo and Port Said at a
match in Port Said, which has a population of about 600,000. The hard-core
fans, called Ultras, are known for their appetite for violence against rival
teams or the police. Some had smuggled knives and other weapons into the
stadium, security officials said at the time.
74 people were killed and more than 1000 injured in the soccer riot. Many died
after being trampled under the stampeding crowds or falling from stadium
balconies, according to forensic testimony later reported in the state media.
It was the worst soccer riot in Egyptian history and among the worst in the
world. Many political figures, including members of the Mr Morsi's Muslim
Brotherhood, initially sought to blame a conspiracy orchestrated by Mubarak
loyalists or the Interior Ministry.
Soccer fans in Cairo on Saturday celebrated the death sentence for 21 people, a
verdict that touched off rioting in Port Said.
Some even blamed lax oversight by the military council that ruled Egypt at the
time. But prosecutors ultimately charged 21 Port Said fans with attacking their
Cairo rivals, and charged 9 security officers with negligence. 6 of the
convicted fans remain fugitives.
The verdict was awaited with acute anxiety because any outcome risked the fury
of the Ultras from either Port Said or Cairo. The Cairo Ultras staged several
raucous protests in recent days, temporarily shutting down subway lines and
threatening the Egyptian stock exchange, foreshadowing their wrath in the event
that the Port Said fans were acquitted.
Because of the fear of violence between the 2 groups of Ultras, the trial was
held in Cairo instead of Port Said. For the same reason, the Interior Ministry
declined to transfer the defendants to the Cairo courtroom to hear the verdict,
leaving them in detention in their home city.
"The decision was to not pour fuel on fire," general Mohsen Radi of the
Interior Ministry told state newspaper Al Ahram.
'Shooting and disturbance everywhere'
Most of those killed in Port Said on Saturday died of bullet wounds, hospital
officials said. It was unclear who shot first, but witnesses said some of the
civilian protesters were carrying shotguns or home-made firearms. And after 2
security officers were killed, the gunfire escalated sharply, witnesses and
officials said, and all of the other people killed were believed to be
civilians.
Rioters looted and burned a police barracks, set fire to a police station, and
tried to attack others. They also attacked members of the news media, damaging
TV cameras that sought to film the violence and ending their broadcasts.
"There is shooting and disturbance everywhere," said Omnia al-Zangeer, 23, a
customs worker, from her home near the hospital. "There is so much shooting in
the streets. The ambulances do not stop."
Many complained that while the soccer fans had been sentenced in a brawl that
killed several dozen people, no police officer or security official had yet
been held responsible for the killing of 800 civilian demonstrators during the
18 days of protests that toppled Mr Mubarak 2 years ago. The only conviction of
Mr Mubarak and his interior minister was overturned this month.
"Where are the officers of the Ministry of Interior and the military council in
this verdict?" Mahmoud Affifi, a spokesman for the left-leaning April 6 group,
told Al Ahram. "Where are those who were responsible for running the gates?
Justice won't be obtained by only punishing and prosecuting civilians."
Violence must be condemned: Muslim Brotherhood
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group allied with Mr Morsi, blamed the
news media for inciting violence against legitimately elected authorities and
political opposition leaders for "silence instead of condemning these crimes
and even in some cases welcoming them".
In a statement, the group said that those plotting the violence "must be
condemned by all members of the society, and they must be held accountable
according to the provisions of the law".
"It's incomprehensible to demand the rights of the martyrs by adding more
martyrs and victims."
Adding to a sense of outrage, the judge hearing the case, Sobhi Abdel Megeed,
had imposed a complete ban on publishing or broadcasting news during the last
two months of the soccer riot trial, including details of the charges, evidence
or judicial reasoning.
Saying that the 9 security officers remain to be sentenced, Judge Megeed on
Saturday renewed the ban, noting that the court had asked the public prosecutor
"to move criminal cases against anybody who would violate the publishing ban no
matter what their position is."
Most in Cairo had expected an acquittal. Speculation had centred on the wrath
of the capital's Ultras if their attackers walked free. Instead, families of
those killed in the soccer riot who were in the courtroom erupted in jubilation
when hearing about the death penalty. Relatives held pictures of the victims in
the air. Some danced and chanted. A few fainted. And the Cairo Ultras
celebrated for hours outside their team's headquarters.
