April 8
IRAN:
Iranian man facing imminent execution denied the right to appeal
The scheduled execution of a 36-year-old man convicted on drug offences
tomorrow, Saturday 9 April, demonstrates the Iranian authorities' utter
disregard for the right to life and their determination to continue with a
staggering execution spree that saw nearly 1000 people put to death last year,
said Amnesty International.
Family members of Rashid Kouhi received a call from prison authorities
yesterday informing them that they should go to Rasht's Lakan Prison in Gilan
Province, Northern Iran, to have a final meeting with him today before his
execution on Saturday 9 April.
Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director, Said
Boumedouha said: "The imminent execution of Rashid Kouhi days after Iran was
revealed to be the world's 2nd highest executioner in 2015 in Amnesty
International's annual death penalty report, highlights the authorities'
determination to maintain their horrifying rate of executions.
"The Iranian authorities must halt the execution of Rashid Kouhi immediately.
The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences is a blatant violation
of international human rights law. Instead of stepping up their rampant
execution spree the Iranian authorities must take steps to abolish this
ultimate cruel and inhuman punishment."
At least 977 people were executed in Iran in 2015 - the vast majority of which
were for drug-related offences. These offences do not meet the threshold of
"most serious crimes", interpreted by international human rights bodies, as
crimes involving international killing, for which the death penalty is
permitted under international human rights law.
Rashid Kouhi was arrested at a checkpoint in Roudbar, Gilan province on 24
August 2011. The officers who stopped him conducted a search of his bag where
they found 800 grams of crystal meth. He was a student at the time. He was
tried and sentenced to death following a grossly unfair trial by a
Revolutionary Court in Roudbar in February 2012.
The court's verdict, which has been reviewed by Amnesty International, is less
than a page long and does not contain adequate reasoning. He did not have
access to a lawyer during questioning and met a state appointed lawyer for the
1st time during his trial. He was held in Roudbar for 2 years before being
taken to Lakan Prison in Rasht.
Rashid Kouhi was denied the right to appeal his death sentence. This was
because under Article 32 of the Anti-Narcotics Law, all death sentences passed
for drug related offences were subject to confirmation either by the Head of
the Supreme Court or the Prosecutor General, who were entitled to revise or
quash the sentence if they found it contravened Islamic law or that the judge
was not competent.
However, a new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force in June 2015,
revoking this article and restoring the right to appeal for individuals
sentenced to death for drug-related offences. Despite this, Amnesty
International understands that Rashid Kouhi has not received adequate legal
assistance in order to submit an Application for Retrial (E'ade dadresi) to
Iran's Supreme Court on this basis.
Rashid Kouhi requests for clemency have been rejected.
"It is appalling that Rashid Kouhi has been denied the right to an appeal which
is a fundamental element of the right to a fair trial. The Iranian authorities
must urgently halt his execution and give him a chance to appeal his death
sentence in a fair trial without recourse to the death penalty. Failing to do
so will be an irreversible injustice," said Said Boumedouha.
Background
The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that a death sentence passed after an
unfair proceeding violates both the right to life and the prohibition of
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Iran's Anti-Narcotics Law stipulates mandatory death sentences for a range of
drug-related offences, including trafficking more than 5kg of narcotics derived
from opium or more than 30g of heroin, morphine, cocaine or their chemical
derivatives.
(source: Amnesty International UK)
PAKISTAN:
DAK demands death penalty for food adulterators
Amid deepening public concerns over food safety following a wave of recent food
adulteration, Doctors Association Kashmir (DAK) Friday demanded capital
punishment for those involved in contamination of eatables.
Describing food adulteration as a crime against humanity, President DAK Dr
Nisar ul Hassan said that death penality will act as a powerful deterrent and
will curb the menace of food adulteration.
This provision of exemplary punishment should be inserted into the food act to
discourage those who are responsible for food adulteration which is causing
loss of precious human lives, he said.
The current food safety and standards act has provisions for a maximum
punishment of life imprisonment for those involved in manufacture and sale of
unsafe foods, Dr Nisar said.
He said that there are growing voices in favor of death sentence to weed out
this heinous crime which is perilous to human life and health.
(source: risingkashmir.com)
MALAYSIA:
Kevin Morais murder: DNA not a match with the accused
DNA evidence collected in deputy public prosecutor Datuk Anthony Kevin Morais'
murder case was not a conclusive match with the accused, the High Court here
was told.
DNA analyst Nor Aidora Saedon, 43, going over evidence she tested, tendered
exhibit W10: a bloodstained wire with 2 DNA samples.
"There were 2 DNA profiles on it, which I labeled 'Unknown' and 'Male One'.
Sample Unknown was confirmed as a biological match to samples given by Kevin's
brothers," she said on Friday, referring to the deceased's siblings Datuk
Richard and David Ramesh.
However, she was unable to find a match between Male One and 11 DNA samples of
suspects in the case.
She had earlier recorded receiving 11 FTA cards (a tool used to collect and
store DNA evidence) that had DNA samples from the seven accused plus 3 other
suspects in the case.
