April 22
IRAN:
27 Kurds executed in Iran for political, security reasons in 2016, says rights
org
\The Kurdistan Human Rights Association said the government of Iran had
executed 30 people in 2016 for political and security reasons, 27 of them
Kurds.
The human rights group released a statement on Thursday (April 20) stating that
27 of the 30 people executed by Iran due to state-claimed political or security
reasons were members of banned Kurdish parties.
The other three were Ahwaz Arabs, the organization added.
The statement noted that individuals sentenced to death were "tortured to
obtain forced confessions," in trials "that lasted less than 15 minutes and
without any defense, [and] had been issued without a last meeting with their
families."
The Kurdistan Human Rights Association said at least 530 people were executed
by Iran's authorities in 2016.
Last year, Amnesty International said Iranian courts were often "completely
lacking in independence and impartiality."
According to Amnesty, China, Iran and Iraq are the top countries to carry out
executions, issuing death sentences after "unfair trials".
The organization also said authorities in some countries, including Iran, use
the death penalty to punish political opponents.
According to Amnesty's statistics, Iran carried out 997 executions in the
state's prisons in 2015, of which 393 of the executed were Kurds.
(source: nrttv.com)
NIGERIA:
Gallows preparation in Lagos prison suggests spate of executions imminent
The Nigerian authorities must immediately scrap plans to execute death row
inmates in Kirikiri prison in Lagos, Amnesty International said today amid
macabre reports from inmates that the prison's gallows were being prepared and
one inmate had been isolated possibly in preparation for execution.
This follows a statement by the Attorney General of Lagos State during a press
briefing on 18 April indicating that the state government would soon start
signing execution documents.
"The indications that Kirikiri prison authorities may be gearing up for a
string of executions are deeply alarming. The death penalty is an outdated and
cruel punishment which violates the right to life," said Damian Ugwu, Amnesty
International's Nigeria Researcher.
"We also have serious concerns as to whether many of the inmates on death row
have received a fair trial. The Nigerian police are overstretched and
under-resourced and tend to rely heavily on coerced 'confessions' rather than
investigations. In some cases death sentences are handed down on the basis of
statements signed under torture.
"The Nigerian authorities must halt these executions immediately and establish
an official moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death
penalty."
In 2016 Nigeria handed down 527 death sentences - 3 times more than it did in
2015 - the highest recorded globally excluding China. Lagos State imposed the
highest number of death sentences in 2016, 68 people, which was closely
followed by Rivers State with 61, according to official records provided by the
Nigeria Prisons Service.
This massive spike in death sentences puts the country at odds with the global
trend towards abolition of the death penalty. As of today, 141 countries have
abolished the death penalty in law or in practice.
On 23 December 2016 3 death row prisoners were put to death in Benin Prison,
Edo state. Their executions were carried out despite the fact that one of them,
Apostle Igene was sentenced to death in 1997 by a military tribunal, and never
had an appeal.
Amnesty International is calling on the Nigerian government to commute all
death sentences to terms of imprisonment and immediately establish an official
moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty.
For years, the federal government has claimed to have a voluntary or
self-imposed 'moratorium' but executions have happened nonetheless; including
those in December 2016. This demonstrates the urgency of formally establishing
a moratorium.
The authorities have not confirmed officially that they plan to carry out
executions imminently at KiriKiri prison.
(source: Amnesty International)
THAILAND:
Spaniard sentenced to death by Thai court over killing of countryman----Artur
Segarra found guilty of murdering and dismembering David Bernat in bid to
access his savings
A Spanish national was on Friday given the death sentence after being found
guilty by a Thai court of murdering fellow countryman David Bernat in Bangkok.
The victim had traveled to the Asian country in January 2016 for a vacation.
Hours after arriving, he met with Segarra to have drinks, and after midnight,
the pair went to the condemned man's apartment. There he was held captive for 6
days, until he was killed and dismembered by Segarra, according to the police
investigation into the case.
Segarra will have 2 chances to appeal the sentence, at the Thai Appeal Court
and the country's Supreme Court. If the appeals process fails to overturn the
death penalty, he can apply to the Royal Family for a pardon, which could see a
lesser punishment applied.
Segarra extorted his victim in order to gain access to the bank account he held
in Singapore.