(source: Financial Times)
INDIA:
Electoral reforms must to curb crime against women: Justice Verma
Justice JS Verma, the head of the panel that was constituted in the aftermath
of the horrific Delhi gangrape to suggest reforms in anti-sexual harassment
laws, has made a startling claim. In an interview to Karan Thapar on Devil's
Advocate, the former Chief Justice of India said that Home Minister Sushil
Kumar Shinde, the most important stakeholder in the issue, did not interact
with the panel even once during the 1 month period that it took to prepare and
submit its report.
Justice Verma added that the panel had been constituted upon instructions from
the Prime Minister, who chose to convey the decision through Finance Minister P
Chidambaram, rather than Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shine.
Below is the full transcript of the show:
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate, and a special interview on
the Verma Committee report with the chairman of the committee former Chief
Justice of India Jagdish Sharan Verma. Chief Justice Verma, in your conclusion
you state, "The existing laws, if faithfully and efficiently implemented, are
sufficient to maintain law and order and to protect the safety and dignity of
women and to punish offender." And yet side by side you have also recommended a
whole host of new offences and a whole range of enhanced punishments - isn't
that a contradiction here?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No, laws need to be updated from time to time.
Karan Thapar: So your recommendations, both in terms of offences and in terms
of enhance punishment, are updating the law.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Yes, updating the laws.
Karan Thapar: Now, you had some 80,000 recommendations to consider, yet you
only gave yourself 1 month to do so. How committed and how confident are you of
your recommendations or is there a room for you to reconsider some of them?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Everyone of them was read, there was a dedicated team of
youngsters who did it.
Karan Thapar: So you stand by all your recommendations?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Yes.
Karan Thapar: You don't think there is a room for you to reconsider any of
them?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No.
Karan Thapar: Let's then come to some of the recommendations which have met
with criticism. To being with, you have recommended new offences such as
stalking, acid attack, voyeurism, which absolutely no one will disagree with.
But you also recommended breach of command responsibility which makes senior
officers in the Army or police forces accountable and responsible for sexual
offences committed by their subordinates. People say why should a boss be held
accountable for offences committed by an adult junior?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Because of the failure of his duty to act when his office
demands that. If he has knowledge of it and he doesn't act, that is
facilitating the ultimate act performed by his subordinate.
Karan Thapar: People in the Army point out that commanding officers often has
as many as 1000 men under them, spread out in an area of 5 kilometers, if one
of them misbehave at night why should the commanding officer end up serving 7
years in jail, extendable to 10.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: It would depend on the facts of each case, and therefore
if the rape or the sexual assault occurred in a situation which could be
avoided by timely preventive measures taken by the boss then certainly he has
to be liable.
Karan Thapar: You don't think it is unfair to inflict the offences of a junior
onto his boss simply because you believe that the boss is responsible for
everything the junior does.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Not everything, only those things which he could have
avoided if he had exercised his responsibilities.
Karan Thapar: There is an element of subjective interpretation in that phrase,
"Could have averted if he exercised his responsibility," doesn't that lead to
unfairness?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No that is a question of fact in each case. And that will
depend of the facts of the case and the evidence led to prove that he could
have acted when he didn't.
Karan Thapar: I will tell you why people are concerned that there is an element
of subjective interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness. People say this
particular recommendation, if accepted by the government, could lead to
anti-Army groups foisting false changes not just on jawans, but commanding
officers. Your recommendation in the hands becomes powerful weapon for
mischief.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: But then that is where the courts will be there to see
that false cases don't end up in conviction.
Karan Thapar: Except for the fact that the false case itself is harassment,
officers will be harassed as a way of targeting the Army, as a way of carrying
out vendetta against authority. No doubt the court may come down on their side
eventually but what about the harassment before that?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: But that happens in every false case. And can we say
there are no false cases in different laws even now.
Karan Thapar: so you have no qualms about the fact that this will encourage
false cases.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No.
Karan Thapar: Let's come to a second area of concern. Even in cases of gangrape
leading to death, or leaving the victim in a permanent vegetative state, your
committee has been reluctant to recommend death penalty, which means that in
the case of the girl you called 'Nirbhaya' who was gangrape and murdered, under
your recommendations, the men responsible would not get the death penalty? Why?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: You see, that was the unanimous opinion of even the women
leaders who have been fighting for this cause for decades. Even the current
trend is against death penalty.
