Jan. 12
INDIA:
Decide death row convicts plea in 2 months: SC to Delhi HC
The Supreme Court today asked the Delhi High Court to decide within 2 months
the plea of a death row convict seeking commutation of his sentence to life
imprisonment on the ground of delay to decide his mercy petition.
A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi passed the order after
taking into account the submission of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi who said
if the apex court would go into the legal issues concerning jurisdiction of
high courts the delay would benefit the death row convict.
The apex courts direction came while disposing of the transfer petition of the
Chhattisgarh government which alleged that the Delhi High Court has no
jurisdiction to stay the execution of a man held guilty of murder of 5 persons,
including 2 children, in 2004 in its territory.
The high court in its December 6, 2016 order had said the rejection of mercy
petition by the President "does give rise to a cause of action at Delhi".
It had on March 2, 2015 stayed the execution of Sonu Sardar after which the
Chhattisgarh government approached the Supreme Court challenging its
jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The state government had told the apex court that the high court had no
jurisdiction to stay the execution of convict Sonu Sardar as the offence had
taken place in Chhattisgarh.
The Supreme Court had in February 2012 concurred with the findings of 2 courts
below and upheld the punishment. His mercy petition was also dismissed by both
the state Governor and the President of India.
In February 2015, the apex court had also rejected his review plea.
Sardar in his plea before the high court had contended that there was a delay
of 2 years and 2 months by the President in deciding his mercy plea.
He had also sought commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment on
account of delay in deciding his mercy plea as well as for allegedly keeping
him in "solitary confinement illegally".
Sardar, along with his brother and accomplices, had killed 5 members of a
family, including a woman and 2 children, during a dacoity bid in Chhattisgarhs
Cher village on November 26, 2004. The trial court had awarded death penalty to
him which was upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
(source: indiatoday.in)
PHILIPPINES:
Palace denies pressure on Congress to pass death penalty bill
Malacanang denied Thursday that President Rodrigo Duterte is pressuring
Congress to immediately pass a measure seeking to revive the death penalty in
the country.
Communications Secretary Martin Andanar said Duterte respects the independence
of Congress and trusts its judgment in approving a measure that would revive
the capital punishment, which was abolished in 1987.
"The revival of death penalty is a campaign promise of President Duterte and
part of the priority legislative measure of his administration [but] the
President respects the independence of Congress as a separate co-equal branch
of government," Andanar said in a statement.
"He trusts the wisdom of our lawmakers to see that the enactment of such law
would benefit the nation not only by instilling respect for the law among our
people but also by ending impunity and ensuring that those who commit heinous
crimes are prosecuted to the full extent of the law," he added.
On Wednesday, Buhay party-list Representative Lito Atienza accused the
President of pressuring the lawmakers to re-impose death penalty.
"This is the administration's initiative, not Congress'. The death penalty is
an imposition of the leadership of this administration so we, congressmen, sad
to say, are under pressure," Atienza said.
"No less than President Duterte is directing the passage of the bill," he
added.
House Bill 1, which seeks to revive the death penalty on all heinous crimes as
defined by previous laws, was approved by the House committee on justice before
Christmas and will be sent to the plenary when Congress resumes its sessions
next week.
(source: sunstar.com.ph)
GUYANA:
Why did Guyana vote against moratorium on executions at United Nations when it
had previously told UN a de facto one was in place
Dear Editor,
In an Addendum dated 2nd July 2015 subsequent to Guyana's Universal Periodic
Review, Guyana informed the United Nations that in relation to the death
penalty, "A de facto moratorium has been in place since 1997..." A statement to
the Human Rights Council of the United Nations General Assembly should not be
lightly made. It is fair to assume that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs
understood the significance of giving this assurance to the United Nations.
In December 2016, the UN General Assembly voted on a moratorium on executions.
Guyana was one of 40 (out of 195) states who voted against the resolution. Why
did we vote against the moratorium when we have one in place? On what grounds
did our government conclude that it was the wisest possible course for Guyana's
vote to contradict our previous assurance to the Human Rights Council that a
moratorium is in place?
