May 15



SINGAPORE:

Imminent executions in Singapore and Indonesia must be halted


We the undersigned, human rights organizations, and concerned human rights defenders condemn the imminent executions of Kho Jabing in Singapore and at least 15 individuals which apparently includes, 4 Chinese nationals, 2 Nigerians, 2 Zimbabweans, 1 Senegalese, 1 Pakistani and 5 Indonesian nationals in Indonesia. We call on the authorities of the 2 countries to halt the impending executions.

On 12 May 2016, the family of Kho Jabing, a Malaysian national on death row in Singapore, received a letter from the Singapore Prisons informing them that Kho Jabing would be executed on 20 May 2016. Kho Jabing was convicted of murder in 2011. Of particular concern is the fact that there was a lack of unanimity in sentencing Kho Jabing to death, which demonstrates that reasonable doubt exists as to whether Kho Jabing deserved the death penalty.

As regards the imminent executions that will be taking place in Indonesia, Indonesia would contravene her own international obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right by executing these individuals.

The Association of South East Asian Nations Member States (???ASEAN???), including Singapore and Indonesia, have continuously emphasized the importance of the rule of law and the protection of rights. The death penalty therefore stands out as an aberration.

In December 2014, the United Nations General Assembly adopted its latest resolutions calling on all States to adopt a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view towards abolition. A record number of 117 Member States supported the Resolution. Regrettably, Indonesia abstained and Singapore voted against the Resolution. The ASEAN Member States must use the opportunity presented by this Resolution to align themselves with the global movement towards abolition.

Singapore has recently undergone its second Universal Periodic Review in January 2016. The continued use of the death penalty was one of the key highlights of the review, with Singapore receiving over 30 recommendations related to the death penalty, including recommendations to abolish the death penalty.

In 2015, Indonesia, a United Nations Human Rights Council Member until 2017, executed 14 individuals convicted of drug-related offences amid strong international opposition. The imminent executions would further damage Indonesia's human rights record and erode her standing in the international community.

The death penalty has no place in the 21st Century. Not only is there a real possibility of wrongful executions, it deprives inmates of their life and dignity, and creates new classes of victims. We strongly urge the governments of Singapore and Indonesia to halt the upcoming executions, immediately impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and take meaningful steps towards its eventual abolition.

List of Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Network Asia (ADPAN)

Center for Prisoner's Rights Japan (CPR)

Community Action Network (CAN, Singapore)

Free Community Church (Singapore)

Function 8 (Singapore)

MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture)

Maruah (Singapore)

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Journey of Hope

Legal Aid Community (LBH Masyarakat, Indonesia)

Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR)

Ocean

Pusat Studi Hukum dan Kebijakan Indonesia (The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies)

Reprieve Australia

Sayoni (Singapore)

Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)

Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)

Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP)

The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS, Indonesia)

The Indonesian Center for Law and Policy Studies (PSHK, Indonesia)

The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR, Indonesia)

The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy of Indonesia (ELSAM)

The National Human Rights Society, Malaysia (HAKAM)

Think Centre Singapore

We Believe in Second Chances (WBSC, Singapore)

(source: wordpress.com)





*****************

Questionable validity of the Court of Appeal in resentencing of death for Kho Jabing


MADPET (Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture) in a letter to the press, states that the questionable validity of the Court of Appeal that re-sentenced Kho Jabing to death is enough reason for immediate stay of execution of Kho Jabing that has been scheduled for Friday 20 May 2016

It states that the Justice Andrew Phang should not have sat on the 2 Court of Appeal as such a judge who had previously heard and determined a case involving the same accused person reasonably would not satisfy the conditions of an independent and impartial tribunal.

It also noted that when Kho's case was sent to the High Court for re-sentencing by the Court of Appeal, the judge that heard and considered the re-sentencing was not the High Court judge that originally heard and convicted Kho Jabing. This is considered to be most prejudicial to Kho Jabing as elements in the trial, including demeanour can never be properly or comprehensively captured in any Notes of Evidence/Proceedings and/or Judgments.