Karan Thapar: Gopal Subramaniam, one of your committee members has gone on
records to say that the three of you were inclined to recommend the death
penalty but, under the influence of women leaders and women activist groups,
you changed your mind. Is that true?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: We seriously discussed this issue as it was very relevant
and ultimately came to this conclusion. All the women's groups feel that, and
they are the biggest stakeholders. And in the current trend of abolition of
death penalty for all offences we didn't want to add more to death penalty.
Karan Thapar: Your opinion was swayed by two things, one that all women's
groups that you spoke to were against the death penalty, and secondly because
of your own personal attitude to the death penalty.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Actually swayed may not be the correct way, we took into
account all points of views and ultimately came to the conclusion that this
appears to be most acceptable.
Karan Thapar: Let me question that by putting this to you, surely 'Nirbhaya's'
case is the rarest of the rare, nothing of this sought has happened in India
before, therefore clearly it requires death penalty, why shouldn't they get it?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: As a matter of fact I don't want to comment on the
particular case which is sub judice, but then in situation like this, forget
'Nirbhaya', any case where a brutal rape ends in death, for that section 302 is
also there.
Karan Thapar: Which means that in fact if judges in the court wish to give
death penalty, they can.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Of course.
Karan Thapar: Which means there is room for your recommendation to be
overturned or superseded by a judge.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No not overturn that would be for causing death, section
302.
Karan Thapar: This is interesting, you have spoken about something that I was
about to bring out myself. 'Nirbhaya', to use the name that you use for Delhi
braveheart, was both gangraped and murdered. Seen as a murder, her case would
clearly qualify for the death penalty, seen as a gangrape under your
recommendation it wouldn't, isn't that different?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No, it is like this, if you treat these 2 separate
offences then only what you are saying is true. But a same person being
gangraped and killed, when both offences are simultaneously committed that
difficulty is not there, whether you had provided death penalty for gangrape
for not.
Karan Thapar: So gangrape and killed, tried under section 302, can lead to
death penalty?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: There are 2 offences 376 and 302.
Karan Thapar: But in terms of 376 your recommendation is either 20 years or the
natural life. But tried under 302 it could go to death penalty.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: In cases where 302 is also attached.
Karan Thapar: So this depends either on the way police charge the accused or
the way judge read the charges.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No, it depends on the facts of the case, if there is
death.
Karan Thapar: So there is room for death penalty depending on the facts of the
case, regardless of your recommendation.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No there is no question of our recommendation coming in
conflict. 302 still provides for death penalty in rarest of rare case.
Karan Thapar: Thirdly sources in the Ministry of Home Affairs are saying that
in fact you and your committee have exceeded your brief. They point out why did
Justice Verma and his committee recommend that the assets and the liabilities
as filed in an affidavit by a candidate at the time of his or her nomination
should be verified by the CAG. And if they turn out to be false then they
become grounds for disqualifying the person. They say the brief of this
committee was to suggest amendments to the rape law, not to go into assets and
liabilities and their verification and how that can become grounds for
disqualification. They say you clearly breached and exceeded your brief.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: I am glad that Home Ministry has at least some response
to me, even though this is what it is. But this is because of a narrow vision.
Everything which is ultimately connected with or related to women's right to
equality has been considered on basis of constitutional right to equality. And
anything which impacts on women's right to equality, which is a constitutional
guarantee, we have gone into it.
Karan Thapar: But, sir, how do the false assets and liabilities affect women's
right to equality.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: I'm coming to that. Ultimately laws even relating to
women are made in Parliament. Now that is legislature. Those persons with such
dubious background, if they are to make the laws then certainly they are not
committed to constitutional values.
Karan Thapar: I understand what you are saying, the report says this that you,
so generously or some would say exaggeratedly, interpreted your briefs that you
have gone simply from asked to suggest amendments to law of rape, to suggesting
amendments to India's political system.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: You see, I personally have always believed, even while in
office as a judge, that all human rights issues have to be viewed as
extensively as possible because every aspect of human dignity is a human right.
And anything which impacts on the human rights directly or indirectly must be
covered.
