Aug. 8
IRAN----impending juvenile execution
Juvenile offender due to be executed within days in Iran - Amnesty
The Iranian authorities must immediately halt the implementation of a death
sentence for juvenile offender Salar Shadizadi, Amnesty International said on
Friday.
The execution of Salar Shadizadi, 24, who was jailed and sentenced to death for
a crime committed when he was just 15 years old, was originally scheduled for
August 1 and then postponed to August 10 after an international outcry.
"Carrying out the execution of Salar Shadizadi would be a deeply tragic blow to
Iran's obligations under international human rights law, which strictly
prohibits the use of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under
the age of 18. To carry out an execution while a judicial review of the case is
being sought would also be a slap in the face of justice," said Said
Boumedouha, Acting Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at
Amnesty International.
"The Iranian authorities are shirking their responsibilities by sentencing
Salar Shadizadi to death and claiming afterwards that his fate is in the hands
of the families involved. They must immediately quash his sentence and grant
him a fair retrial without resorting to the death penalty," said Said
Boumedouha.
"At least 72 juvenile offenders are believed to have been executed in Iran
between 2005 and 2014 and at least 160 juvenile offenders are believed to be on
death row. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to review
Iran's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in
January 2016," Amnesty International said in a statement.
************************
U.S. "deeply concerned" by Iran death sentence again Mohammad Ali Taheri
The U.S. State Department has expressed deep concern about a death sentence
handed down by the mullahs' regime in Iran to Mohammad Ali Taheri, an Iranian
writer and founder of a spiritual movement.
"We are deeply concerned by reports that a Revolutionary Court in Iran has
sentenced to death Mohammad Ali Taheri, the Iranian founder of a spiritual
movement, on the charge of 'corruption on earth,'" Mark C. Toner, Deputy
Department Spokesperson, said in a statement on Friday.
"We also are disturbed that a number of the movement's followers reportedly
have been sentenced to prison terms for similarly vague so-called crimes. The
ability of citizens to exercise their rights of freedom of religion and
expression are fundamental principles of universally-recognized human rights
enshrined in international law," he said.
"It is our understanding that Taheri, who has been held in Evin Prison in
solitary confinement since his October 2011 conviction on charges of 'insulting
Islamic sanctities,' received this sentence in response to his peaceful
exercise of his rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. To
sentence a citizen to death for exercising these freedoms represents an extreme
violation of his rights."
"We call on the Iranian Government to rescind Taheri's death sentence and
accord him full due process and to uphold freedom of expression and belief for
its citizens," he added.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on
Wednesday expressed alarm at the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Taheri.
Mr. Taheri was sentenced to death on Saturday by the regime's court on a charge
of "Fesad fel Arz" (corruption on earth).
"Iran's use of the death penalty has long been problematic, with many
executions on drug offences, several executions of people who were below the
age of 18 when the crime was committed, as well as other cases where broad,
ill-defined charges led to the imposition of capital punishment," Zeid said.
"Iran has reportedly executed more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last
year, at least 753 people were executed in the country," said a statement by
the Office of the High Commissioner.
(source for both: NCR-Iran)
*******************
Amendments to the Islamic Republic of Iran's New Code of Criminal Procedure
On June 22, 2015, a new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) went into effect in
the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). While the original draft of this code,
which was passed in February 2014, was considered a relatively positive
development, last-minute amendments before the law was about to be implemented
have raised serious concerns of further deterioration of the state of the
rights of defendants in Iranian courts.
The most significant change in the last-minute amendments to the Code of
Criminal Procedure was to a note to Article 48, which stated that in cases
involving serious charges, such as those carrying the death penalty or
imprisonment for more than 5 years, during the pre-trial investigative phase a
defendant may only choose attorneys that have been previously approved by the
head of the judiciary. This change was met by strong objections from Tehran's
Bar Association. However, Sadegh Larijani, the head of the Iranian judiciary,
dismissed these objections and stated that the change addressed a need to
protect confidential information, which trumped the presumption of innocence
for defendants charged with serious offenses and their consequent right to
choose their own counsel.
Another significant change relates to cases than can be appealed to the Supreme
Court of the IRI. The amendments to Article 428 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure set a higher threshold for triggering Supreme Court review. For
instance, in the original draft cases involving injuries resulting in
compensatory payments equaling or exceeding 1/3 of the compensation for loss of
life were eligible for Supreme Court review. But the amendments to Article 428
state that in these cases the Supreme Court will hear appeals only if the
compensatory payment for the injury equals or exceeds 1/2 of the amount payable
for loss of life. Likewise, the amendments also state that crimes punishable by
class 3 ta'zir punishments or higher are eligible for Supreme Court review.