MADPET states that the only remedy to ensure that justice is really done is a re-trial or a new trial, not merely a 're-sentencing' exercise. In light of the amendment, a new trial is needed to ensure relevant evidence and submissions are before the court.

Below is the full letter by Charles Hector, MADPET about its question on the validity of the Court of Appeal on Kho Jabing's case and MADPET's call for the commutation of the death sentence of Kho Jabing and all others currently on death row in Singapore for murder.

MADPET is worried that Kho Jabing may be executed based on a possibly tainted or invalid Court of Appeal judgment, which reversed the High Court decision that commuted the death sentence to imprisonment and caning.

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TAINTED AND/OR VOID

Having perused the relevant judgments, MADPET discovered that one of the 5 judges, who reportedly sat in the coram of this Court of Appeal (Criminal Appeal No 6 of 2013) that send Kho Jabing to the gallows again, also did sit as judge in an earlier court case concerning Kho Jabing, being Criminal Appeal No 18 of 2010. The coram in the 2013 case was Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Woo Bih Li J, Lee Seiu Kin J and Chan Seng Onn J, whilst the coram for the 2010 case was Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA and V K Rajah JA, and as can be seen Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA was in the coram of both Appeals.

Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, 'Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.' This necessarily implies that the judges must be independent, impartial and unbiased, and as such a judge who had previously heard and determined a case involving the same accused person reasonably would not satisfy these important conditions, more so when the earlier Appeal in which Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA was involved in was also the appeal against conviction for the very same offence.

As such, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA should never have been included in the coram of the Court of Appeal that heard the appeal by the prosecution against the decision of the High Court that re-sentenced Kho Jabing to imprisonment and caning. Even, if Andrew Phang was appointed, the said Judge should have appropriately recused himself on the basis that he was previously involved in a case involving Kho Jabing. The relevant Court of Appeal judgment, which is available to the public, never disclosed, that this point was even considered by that Court. We recall the important principle that "justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

The presence of Andrew Phang in the coram of the Court of Appeal, that overturned the re-sentencing High Court's decision, and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to death, would possibly make that entire judgment invalid or 'void', and thus restoring the High Court judgment that commuted the death sentence to imprisonment.

Alternatively, even if Andrew Phang's vote is not to be taken into consideration, the result would be a 2-2 decision, and as such again, the prosecution's Appeal would have failed, and the High Court's decision will not have been overturned, and Kho Jabing would be facing imprisonment and caning - not death.

PREJUDICED WHEN RE-SENTENCING HIGH COURT JUDGE WAS DIFFERENT

Another concern with regard the Kho Jabing's case, was that when the case was sent to the High Court for re-sentencing, the judge that heard and considered the re-sentencing was not the High Court judge that originally heard and convicted Kho Jabing.

Singapore Parliament, wisely appreciated the importance that it be the same judge, possibly because that judge may have recalled elements in the trial, including demeanour, which at the end of the day can never be properly or comprehensively captured in any Notes of Evidence/Proceedings and/or Judgments. In the Kho Jabing???s case, the original trial judge had retired, and hence another judge heard the re-sentencing case. This fact, in itself, was most prejudicial to Kho Jabing.

Further, even if the re-sentencing judge had been the same judge, noting the lapse of time plus the fact the many other cases would have come before the same judge, the question would be whether it was even reasonably possible for the original judge in the Court of First Instance to effectively recall from memory aspects of the said case that was not fully and clearly stated in his/her written records.

RE-TRIAL NEEDED AFTER AMENDMENT TO ENSURE JUSTICE

Justice demands that, unless there is a re-trial, the death sentence of Kho Jabing and all others before the amendment came into force should now be commuted. The risk of miscarriage of justice, especially in cases where the death sentence is retained, is just too high to be acceptable.

We see from the re-sentencing judgments of both the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, the struggle the judges concerned had to undergo in order to establish relevant facts that have now become relevant following the amendment, that were really not relevant or not as relevant before the coming into force of the new amendments.

Re-sentencing was needed, after Singapore amended the law concerning murder vide Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Act 32 of 2012), which effectively resulted in the ???repeal and re-enactment of section 302'. The law before the amendment provided only the mandatory death penalty for murder (section 302). Now after the amendment came into effect, not only was there now discretion of the court with regard sentencing - death penalty or imprisonment with caning, but also a consideration of other matters including mental capacity.