Karan Thapar: Except you have touched on areas which are very minutely
connected with women's rights. Some would say they are not connected at all and
people believe that is he trying, to by some backdoor, give himself give access
to making political pronouncements and suggesting political recommendations to
give a higher profile to that report then it otherwise would have?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: You see, we are not concerned with the kind of profile
which the local politicians might think. What we comprehended as the legitimate
scope of our remit is what we have done. And electoral laws are important
because they affect true representation, and unless there is true
recommendation, the constitutional guarantees can't be fulfilled.
Karan Thapar: I will tell you why people say that you have exceeded your remit
because you are playing politics in quotation. Because you also called for a
new law, like the one that exists in the UK, establishing the following -
criteria for admission in political parties, internal democracy in political
parties, a code of conduct for political parties, transparencies in how they
receive donations, declarations of the expenses. Now people say none of that
has anything to do with rape. But you used your remit to suggest amendments to
the rape laws, for making actual political pronouncements. You have taken a
political stand. Is that justified?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: It is fully justified for the reason that the legislation
should be comprised of the true representatives of the people, who alone will
be fully committed to the constitutional philosophy. Gender justice suffers
because of the inequality which are met to the women and unless you have people
who are committed to the constitutional philosophy, none of these is what
impacts all this.
Karan Thapar: In a nutshell you won't solve the problems that country faces, in
particular gender equalities and women abuse, if we don't have honourable
representatives in Parliament.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: If you have murderers and rapists deciding the laws
related to women, they won't do anything against their vested interests.
Karan Thapar: Chief Justice Verma, how exactly was your committee set up? Who
rang up, who briefed you, who instructed you?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Mr Chidambaram rang me up on December 23 afternoon,
apparently at the behest of the Prime Minister, and persuaded me to accept
heading this committee.
Karan Thapar: So the telephone conversation and instruction came from Mr
Chidambaram, not from Home Minister Shinde?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: No Home Minister Shinde and I haven't talked to each
other till today.
Karan Thapar: At all?
Jagdish Sharan Verma: At all.
Karan Thapar: So in other words the Prime Minister apparently instructed Mr
Chidambaram, who I believe rang you from his constituency.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Yes, he was not in Delhi. He said, "I'm in my
constituency. But this is what request I have to make."
Karan Thapar: So the core central figure in setting up Verma committee was Mr
Chidambaram, not the Home Minister.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Must be the Prime Minister who spoke through Mr
Chidambaram.
Karan Thapar:And just to clarify you also said that you have had no dealings
with the Home Minister at all.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: Till today, we have not had a conversation.
Karan Thapar: None at all.
Jagdish Sharan Verma: None.
(source: IBN Live)
NORWAY/SAUDI ARABIA:
Norway condemns execution of Sri Lankan maid in Saudi Arabia
Norway has condemned Saudi Arabia's execution of a Sri Lankan domestic worker
over the accusation that she killed a child in her care in 2005.
In a statement issued on January 11, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth
Eide denounced the beheading of Rizana Nafeek, who was only 17 at the time of
the execution on January 9.
"I am shocked by the execution in Saudi Arabia of Sri Lankan Rizana Nafeek.
Norway condemns her execution, which is also a violation of the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, as she was a minor at the time of the crime for which
she was charged," the Norwegian foreign minister stated.
"We urge the Saudi Arabian authorities to comply with their international
obligations," he added.
The Saudi Interior Ministry said Nafeek was beheaded for strangling the baby
after a dispute with the baby's mother.
However, she denied killing the 4-month-old infant.
Human Rights Watch also condemned the execution, saying, "In executing Rizana
Nafeek, Saudi authorities demonstrated callous disregard for basic humanity as
well as Saudi Arabia's international legal obligations."
Before the execution, Amnesty International had said that it appeared Nafeek
had not had access to lawyers during her trial process.
"It appears that she was herself a child at the time and there are real
concerns about the fairness of her trial," Philip Luther, Amnesty's Middle East
and North Africa program director, said.
"Despite a chorus of pleas for Saudi Arabian authorities to step in and
reconsider Rizana Nafeek's death sentence, they went ahead and executed her
anyway, proving once more how woefully out of step they are with their
international obligations regarding the use of the death penalty," Luther said
after the execution.
(source: Press TV)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