Class 3 ta'zir punishments include imprisonment between 10 to 15 years, while
class 4 ta'zir punishments, which were also previously covered by the
provision, include terms of imprisonment between 5 to 10 years. Many prison
sentences against political prisoners and other prisoners of conscience fall
into this category, and therefore it is likely that many political prisoners in
the future will be deprived of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court; in
such cases, the rulings of provincial appellate courts will be final.
Simultaneously, an amendment to Article 426 of the new CCP lowers the
requirements imposed on appellate courts when ruling on such cases.
Other changes include the expansion of circumstances that can be taken into
account when deciding whether a person is fit to stand trial (Article 13),
mentioning that non-governmental organizations may not attend court sessions
involving crimes against decency although such organizations may have initiated
the case by filing a complaint (Article 66), allowing the procurator to
delegate some of his or her investigative responsibilities (Article 98), making
the process of surveilling bank accounts easier for judiciary officials
(Article 151), and indicating that Criminal, Revolutionary and provincial
Appellate courts can have quorum with the presence of 2 judges (Articles 296
and 297, and the aforementioned Article 426, respectively), whereas all judges
had to be present in the past.
Overall, these changes represent a concerted and multi-pronged attack on the
rights of defendants in a wide variety of cases, including those involving
political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Whereas the initial drafts of
the law were publicized to suggest that they would bring a possible improvement
to the country's theretofore-insufficient due process protections, amendments
quietly approved only hours before the law was put into effect have done
precisely the opposite. Consequently, the rule of law in Iran has been further
weakened by the very institutions that purport to uphold it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal
grandfather.
[2] Under Islamic law diyya is a compensatory payment made when a crime or an
unintentional act has caused an injury.
[3] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal
grandfather.
[4] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal
grandfather.
[5] Article 302 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (available at:
http://www.ghanoon.ir/, in Persian) establishes a new layer of criminal courts
to deal with crimes including those with penalties of death, amputation of
limbs, 5 years or more of imprisonment, and political or press crimes.
[6] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal
grandfather.
[7] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal
grandfather.
[8] See footnote 5
[9] The Islamic Penal Code specifies eight classes of ta'zir punishments.
Ta'zir punishments are punishments that are not explicitly fixed under Shari'a
law, but are handed out at the discretion of a judge. Class 8 punishments are
the most lenient, while class 1 punishments are the harshest. Article 428
states when a class 4 punishment or higher (1 through 3) has been handed out,
the Supreme Court is to directly hear the appeal. Class 4 punishments include
imprisonment between 5 to 10 years, fines ranging from 18 to 36 million toumans
(approximately $5,559 to $11,118 per the 2015 exchange rate), and being
permanently banned from employment in the public sector.
[10] The head of the judicial district is the highest ranking judiciary
official in a town or county. Often the local prosecutor serves as the head of
the judicial district.
[11] See footnote 5.
[12] It is likely that the article in fact refers to Article 303, which deals
with cases within the purview of the Revolutionary Courts. Article 302
explicitly deals with cases within the purview of Criminal Courts, a separate
court system.
[13] Class 3 punishments include imprisonment between 10 to 15 years and fines
ranging from 36 to 55 million toumans (approximately $11,118 to $16,986 per the
2015 exchange rate).
(source: Iran Human Rights Documentation Center)
NIGERIA:
Cross Rivers to Pass Death Penalty For Kidnappers & Cultists
Speaker of Cross River State House of Assembly, John Gaul Lebo, has said that a
bill will soon be passed prescribing death by hanging for those convicted of
kidnapping and cultism.
He said cultism, which is thriving in some parts of the state, has a
relationship with kidnapping.
Lebo also said that essence of descending hard on kidnappers was to scare away
those involved in it, adding that kidnappers were running into the state
because of obsolete and weak laws.
Frowning at the penalty for kidnapping which presently attracts only 1 1/2
years in prison, he said the assembly intends to review and modernise it.
Capital punishment is therefore part of the reform, review and modernisation to
conform to their Citizen Agenda of the 8th legislature, he stated.