"The sample cannot match conclusively with the other 11. It's not very good,
not strong, that's why I didn't say it matches in my report," she revealed.
During cross examination, defence lawyer Datuk N. Sivananthan asked if Nor
Aidora knew where the wire came from or if it was of any importance.
She replied that she was not informed where the wire was collected, but assumed
it was of importance as it was part of a police investigation into a murder.
Asked by defence counsel V. Rajehgopal if the results of DNA testing was
absolute, Nor Aidora said it was 99.9% accurate.
On Jan 27, the 6 men - G. Gunasekaran, 48; R. Dinishwaran, 24; A. K. Thinesh
Kumar, 23; M. Vishwanath, 26; Nimalan, 23; and Ravi Chandaran, 35 - claimed
trial to charges of murdering Kevin.
They are accused of committing the offence between 7am and 8pm on Sept 4, 2015,
between Jalan Dutamas Raya Sentul and No. 1 Jalan USJ1/6D, Subang Jaya.
Army pathologist Colonel Dr R. Kunaseegaran, 53, pleaded not guilty to abetting
the 6 in the murder.
They face the mandatory death penalty if convicted, under Section 302 of the
Penal Code.
Counsel Sivananthan and Datuk Geethan Ram Vincent acted for Kunaseegaran,
counsel Rajehgopal defended Gunasekaran, Vishwanath, Nimalan and Ravi
Chandaran, while lawyer M. Manoharan acted for Dinishwaran and Thinesh Kumar.
Justice Azman Abdullah fixed April 12 for the next day of hearing.
(source: The Star)
*********************
Criminals are people too
It's easy to support the death penalty when the condemned persons are faceless
to you.
Does a murderer deserve to live? Ask anybody that question, and chances are
high that you get an instant and emphatic no.
Confront them, however, with real life cases of murderers on death row, and the
odds take a steep drop in the other direction.
Roger Hood, a criminology professor from Oxford University, asked more than
1,500 Malaysians in a 2013 survey whether they supported capital punishment. A
whopping 91% said yes for murder. Between 74% and 83% approved it for drug
trafficking or firearms offences.
"But when he confronted them with a variety of scenarios consistent with
capital crimes as defined in the statute books, only 1.2% said the culprit
should be executed in all cases," wrote writer Thomas Hubert in an article
published by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.
The survey, like a previous one Hood conducted in Japan, also shows that
popular support for or opposition to the death penalty depends a lot on how the
question is asked and on how much information the public has.
Are those results contradictory? Yes. Are they also highly indicative of human
nature? Yes. From these results alone, we can make one quick conclusion: it's
easier to pass judgement upon nameless murderers than real people on death row.
The basic reasoning behind the death penalty is simple and biblical: An eye for
an eye. If your actions result in the death of others, you deserve death
yourself. It's vengeance at its simplest, an idea so attractive it lies at the
centre of 2/3 of all action movies, country songs, and cheap paperbacks about
cheating spouses.
The argument in favour of the death penalty is more robust than just that, of
course. "Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the
crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime," read the 2004
judgement on security guard Dhananjoy Chatterjee in Kolkata, India. This
reflects a long-held tenet of the pro-death penalty camp, that the threat of
death deters future crime.
Research shows otherwise, however. Human rights organisation Amnesty
International continually reiterates that no conclusive evidence exists to
prove the death penalty's efficacy over imprisonment in deterring crime. "Crime
figures from countries which have banned the death penalty have not risen. In
some cases, they have actually gone down," says Amnesty, citing frequently
repeated figures, some of which date back to 1988. An FBI report even shows
that murder rates are higher in places where the death penalty is in force.
So if the death penalty doesn't work to deter crime, why has it stuck around
for so long. In a nutshell, people seem to want it or are thought to want it.
Removing the death penalty requires political will, and politicians as a rule
don't work for something people don't want. Besides the constant pressure by
human rights NGOs, the only reason why Minister in the Prime Minister's
Department Nancy Shukri recently managed to push for the introduction of
legislative reforms to review capital punishment is that the issue has once
again become hot.
Malaysians were reminded that the death sentence is a terrible thing when a
Malaysian, Kho Jabing, was first sentenced to death by a Singaporean court in
2010. Malaysian politicians and human rights activists went into high gear
after, appealing to Singapore to stay the execution in favour of the "sanctity
of human life". Then it was pointed out to our government last year that asking
another government to desist from putting someone to death is tricky when our
country still uses the death penalty.
It's a little sad how we don't argue as much for the sanctity of human life
when our countrymen aren't on the chopping block.
There needs to be better recognition of the fact that the death sentence is
just the murky embodiment of vengeance. Things change when you put faces to the
people you demonise.
(source: Commentary; Mikha Chan---Free Malaysia Today)
BANGLADESH:
UN wants Bangladesh to protect secular activists
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein has
urged the Bangladesh government to take urgent, concerted measures to ensure
the protection of all those being threatened by extremists 'operating in the
country'.
Hussein made the call saying they are alarmed by the violent killing of yet
another blogger in Bangladesh - Nazimuddin Samad.