As such, reasonably re-sentencing simply based on the evidence adduced and submissions made in the original trial is not possible and most dangerous - there should rightly be a new trial or re-trial.

The presentation of the case, be it by the prosecution and/or the defence, would reasonably be very different following the amendments. This was a concern, which was also acknowledged and/or admitted by the Court of Appeal that heard the re-sentencing Appeal, which amongst others said, 'Admittedly, as that court [referring to Court of First Instance]was dealing with the pre-amendment position, there was no reason for it to assess the savagery (or otherwise) of the Respondent's actions; put simply, it was merely making its findings of fact based on the evidence and submissions raised by the counsel concerned'.

As such, the only remedy to ensure that justice is really done is a re-trial or a new trial, not merely a 're-sentencing' exercise. In light of the amendment, a new trial is needed to ensure relevant evidence and submissions are before the court.

As such, in the absence of a re-trial or new trial, MADPET calls for the commutation of the death sentence of Kho Jabing and all others currently on death row in Singapore for murder.

The Singapore government, President, Attorney General/Public Prosecutor and/or the Judiciary can and must take note of these serious concerns, irrespective of whether there is any application in court by Kho Jabing, and immediately stay the planned execution of Kho Jabing in the interest of justice.

MADPET, in light of the matters raised above, amongst others, the questionable validity of Court of Appeal that reversed the High Court decision and re-sentenced Kho Jabing to death, call for an immediate stay of execution of Kho Jabing, which is now allegedly scheduled for this coming Friday(20/5/2016).

MADPET also urges Singapore to adhere to the 5 United Nations General Assembly Resolutions, the first being in 2007 and the fifth being on 2014, whereby the support has obviously grown over the years, calling for the abolition of the death penalty, and for a moratorium pending abolition.

(source: theonlinecitizen.com)

*********************

Guilty As Charged: Dance hostess Mimi Wong murdered her Japanese lover's wife----She was the 1st woman to get the death penalty in Singapore. Her husband also went to the gallows for the murder


This story was first published in July 2015 in an e-book titled Guilty As Charged: 25 Crimes That Have Shaken Singapore Since 1965. A collaboration between The Straits Times and the Singapore Police Force, the e-book appeared in The Straits Times Star E-books app. (Warning: Some content in these stories may be disturbing for some individuals.)

The case of Mimi Wong (1970)

It was the night of Christmas 1969. Japanese mechanical engineer Hiroshi Watanabe decided it was time for his wife Ayako to meet Mimi Wong Weng Siu, the dance hostess who had been his lover in Singapore for the last 3 years. Mrs Watanabe, 33, had flown into Singapore with their 3 young children only 2 days before, to live with her husband here.

That Christmas night, Mr Watanabe drove his family to Wong's house at Everitt Road.

It took some persuading from the Japanese to convince 31-year-old Wong to meet his wife. She was angry and abused him. But after he spoke to her alone for 30 minutes, she finally relented.

Along with Wong's servant and her daughter by a Hong Kong businessman, they all went out for dinner in his car. Wong also gave her lover's children sweets.

6 days later, on New Year's Eve, Wong even went to a party hosted by the Watanabes at their Jalan Seaview semi-detached house.

But behind the pretence, Wong was writhing in jealousy.

She was convinced that her affair with Mr Watanabe, who had been assigned to Singapore 3 years earlier to work on a reclamation project in the eastern part of the island, would fizzle out now that his wife was in town.

Her hatred was fuelled by Mrs Watanabe allegedly calling her a prostitute at the New Year's Eve party. On the evening of Jan 6, Wong returned to the Jalan Seaview home, with her estranged husband, 37-year-old Sim Woh Kum, a sweeper in financial difficulty. And they murdered Mrs Watanabe.

The killing was witnessed by her eldest daughter, 9-year-old schoolgirl Chieko.

She was the prosecution's star witness during the trial 10 months later.