(source: Nigerian Bulletin)
INDIA:
Face to face with the gallows
The death penalty enjoys strong public support in India. There is a broad
public perception that the death penalty deters crime and is needed to curb
serious acts of violence. In Bachan Singh's case (1980) the Supreme Court,
after surveying considerable literature on the subject, concluded that the
death penalty has some deterrent impact. But this viewpoint is being challenged
by many criminologists in different parts of the world. In a consultation on
capital punishment recently organized by the Law Commission, many jurists and
academics pointed out how public opinion on this issue is based on
misconceptions about the alleged deterrent impact of the death penalty. In
1945, Travancore was an independent state in India and did not have the death
penalty. 962 murders were committed during the years 1945 to 1950. When
Travancore became a part of India and the death penalty became applicable in
the state, there was an upswing in the rate of murder. Similarly, the homicide
rate in Canada was 542 in 2000, which was 159 less than the homicide figures of
1975, the year prior to the abolition of death penalty in Canada. In the United
States of America too, where some states have the death penalty, rates of
homicide are higher than in the states without it.
Criminological studies have also shown that the death penalty does not alter
criminal behaviour and only prevents rehabilitation. More than the severity of
punishment, it is the certainty of punishment that acts as a deterrent. In
Bachan Singh's case, the apex court further observed that "real and abiding
concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life
through law's instrumentality". It held that death penalty can be imposed only
in the "rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably
foreclosed".
Notwithstanding the ruling of the Supreme Court, the death penalty in India
extends to a variety of offences. Under the Indian Penal Code, it can be
applied to a variety of offences like murder, robbery with murder, abetting the
suicide of a child, waging war against the government. The death sentence also
can be imposed for a number of offences committed by members of the armed
forces under the Army Act (1950), Air Force Act (1950), Navy Act (1957). The
law against sati (1987) makes the death penalty applicable to those convicted
of abetting a successful sati.
The correct statistics on execution within India are not available. The number
of people executed in India since 1947 remains a matter of dispute. Official
statements claim that only 52 people have been executed since Independence, but
the People's Union for Civil Liberties quoted information from Appendix 34 of
the 1967 Law Commission Report that 1422 executions took place in 16 Indian
states from 1953 to 1965. The government, instead of responding to the PUCL's
discovery, has maintained silence. India, however, had been observing a de
facto moratorium on execution since 2004. But in 2012, Ajmal Kasab was executed
for his involvement in Mumbai carnage (26/11). In 2013, Afzal Guru was hanged
for an attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.
The possibility of an error in judgment is a powerful argument in favour of the
abolition of the death penalty. Like all other forms of punishment, the error
in judgment cannot be ruled out in case of the death penalty. Until a decade
ago, the prevalent view was that such errors of judgment are historical
oddities and could not be repeated in modern times. In the US, several studies
have documented the problem of erroneous conclusions, even in homicide cases.
The report of Death Penalty Information Centre in 1999 documents that, since
1970, there have been nearly 80 people released from death rows as they were
found innocent. The execution of an innocent man is an unpardonable crime
against society and such gruesome possibilities cannot be ruled out in case of
the imposition of death penalties.
A landmark study titled, Lethal Lottery - The Death Penalty in India, carried
out by Amnesty International and the PUCL, highlights the weaknesses in the
award of death penalties in India since 1950 and observed that in India it has
been "arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with crimes and
criminals". This report has been referred to by the Supreme Court in a number
of cases.
Even the Supreme Court noted in the case of Swami Shraddhananda versus the
State of Karnataka (2008) that awarding the sentence of death depends a good
deal on personal predilections of the judges comprising the bench. This indeed
is a serious admission on the part of the apex court. It is well-known in legal
circles that all over the world each court has some "hanging judges" and the
life and death of a person can become a matter of chance, depending upon which
bench hears a particular case. In the case of Sangeet versus State of
Maharashtra (2013), the apex court admitted that the death penalty was wrongly
imposed in 5 other cases and added that uncertainties in India's "death penalty
jurisprudence" makes it difficult to decide whether the case was fit for the
imposition of the death penalty.
During the apartheid regime, South Africa was one of the world's greatest
executioners of the world. South Africa's constitutional court in a landmark
judgment declared death penalty unconstitutional mainly on grounds of
arbitrariness. The court further concluded that "poverty, race and chance play
roles... in the final decision as to who should live and who should die".