According to the investigators assigned to the case, Segarra extorted his
victim in order to gain access to the bank account Bernat held in Singapore and
which contained his savings. The forensic police believe that he was killed
around January 26. According to the investigation, that same night Segarra
headed out on a motorcycle to the river that runs through Bangkok, carrying
with him a large package, which the police believe contained the victim's body.
He is thought to have returned in the early hours of the next morning without
the object.
The authorities found the first remains of Bernat days later in the Chao Phraya
river, and later recovered another 6 pieces of the body from the water. Segarra
was identified as the main suspect on February 5, the night that he tried to
flee to Cambodia after being recognized in a restaurant in Surin province.
Thailand carried out its last executions in 2009, on 2 convicts with
drug-trafficking charges.
The prosecutor in the trial called nearly 40 people to the stand, none of whom
were direct witnesses to the crime, and also produced evidence including DNA
samples and fingerprints collected in the apartment he had rented, as well as
security camera recordings and bank records.
Thailand carried out its last executions in 2009: these involved 2 convicts who
had been sentenced to death on drug-trafficking charges. Since then an
indefinite stay has been placed on the application of the death penalty. The
last execution in a murder case dates back to 2003, the year that the country
switched from firing squad to lethal injection as its method for the death
penalty.
According to data from Amnesty International, at the end of last year there
were 427 prisoners on death row in Thailand, 24 of whom were foreigners. An
Australian was sentenced to death on February 7 in a murder case, which bears
similarity to that of Segarra given that the victim was dismembered and an
attempt was made to dispose of the evidence.
(source: elpais.com)
TURKEY:
Erdogan revives specter of death penalty in Turkey
"What George, Hans or Helga say does not interest us!" roars Turkish President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan. "What counts for us is what Ayse, Murat, Mehmet, Hatice
say! What Allah says!"
This mantra - setting common European names against Turkish ones and finally
invoking God - has become Erdogan's standard rhetoric to tell the European
Union he does not care about their reaction if Turkey restores the death
penalty.
But such a move would have immense ramifications - automatically drawing the
curtain on the half-century drama that has been Turkey's bid to join the EU.
Some analysts thought that Erdogan would drop his rhetoric on capital
punishment, helpful for winning the support of nationalists, after the April 16
referendum on enhancing his powers.
But with the referendum won, albeit by a narrow margin and the opposition
claiming fraud, Erdogan has vigorously returned to the topic.
After proclaiming victory, Erdogan promised thousands of supporters chanting
"Idam!" ("Execution!") that Turkey would hold a referendum on the issue if
parliament failed to adopt it.
European Parliament president Antonio Tajani wrote on Twitter that he was "very
concerned" by Erdogan's comments, saying the reintroduction would be a "red
line" for the European Union.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the move would be "synonymous with
the end of (Turkey's) European dream".
'Here's the rope'
Turkey abolished the death penalty in all circumstances in 2004 - 2 years after
Erdogan's Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power - as a key pillar
of its bid to join the EU.
The EU states that abolishing the death penalty is an absolute pre-condition
for membership.
The Council of Europe, the rights watchdog to which Turkey has belonged since
1950, makes abolition a condition for new members and its Secretary General
Thorbjorn Jagland Thursday said bringing back the death penalty would spell the
end for Turkey.
"It goes without saying that if you want to reintroduce (the) death penalty,
you cannot be a member of the Council of Europe," he said, adding the
controversy appeared to be "much more political than a real legal thing."
While it was a previous coalition led by the Democratic Left Party that
initiated the move to abolish the death penalty, Erdogan had in the early years
of his rule resisted nationalist pressure for it to be used.
This included the case of the jailed leader of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan, who was captured in 1999. He was sentenced to
death but had his term commuted to life imprisonment.
Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahceli at the time famously
brandished a noose at a rally to challenge Erdogan to execute Ocalan.
"Here is the rope! Hang him if you can," Bahceli shouted, throwing the rope
into the crowds.
But a decade later, Erdogan is publicly praising Bahceli for his support for
capital punishment and, to hisses and boos from the crowds, lambasting
Republican People's Party (CHP) chief Kemal Kilicdaroglu for his opposition.
Marc Pierini, a visiting scholar at Carnegie Europe and former EU ambassador to
Turkey, said the narrowness of his victory means Erdogan will remain reliant on
the MHP, which backed the constitutional changes set out in the referendum.
"Issues such as reintroducing the death penalty and politically disconnecting
Turkey from the EU are key ingredients in the political narrative of both
parties," he told AFP. 'Bitter consequences'
Supporters of the move say capital punishment needs to be restored following
last summer's failed coup that left 249 people dead.