An examination of the UN resolution provides no clue to the rationale for the
Guyana vote. The key provision was for states, "to establish a moratorium on
executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty." Guyana is a party to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 6
protects the right to life. It does not make the death penalty illegal, but it
imposes a treaty obligation on states to proceed to complete abolition of the
death penalty. On what grounds did our government conclude that the best course
was to vote inconsistently with our international treaty obligation?
Guyana has incorporated the ICCPR into the Constitution. To what extent, if at
all, did our government consider the Constitution?
The UN resolution called upon states to respect international standards set by
the Economic and Social Council. Some of these international standards are
already in Guyana's laws - we do not allow death sentences for pregnant women,
minors or insane persons. Does our government object to the other international
standards? Does our government disagree with the principle that the death
penalty should be restricted to 'intentional crimes with lethal or other grave
consequences' or to cases in which there is no doubt about the guilt of the
offender, or that there must be a fair trial and a proper appeals process to a
final court, or that if an execution is carried out it must be done with the
minimum possible suffering? Guyana already allows offenders under sentence of
death to apply for a pardon or a commutation of their sentence. Does our
government object to the principle that such procedures should be fair and
transparent?
The UN resolution called on states to provide information on death row
prisoners and on compliance with international standards. Guyana provides such
information in the Universal Periodic Review. In 2016 the administration gave
the Justice Institute Guyana information on death row prisoners. Does this vote
imply that information which was previously available will now be secret?
The UN resolution called on states to comply with Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations regarding communication and contact for
foreigners in prison. Does our government suddenly have concerns about
complying with this longstanding treaty obligation?
Since President Granger has said he will not authorise any executions we
already meet the UN's call to 'progressively restrict' the use of the death
penalty. Does this 'no' vote imply a change?
The UN resolution called for states to reduce the number of offences for which
the death penalty may be imposed. Guyana extended the death penalty to new
offences in the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism
Act (2009) and in the Anti-Terrorism and Terrorist Related Activities Act
(2015). Arguably these laws conflict with the Constitution. The Financial
Action Task Force (FATF) does not require the death penalty. Is our government
refusing to replace the death penalty with 'effective, proportionate and
dissuasive sanctions whether criminal, civil or administrative' as required by
FATF?
The UN resolution called for states to 'consider acceding to or ratifying' the
Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR which aims at the abolition of the death
penalty. Is our government refusing point blank to 'consider' this?
During the vote Guyana appears to have aligned itself with the English-speaking
Caribbean. Is our government aware that Antigua, St Lucia, Belize and Jamaica
have no death row prisoners, having been forced by judicial decisions to
replace death sentences with prison terms and even to free death row prisoners?
On what grounds did our government consider that it was wiser to join a
retentionist bloc of small islands hundreds of miles across the sea rather than
adopt the progressive position of our immediate neighbours (Suriname, Brazil
and Venezuela) and the rest of the vast continent of South America where
civilians are free of the death penalty? Why did Guyana, a constitutional
democracy which has not executed anybody for nearly 20 years, vote 'no' with
the repressive regimes comprising the top 10 executioners on the planet -
China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA, Iraq, Somalia, Egypt, Indonesia and
Chad? Why did Guyana not take an enlightened position like the United Kingdom
and the other 27 (for now) states of the European Union and vote 'yes'? If
post-apartheid South Africa and post-genocide Rwanda can get rid of the death
penalty, why couldn't we take a tiny first step and admit publicly in a UN
resolution that we do not carry out executions?
Prior to the vote the Minister of Foreign Affairs received a plethora of
correspondence asking for Guyana to vote in favour of this UN moratorium.
Members of the diaspora wrote to our Permanent Representative to the UN
requesting that Guyana vote in favour of the resolution. Letters went to the
President and other Ministers, and civil society and lawyers wrote a joint
letter to the press, all asking for Guyana to vote in favour of the moratorium.
In October 2016, the Justice Institute Guyana and the Death Penalty Project
(England) submitted to the President a detailed Memorandum arguing for
replacement of the death penalty and requesting that Guyana vote in favour of
the moratorium. Copies went to the Prime Minister, Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Attorney-General and Minister of Security. The memorandum was supported by
leading international jurists. The prestigious Solicitors International Human
Rights Group wrote to the Foreign Minister asking that Guyana exercise its
sovereignty to vote in favour of the UN resolution. What compelling reason did
our government have for ignoring the expressed wishes of citizens and the views
of highly respected international and national legal experts?