In its dissenting judgment on Bachan Singh's case the judge observed that the
death penalty has a class complexion and caste bias. Now a study conducted by
National Law University students with the help of Law Commission analyzed data
from interviews of 373 death row convicts over a 15 year period and found that
3/4 of those given the death penalty belonged to backward classes and religious
minorities. Very often poor people get a rougher treatment from the courts
because of their inability to find a competent lawyer to contest their
conviction.
Today there is an international tide in favour of the abolition of the death
penalty. The number of abolitionist nations has risen to 104 of 196 United
Nations member states and a vast majority have abolished the death penalty for
all crimes in all circumstances including terrorist offences and crimes
committed in time of war.
In India, many death row prisoners have had to wait for a considerable period
in prisons under sentence of death. Indeed, death sentences have no penological
value and execution serves only a symbolic purpose. India has signed the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but not the Second
Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty that was adopted
by the UN general assembly in 1988. In 2007, India voted against the United
Nations general assembly resolution for a moratorium on death penalties.
There is an imperative need for a strong civil society movement against the
death penalty in India. The point must be stressed that those who favour the
death penalty do not conform to the opinion held by a majority of people in the
world which is veering towards its abolition. The question of death penalty is
a basic human rights issue and a litmus test for all states proclaiming human
rights norms and values. Gallows stand for cruelty and irreverence for life.
(source: Opinion, Sankar Sen; The (Calcutta) Telegraph)
**********************
Capital punishment
Capital punishment is indeed an inhuman way of justice while life imprisonment
is justifiable as there is always scope for change in a person ("The rope and a
chance to reform", Aug.7). Though intellectuals campaigning against the death
penalty have spent much time arguing for life imprisonment, no one appears to
have shed light on the conditions of prisons in India. A recent media report
showed how Tihar jail has twice the number of inmates it can hold. Besides
this, the environment in almost all prisons does not help in reform. The key
issue we should be looking at is whether the existing prison environment in
India can bring about reform.
Rohit Kumar,
New Delhi
The moral argument against the death penalty is strong. It may be legally right
in certain societies but is morally wrong at all times and at all places. You
cannot right a wrong by carrying out another wrong. Society may have enacted
laws but these are laws created by men. It is a pity that a deeply spiritual
society such as ours rejoices in a hanging. I strongly believe that a harsh
life sentence will act as a deterrent.
Sridhar Sampath,
Chennai
It is fine to be quoting examples from popular culture, but events in the past
decade show that nothing deters terrorists from carrrying out their abominable
acts. We are all cognisant of the fact that the Indian government had to spend
Rs. 30 crore to ensure a fair trial for Ajmal Kasab. Why should taxpayers'
money be spent to provide facilities for such elements? Such an amount can be
used to further education, sanitation and health care. Instead, there should be
provision for fast-track courts that dispense justice quickly. The writer's
idea that Yakub's execution has not been able to provide a sense of closure is
unpalatable. Let us consider how keeping a terrorist alive engendered a hostage
crisis, an example being the hijacking of 1999. The terrorists who were freed
never showed any sign of remorse but went on to become involved in other
heinous acts like the 2001 Parliament attack, training of militants in PoK and
much worse. Do we need to face a similar crisis in order for the 'champions of
life imprisonment' to open their eyes?
Chirag Sharma,
Vellore, Tamil Nadu
I can only think of the hostage crisis in 1999, where airline passengers from
India faced grave risk to their lives. Keeping terrorists alive might result in
a similar situation. Can we forget the damage caused when terrorists had to be
released from Indian prisons? In a way, punishment will avert any such
situation in future.
Kishore Kaushik,
Mysuru
First, there is a drain on resources while providing 'food, shelter and safety'
to terrorists. Can India really afford to keep them alive in the hope that such
persons will reform themselves? Every crime is different. Perhaps we should
focus on the fact that this was a government which did not play politics by
keeping a man alive until the eve of elections. In Yakub Memon's case, the
country waited 23 years for justice. Can it not wait a few years to see Maya
Kodnani and others brought to justice? From a sociological point of view, it is
easy to empathise with a perpetrator as he/she is a single individual and not
an abstract entity like his/her victims. Yakub was heard, given a voice and, in
the end, held guilty. It is important for us to understand the closure for many
people who could not come forward and express themselves in one voice.
Sweety Gupta,
New Delhi
(source: Letters to the Editor, The Hindu)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