"We call on political and religious leaders to unequivocally condemn such
murders, and on the authorities to swiftly investigate and bring the
perpetrators to justice," he was quoted as saying in a statement received here
from Geneva on Friday.
Meanwhile, spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Ravina
Shamdasani, in a statement, renewed their call to the government of Bangladesh,
as a 1st step forward, to halt all executions and institute a moratorium on the
use of the death penalty.
Bangladesh, she said, reportedly has more than 1,200 prisoners on death row and
in March this year alone at least 13 people were reportedly sentenced to death
in separate murder cases in four districts in Bangladesh.
"We're concerned about the latest death sentences handed down against two men
by the Bangladesh International Crimes Tribunal, particularly given continued
concerns in relation to international due process and fair trial standards,"
said the spokesperson.
War criminal and leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, Motiur Rahman Nizami has filed a
review petition against his death warrant, due to be heard on Sunday, April 10,
following a 1-week deferral.
This is the last stage of the legal process in appealing against his execution,
other than to seek a presidential pardon, and we hope it will be considered
thoroughly by the court, he added.
Nizami was sentenced to death on charges of planning, ordering and committing
murders and rapes, among other serious crimes during the 1971 war of
independence.
Last month, on March 8, the Supreme Court also upheld the death sentence
against Mir Quasem Ali, another war criminal and Jamaat-e-Islami leader. Mir
Quasem Ali had been sentenced to death in November 2014 by the same tribunal.
Since its inception in 2010, the tribunal has delivered at least 17 verdicts,
the majority of which have resulted in the imposition of the death penalty. So
far, 4 men have been executed.
"The UN opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, no matter
the gravity of the crime committed and even if the most stringent fair trial
standards were respected," said the Spokesperson.
The UN rights body renewed their call to the government of Bangladesh to
respect its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), to which it acceded in 2000.
Article 14 of the ICCPR details the right to a fair trial. The imposition of a
death sentence following a trial in which these provisions have not been
respected constitutes a violation of the right to life, it said.
(source: The Daily Star)
UNITED KINGDOM:
Hangmen - British film is macabrely funny
How can one laugh when an innocent man is about to be hanged for a murder he
didn't commit?
But you do in this hilariously dark production for NT Live.
'Hangmen' writer Martin McDonagh is best known for 'In Bruges', his BAFTA
award-winning original screenplay which I am sad to say I have not yet seen.
The Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act was passed in the UK Parliament
in 1965 but excluded crimes involving high treason, piracy with violence, arson
in royal dockyards and espionage. It was only as late as 1998 that hanging was
completely abolished in the UK by the Human Rights Act and the Criminal and
Disorder Act.
'Hangmen' then is based on fact and at least 2 of the characters are based on
real life people.
Hangman Harry Wade (David Morrissey) is based on Harry Allen, the historical
Chief Executioner who presided over 41 hangings; the last of which was in 1964
in Strangeways prison, Manchester.
His competitor, Albert Pierrepoint (John Hodgkinson) did exist, following in
the footsteps of his father and uncle to become a hangman in 1932 and is
reported to have hanged over 400 people.
Both Allen and Pierrepoint were also real life publicans.
McDonagh manages to extract hilariously comic moments from this inhumane and
absurd subject.
The play begins with the hanging of a prisoner protesting his innocence of the
seaside murder of a woman to the end, but while horrified by the idea of what
is about to happen, we cannot help doubling over at the banter between the
characters participating in the scene.
The main action takes place in a pub in Oldham where Harry lords it over his
inebriated customers with his once glamorous wife and now and then the
assistance of his rather large and 'mopey' teenage daughter. The cut and thrust
of banal pub talk in snide Northern dialect is a delight - reminiscent of some
of the best sketches of Monty Python or Peter Cook and Dudley Moore.
It is the day the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act is announced and the local
journalist is trying to wheedle a comment out of Harry. Interrupting the cosy
camaraderie of this Northern pub is the young Southern stranger, Mooney (Johnny
Flynn) who appears oddly menacing and Harry's 1-time hanging assistant, Syd
(Andy Nyman), nursing a grudge against his former superior.
When both Mooney and his daughter disappear on the day questions are being
asked about the Lowestoft murders and whether the man he had hanged was the
murderer or was innocent as he claimed, the action takes on a macabre twist.
David Morrissey is superb as the pompous and overly respectable Harry Wade
while Johnny Flynn easily gives us the shivers. It is a star cast all in all.
It is tightly directed by Matthew Dunster keeping the audience both entertained
and on the edge of their seats and I must applaud set and costume designer Anna
Fleischle, who brought back memories of many a pub I worked in as a student
while lighting designer, Joshua Carr created the mood.
Do go and enjoy this wonderful offering from the National Theatre now showing
live at Cinema Nouveau across the country from Saturday 9 April for limited
screenings. The play is 2h40m long with a 20m interval. You will rush back to
your seats.
(source: Sharmini Brookes, Freelance writer----artlink.co.za)
_______________________________________________
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