: 'I saw blood on my mother's chest'

That night, Chieko said, her mother had tucked in the 3 siblings in a 1st-floor bedroom, which was joined to a large bathroom. Her father was working overtime at the reclamation site at the time.

As she lay awake on bed, Chieko heard voices, then footsteps on the ground floor.

Then she heard screams coming from the bathroom.

"They were screams of pain from my mother."

She went to the bathroom and found her mother sitting on the floor.

"The man was pulling my mother's left hand and Obasan was pulling her right hand." Obasan is Japanese for auntie - a name her father had suggested she call Wong.

"I saw blood on my mother's chest. I cried and Obasan covered my mouth with her hand. I stopped crying and she released me."

Her mother sustained 2 fatal stab wounds - 1 gashed the neck and the other penetrated her abdomen.

Chieko went back to the room to wake her 6-year-old brother, but he continued to sleep.

Then she saw Wong and Sim run down the stairs.

"My mother stood in the bathroom. She staggered a few paces and fell. I thought she was dead."

Her siblings were soon awake.

"All 3 of us stood outside the bathroom and cried. We were still crying there when Father got back."

When Mr Watanabe returned to the house, he was greeted by the wails of his children. He ran up and saw them standing outside the bathroom. Inside, he saw his wife, who was wearing a red dress, lying in a pool of blood.

Mr Watanabe asked Chieko what happened.

"My father asked me who did it. I replied: 'Obasan and a man whom I did not know'."

Sim was a stranger to Chieko, but she later picked him out from an identification parade as the man she saw struggling with her mother.

Sim's confession

Sim said that Wong first spoke to him about the plan to murder Mrs Watanabe on Jan 2, and offered him money.

On the night of Jan 6, they took a taxi to the victim's home. Wong had given Sim a tin half-filled with toilet-cleaning liquid. In her bag, she had a pair of gloves and a knife.

When Mrs Watanabe asked what she wanted, Wong told her that she had brought a workman to repair a broken toilet basin.

She let them in.

"I threw the liquid into the eyes of the woman," said Sim. "Wong stabbed her with a knife. The victim shouted - probably in pain - and covered her face with both palms while on the ground."

To keep Mrs Watanabe quiet, Sim covered her mouth but she bit his finger. That was also when Chieko saw him.

"After stabbing her (Mrs Watanabe) to death, Wong ran away. I chased her to the mouth of the road. We got a taxi..."

The next morning, Sim was arrested. Blood was found on a pair of trousers he had. It was found to be Type A, the same as that of the murdered woman.

During the trial, he also revealed his difficult relationship with Wong, with whom he had 2 sons. A year after their marriage, he said Wong assaulted his mother.

"This led my mother to dub her as 'empress daughter-in-law'",he said.

Sim never dared start a quarrel because "Wong would attempt to strike me".

"When I saw her in an aggressive mood, taking up a knife or stick, I would run for safety."

The 1 occasion when he was hit with a breadknife left a scar.

Their youngest son was less than 2 years old when Wong left him in 1963, before becoming a bar waitress. He said she would strut with her boyfriends in front of him.

"I advised her to refrain from such an action. I was hoping she would return to me."

'He killed her'

Wong put the blame for the death of Mrs Watanabe on her "greedy" husband.

After spending the morning and evening drinking, she said she went to the victim's home "just to slap her". It was not only because of what Mrs Watanabe had said about her, but also to give the woman another reason to complain to her husband. Wong said she wanted Mr Watanabe to end the affair.

She brought Sim along as protection, even though she hated him, because Mr Watanabe had told her most Japanese knew judo. She was afraid that this was true of Mrs Watanabe.

At the doorway of the children's bedroom, she slapped Mrs Watanabe. They were fighting in the bathroom when she claimed Sim threw the liquid at them.

"I asked Sim to run away but he refused."

She decided to leave and tripped down the stairs. It was only when she was outside that Sim joined her.

"If I had not been drinking that day, this incident would never have arisen," she said, insisting there was no way she could have stabbed Mrs Watanabe.

"I am only a woman and have also not the strength to stab her especially when she was biting my left finger and grabbing and scratching my right hand."