But the death penalty remains a sensitive issue in Turkey, which has a
coup-scarred history and where many have no appetite to revive the painful
memories of the past.
Erdogan has himself often evoked the hanging of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes -
his political hero - along with 2 ministers after the 1960 military coup,
flagging it as an example of the bad old Turkey.
More executions followed coups in 1971, including of student militant Deniz
Gezmis, and the 1980 coup when dozens were sent to the gallows.
"This nation has seen in the past how bitter the consequences of the death
penalty are and the backlash that has caused", Faruk Logoglu, a former
ambassador to Washington and opposition MP, told AFP.
"Society must come to its senses," he added.
Turkey has not executed anyone since leftwing militant Hidir Aslan was hanged
on October 25, 1984.
"The death penalty would mean the automatic end of relations with the EU. The
cost would be much too dear," Logoglu said.
(source: Manila Times)
SINGAPORE----execution
Hanged because he had not "substantively assisted" the CNB
Mohd Jeefrey bin Ismail was hanged in the early hours of Friday morning, 21
April, at least according to the scheduled execution date given to his family
by the Singapore Prison Service.
He was executed after the Public Prosecutor decided that Jeefrey had not
"substantively assisted" the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) in "disrupting drug
trafficking activities within or outside Singapore."
In Singapore, the authorities do not make public announcements of hangings, the
preferred state-sanctioned killing method for those condemned to death. Lawyers
for the inmates and anti-death penalty activists often have to guess if the
executions have in fact been carried out.
Executions are typically held just before dawn on Fridays.
Jeefrey, 52, was a drug addict and trafficker, or courier, who was arrested in
2012 and subsequently sentenced to death for trafficking in excess of the
statutory limit for the drug diamorphine.
The only person who stood between him and the noose was the Public Prosecutor
who, through powers vested in him by law, could have spared his life if he had
issued a Certificate of Cooperation (COC) to Jeefrey.
The COC would then allow Jeefrey to apply to the courts to have his death
sentence commuted to life imprisonment and caning. The courts' hands would then
have been freed to mete out the alternative sentence.
In effect, the Public Prosecutor now has power over the courts as well: if the
Public Prosecutor does not issue a convict with the COC, the courts cannot
commute his sentence.
Yet, in the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), the Prosecutor's decision making, in
whether a COC is issued or not, is shrouded in secrecy and not even the highest
court in the land, the Court of Appeal, can question it, or conduct a judicial
review of it unless "it is proved to the court that the determination was done
in bad faith or with malice."
But this is extremely hard for anyone to prove, given that the Prosecutor is
also not bound to release or make known the reasons for his decision.
In short, the Prosecutor has iron-clad, virtually unfettered powers to decide
whether a person gets to live or die.
Such dubious decision making can result in inexplicable outcomes, as in the
2013 case of Abdul Haleem Abdul Karim, 30, and his friend, Muhammad Ridzuan Md
Ali, 28.
Both men were arrested in 2010, also for trafficking 72.5g of heroin.
In court, Abdul Haleem had asked to be given the same sentence as Muhammad
Ridzuan, if the latter was sent to the gallows.
The Straits Times reported the exchange between Abdul Haleem and judge Tay Yong
Kwang:
Choking with emotion, he [Abdul Haleem] told Justice Tay Yong Kwang: "If you
are sparing my life and not sparing his life, I'd rather go down with him."
But the judge replied: "The court does not have complete discretion to do
whatever you want me do."
Abdul Haleem then pointed out that he and his friend faced the same charges.
The judge told him: "You have certification from the Attorney-General's
Chambers, he does not."
Abdul Haleem was sentenced to life imprisonment and caning because in the eyes
of the Public Prosecutor, he had fulfilled the criteria of having
"substantively assisted" the CNB in "disrupting drug trafficking activities
within or outside Singapore."
Muhammad Ridzuan, on the other hand, was deemed not to have cooperated with the
CNB to the same extent.
He was thus sentenced to death which left his family wondering what more he
could have done to assist the CNB.
"Ridzuan told the [Central Narcotics Bureau] who gave him the drugs," said his
sister Noraisah. "He gave them a description, with full name and
identification. I feel that this information is quite strong, and I don't know
why they said that they are still not happy with it."