Death penalty advocates have consistently failed to make a case for capital
punishment. They have failed to provide any convincing evidence that executing
people is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. No rational person
believes the death penalty will stop terrorists, the very people who see
judicial execution as certain martyrdom. Death penalty advocates cannot explain
away the lethal absurdity of the state killing its citizens to prove that
killing citizens is wrong. Neither death penalty advocates nor the judges who
impose death sentences, can guarantee that Guyana's criminal justice system
will not execute an innocent person. Why then does the Government of Guyana
cling so stubbornly to this grim relic of the colonial (in)justice system?
There is growing consensus that the state must respect the right to life. Ask
people, 'Should the state kill its own citizens?' and they say 'No.' Ask how to
reduce the murder rate and they usually say the police must do their job, the
courts must convict and punish criminals even if they are rich and powerful,
and the state must deal with the social conditions that cause crime. The death
penalty is not the answer. We will undoubtedly replace it.
But for now we are left with the vexed question: 'Why did this government make
Guyana vote against the moratorium?'
Yours faithfully,
Melinda Janki
Executive Director
Justice Institute Guyana
(source: stabroeknews.com)
INDONESIA:
6 drug traffickers sentenced to death in West Java
The Cirebon District Court in West Java handed the death penalty on Wednesday
to 6 of 9 defendants for dealing 40 kilograms of crystal methamphetamines and
180,000 ecstasy pills in March last year in a case that involved an
international drug ring.
Presiding judge Mukhlis said the six defendants were proven guilty of smuggling
drugs into the country for distribution.
"The defendants have violated Article 114( 2), Article 113(2), Article 112(2)
and Article 132(1) of Law No. 35/2009 on narcotics," said Muklis, when reading
out the verdict as quoted by Antara.
The death sentence was what the prosecutors demanded.
The 6 defendants were Ricky Gunawan, 34, Jusman, 52, Karun, aka Ahong, 40,
Yanto, aka Abeng, 50, Sugianto, aka Acay, 29 and M. Rizki, 30. 2 other
defendants, Hendri Unan, 28 and Gunawan Aminah, 60, avoided capital punishment
but were both sentenced to 8 years in prison and fined Rp 1 billion
(US$75,414).
In March last year, National Police detectives arrested 9 drug traffickers at a
rest area by the Cikampek toll road.
(source: The Jakarta Post)
TAIWAN:
Mama Mouth killer has death sentence repealed----A new Leaf ? 2 witnesses
called by Hsieh Yi-han's defense team said that her chances of rehabilitation
were high, and the court paid heed to their testimony
The High Court yesterday overturned Hsieh Yi-han's death sentence, sentencing
her to life imprisonment after she was convicted of committing a double murder
at Mama Mouth Cafe in 2013.
Hsieh was sentenced to death by 3 lower courts, with the Supreme Court
returning the case to the High Court twice for retrial over the murder of
businessman Chen Chin-fu and his wife Chang Tsui-ping in February 2013.
At that time, Hsieh was a manager of the Mama Mouth Cafe in New Taipei City's
Bali District. She was accused of killing the couple for money and dumping
their bodies into Tamsui River, where their bodies were found washed up on
shore a few days after they were killed.
Hsieh's defense lawyer called on 2 expert witnesses in the 2nd retrial, a
psychiatrist and a Christian pastor, who had provided counseling to Hsieh
during her incarceration, the court said.
The expert witnesses testified that the chances of Hsieh's rehabilitation were
high. The court overturned her death sentence based on this testimony, it said.
The ruling can be appealed.
Several family members of the victims attended the ruling and afterward said
that they felt distraught and could not accept the decision, vowing to appeal
to the Supreme Court.
In a separate civil case in 2014, the High Court ruled that Hsieh must pay
NT$9.99 million (US$312,823 at current exchange rates) compensation to Chen's
siblings and Chang's mother.