Wong also denied being a member of an all-woman secret society known as the Red Butterfly Gang - an accusation which had been made by Sim.

Testifying for the defence, psychiatrist Dr Wong Yip Chong said Wong had seemed prepared to be the "subordinate woman" in Mr Watanabe's life.

He said she tried to be nice to Mrs Watanabe, even sending her presents through Mr Watanabe.

But the wife "was not only downright ungrateful, but also insulting and humiliating to Wong", said the doctor.

This affected Wong, whom he said could have been suffering from a viral brain infection. She could have caught the Japanese encephalitis virus from Mr Watanabe, he added.

Worried husband

In court, Mr Watanabe described his lover as a "lady with a forceful temperament" and a "strong drinker who could hold her drinks".

While his wife disapproved of the affair, he said he could not end it suddenly.

"Wong had hinted to me on several occasions in angry tones that if I were to sever my ties with her, something drastic would befall me or any member of my family."

He admitted he was thinking of leaving her, and that she suspected this.

On the day of the murder, Mr Watanabe had dinner with Wong at their Everitt Road place at 7.30pm.

She asked him if he would be staying the night. He spurned her, saying he would be going home to his family.

He also said that after his wife's death, Wong, who had a flair for hysterics, saw him at the Criminal Investigation Department.

She knelt on the floor.

"She told me in English: 'I am sorry. Give me see your wife, can or not? That night I drunk. I love you true. You told me everything finished."

The verdict

After a trial lasting 26 days, Wong and Sim were convicted of murder and sentenced to death on Dec 7, 1970.

Wong became the 1st woman to receive the capital punishment from a Singapore court. Both showed no emotion.

After unsuccessful appeals - including one to President Benjamin Sheares - both went to the gallows at Changi Prison on Jul 27, 1973.

They were buried side by side.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who was Mimi Wong?

Police found that she was the daughter of her father's 2nd wife. She was just 11 months old when he died.

At 14, she was already working as a packer.

She was 17 when she met Sim Woh Kum at a picnic. In 1958, when she was 19, they married.

A year later she gave birth to a son. In 1962, another son came.

Money was tight, and she had to do odd jobs in restaurants. Her husband lost his job after he was caught gambling.

She left him and became a dance hostess.

In 1966, she met Mr Hiroshi Watanabe. She claimed she got pregnant and he refused to give her money for an abortion, saying he had none. After she went to Penang for an abortion, Mr Watanabe continued the relationship.

During their affair, she met a Hong Kong businessman and fell head over heels for him. He took her to Hong Kong. Even so, she still continued to send Mr Watanabe love letters. When she got pregnant, her Hong Kong lover kicked her out.

She returned to Singapore and gave birth to a daughter. Mr Watanabe continued to visit her.

She worked as a social escort for a time to make ends meet.

In the middle of 1969, she became Mr Watanabe's mistress. He gave her $200 a month, and rented a room at Alexandra Road for her. A few months later, they moved to Everitt Road. She even hired a servant.

(source: straitstimes.com)






TAIWAN:

Execution does not get to the root of the problem


I do not know whether others with this same avocation might agree with me. I can tell you, however, that without a strong sense of emotion, I cannot offer words that are worth reading.

That is one of the lessons I've learned as a writer of a weekly column, the avocation I just mentioned. Only recently did I discover that the word "avocation" is connected to the notion of "distraction." An avocation is supposed to distract us as a hobby does, so that we can rest from our work and afterward throw ourselves into it with more gusto. I hope to return to this notion below.

I am asking myself how to drum up a few readable words for today. I mentioned strong emotions. Don't I have any strong emotions about recent local news? I do.

But this could be a very big order to deliver. Readers may not be receptive to my views today. I sense I will alienate many of you. I am truly sorry if that occurs.

I cannot imagine gobs of cheering Bauer fans leaping from behind bushes and rushing up to me with open arms and saying, "Good for you for expressing flat out, unvarnished, gut-felt aversion to what our legal system did to Cheng Chieh this week."

The truth is I've plenty of emotion about the execution of Cheng Chieh.

Revenge is Dehumanization

I am well aware that I am in a tiny minority (perhaps as small as 15 percent of the general population) opposed to the death penalty in Taiwan. And, yes, I know that numerous folks who consider themselves broad-minded, caring individuals, possibly even Biblically minded Christians (and remember we Catholics are Christians, too) with an espoused appreciation for the value and dignity of human life will insist that Cheng Chieh was nothing but a blood-thirsty monster, a psychopath, and a demon, all rolled into one. But Mr. Cheng still shared a common humanity with all the rest of us.

believe barbaric retribution for barbaric acts does no lasting good, nor brings any true healing for anyone. Capital punishment is not an expression of a society's will to punish, but to take bloody revenge. For me, revenge is always dehumanizing, always harmful in itself.

My cynical side wants to engage in banter. Mr. Cheng killed 4, seriously wounded 22, and traumatized millions. For heaven's sakes, the Ministry of Justice offered terrific rationale for shooting the man dead.

Don't you agree?

Now that this miscreant has been squished out of existence, our quality of life is immensely upgraded. We're riding in first class! We can breathe easily in public, and enjoy the benefits of a kind, secure, silk-lined society. Our MRT lines are safer now than the streets of heaven above.

And my, my, aren't you also proud of what we "the people" have done? We gave that animal exactly what it deserved, and boy, that sure satisfies our most blessed urges. He got his, all right, and we say, hurray!

Media said they had him lie face down and shot him 3 times through his back, the bullets smacking him in the old ticker. And not only that! A doctor attending Cheng supposedly took advantage of a last opportunity to scold him. Wow, that's my kind of doctor. That particular news item really warmed my heart.

Satire is so culturally related that I must defend myself here. Several paragraphs above, from "My cynical side" until "warmed my heart," is an attempt at satire. I mean no offense. I rely on intelligent editors and readers who are capable of grasping a literary strategy.

Here is a bit more: Imagine potentially violent criminals in Taiwan this week when they read the headlines, "MRT murderer executed." Can't you just close your eyes and see these guys shake in their boots? The threat of violence against them probably caused upset stomachs and migraine headaches. End of satire.

The name of the game, my friends, is distraction. Arguments about the death penalty distract us from devoting our efforts to educate young people on how to be parents. Our arguing distracts us from our desperate need to develop vastly more competent professional counselors who can reach out into society and pro-actively deal with aberrant behavior before it gets out of hand as it did with Cheng Chieh.

Our quarreling distracts us quite nicely, thank you, from our need to attack the roots of sickness and violence where they thrive, which is in our families and the emotionally impoverished pockets of our own neighborhoods.

(source: Father Daniel J. Bauer SVD is a priest and associate professor in the English Department at Fu Jen Catholic University; The China Post)






PHILIPPINES:

Duterte vows to bring back death penalty


Philippines President-elect Rodrigo Duterte has vowed to reintroduce capital punishment and give security forces permission to shoot to kill.

The controversial policies are the latest in a series from the soon-to-be leader, including bans on alcohol and smoking and a curfew for children.

He has also promised to turn the presidential palace into a hospital.

Mr Duterte was nicknamed "The Punisher" for his record as the crime-crushing mayor of the southern town of Davao.

More than 1,000 criminals were killed by security forces in Davao during Mr Duterte's stewardship.

Speaking at a press conference in the town, Mr Duterte, 71, said: "What I will do is to urge Congress to restore the death penalty by hanging."

He said permission to shoot to kill would be given for organised crime figures and people resisting arrest.

Mr Duterte courted controversy throughout his election campaign, threatening to kill drug dealers and dump them in Manila Bay.

He vowed to give himself and members of the security forces immunity from prosecution after leaving office, saying: "Pardon given to Rodrigo Duterte for the crime of multiple murder, signed Rodrigo Duterte."

Last month a video emerged showing the candidate joking about a Australian woman who was raped and murdered in Davao while he was mayor, saying she was so beautiful "the mayor should have been 1st".

In 2015, Human Rights Watch described Mr Duterte as the "death squad mayor" for his strong-arm tactics in Davao.

(source: BBC news)

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to