No one knows why the Prosecutor decided to issue Abdul Haleem the COC, while
denying the same to Muhammad Ridzuan because the Prosecutor is not required by
law to release or explain his reasons, either to the convict's lawyers or even
to his family.
Everything is decided behind a veil of silence and secrecy.
It is disturbing that a person can be condemned to his death just because he is
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police in "disrupting drug
trafficking activities within or outside Singapore."
Whether drug trafficking activities are "disrupted" or not depends on so many
different factors, most of which would be beyond the control of the inmate.
For example, it would depend on whether the authorities actually act on
information provided by the inmate.
It would also depend on whether the authorities take the appropriate action, or
are competent in doing so.
And how would an inmate incarcerated on death row in Changi Prison in Singapore
be able to "disrupt" drug activities "outside Singapore"? Would this not depend
entirely on how the authorities act on the information provided by the inmate?
With the law prohibiting any judicial review or questioning of the Prosecutor's
decision, except when such decision is proved to have been made on bad faith or
malice, there really is no way of knowing if the Prosecutor has done the right
or necessary thing in acting on the information provided by the inmate.
Clearly, this practice of vesting the Prosecutor with so much power is highly
flawed.
His decision and decision-making process are effectively unquestionable, giving
him seemingly unfettered authority.
Such absurdity has resulted in decisions which allow one person to be spared
death while another, charged for the same crime, is sent to the gallows.
The rule of law insists that decisions, especially those involving capital
punishment which is irreversible, must be made according to the law, and must
be opened to review or question.
In 2011, lawyer M Ravi filed a constitutional challenge on the case of Yong Vui
Kong, which centred on whether the Cabinet???s decision in granting clemency is
opened to judicial review.
The Court of Appeal, in its ruling, said "the making of a clemency decision
pursuant to Art 22P is now 'not a private act of grace from an individual
happening to possess power ... [but] a part of the [c]onstitutional scheme'."
Article 22P refers to the president's powers to grant clemencies.
The Court of Appeal said that if "conclusive evidence is produced to the court
to show that the Cabinet never met to consider the offender's case at all, or
that the Cabinet did not consider the Art 22P(2) materials placed before it and
merely tossed a coin to determine what advice to give to the President, the
Cabinet would have acted in breach of Art 22P(2)."
The Court added:
"If the courts cannot intervene to correct a breach of Art 22P of this nature,
the rule of law would be rendered nugatory."
Would it also not follow that if the courts are unable to intervene and
question the Prosecutor's decision on granting the COC, there is a risk that
the Prosecutor could make an erroneous decision based on wrong facts or even on
superficial whims which, under existing laws, could result in the death of an
inmate?
Yet the law says such decisions "shall be at the sole discretion of the Public
Prosecutor and no action or proceeding shall lie against the Public Prosecutor
in relation to any such determination unless it is proved to the court that the
determination was done in bad faith or with malice."
The granting, or not, of a COC by the Prosecutor, to borrow the words of the
Court of Appeal, is 'not a private act of grace from an individual happening to
possess power.'
It is in fact from constitutional powers vested in him which should make him
accountable, and not protected behind a wall of opacity.
And if he is to be accountable, then surely his decisions must be opened to
judicial review.
Why was Haleem Abdul spared death, while Muhammad Ridzuan was not?
Why was Mohd Jeefrey not similarly issued the COC, as Haleem Abdul was?
How is it that a person can be condemned to death just simply because he is
deemed to not have "substantively assisted" the police?
How did we arrive at a law which says that not cooperating with the police is,
effectively, a capital offence?
(source: publichouse.sg)
CAMEROON:
Journalist faces death penalty in Cameroon
Radio France International (RFI) journalist Ahmed Abba is reportedly at risk of
being sentenced to death after being convicted by a military court in Cameroon.
According to Aljazeera.com, the RFI journalist was set to be sentenced on
Monday, April 24, on charges of "non-denunciation of terrorism" and "laundering
of the proceeds of terrorist acts".
According to his lawyer, Clement Nakong, and the RFI, Abba was convicted for
his reports on the Nigerian insurgent group Boko Haram.
The RFI, as well as his lawyer, told the Committee to Protect Journalists that
Abba has been in custody since July 2015 and was, however, set to appeal the
conviction.
The RFI has since called on Cameroonian authorities to free their journalist,
adding that military court had acquitted the journalist of a lesser charge of
"apologising for acts of terrorism".
(source: news24.com)
_______________________________________________
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