Chen's sister said it was clear that Hsieh was greedy and after learning that
Chen was wealthy planned to kill the couple.
"She killed 2 people for money. She deserves the death penalty. It is the only
way justice can be served," she said.
Although Hsieh was found guilty and the court fined her, the families have not
received any payments, Chen's sister said.
Chen family lawyer Wei Yi-lung said the ruling did not meet society's
expectations.
Hsieh committed a heinous crime for money and fabricated stories about why she
did it, even laying blame on the victims, Wei said.
In another ruling yesterday, the High Court upheld a death sentence for Huang
Lin-kai, who was convicted of murdering his girlfriend and her mother in
October 2013.
Huang, who was 19 and in compulsory military service at the time, went to his
girlfriend's house and strangled the mother to death, before raping his
girlfriend and strangling her to death with rope.
The retrial judgement said Huang had no regard for human life and committed
highly vicious acts.
Given that he is likely to reoffend if released, the court said it decided to
uphold the death sentence from a lower court's decision.
(source: Taipei Times)
THAILAND:
Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty in iPhone Stabbing Case
Police submitted their case Thursday to the prosecutor's office against 2 men
accused of stabbing a young man to death to steal his iPhone in northern
Bangkok earlier this month.
The 2 suspects, 26-year-old Kittikorn Wikaha, and 25-year-old Supattanachai
Chansri, are charged with several offenses, including fatal armed robbery. They
face the death penalty if convicted.
"The maximum penalty for the most serious charge [against them] is execution,"
Sarawut Jindakham, chief of Kok Kram Police Station, said by telephone.
Footage of the gruesome Jan. 4 murder shocked many and raised discussion about
public safety.
Police said that footage showed Kittikorn stabbing his victim, 26-year-old
Vasin Lueangcham, to death while his accomplice looked on from a getaway
motorcycle. Kittikorn later told police he didn't intend to kill Vasin, and
that the robbery went awry only because the victim resisted.
Col. Sarawut said Kittikorn and Supattanachai are being held at Bangkok Remand
Prison, their bail denied. The prosecution will schedule court dates and
arrange pro bono lawyers for the 2 suspects if they cannot afford to do so,
Sarawut said.
The killing captivated headlines and social media attention for days, not only
because of its brutality, but because Kittikorn is a former convict who had
served separate prison terms for drug charges. Kittikorn's recidivism prompted
some on social media to demand tougher prison terms and less chances of royal
pardon for convicts.
(source: khaosodenglish.com)
IRAN----execution
A Prisoner Executed Before His Trial Ends
A death row prisoner was executed in Qazvin last week while his family says his
case was still under consideration and review by the prosecution office and his
sentence was not confirmed and put on hold. On Monday, January 2, the death
sentence of Nasrollah Khazaei, on the charges of "carrying and keeping drugs"
was implemented in Qazvin prison before dawn.
After the family of the executed prisoner followed his case, several Judiciary
officials of the Iranian regime's Prosecution Office in Tehran said that the
prisoner should not have been executed.
The prisoner's brother in an interview with a Persian language news agency
explained: "My brother had no previous record (of committing a crime). The case
was sent to Tehran according to Article 20 requesting a review but no answer
was given yet. They said the case would take 2 years. Since then,
implementation of the sentence was halted in his case, upon an order."
"I called the prosecutor and requested an answer in this regard. They said your
brother's case is still under review and told me to call back next month. I
said they have executed my brother and today is the 7th day of his memorial
ceremony. They answered why did they execute him? His case is still open here
and is not transferred to Qazvin. He should not have been executed. Then, they
connected the phone to a number of other rooms and officials, all of whom said
they shouldn't have executed him. They said this case has received a halt of
the sentence and Qazvin's prosecution should not have done it without our
permission," he said.
Nasrollah Khazaei's brother emphasized: "On Sunday (January 1), when we went
for a meeting with my brother, they neither told us nor my brother that they
are going to hang him. On Monday, at around 6 a.m., my brother called us and
said they are taking him for execution. I screamingly said but the case in
still being reviewed. My brother said no matter how much I tell them, they do
not accept. After that, they took him away and hanged up the phone."
(source: NNCR-Iran)
_______________________________________________
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
