February 27
BELARUS:
Death penalty: Filling Europe’s black hole
The 47-nation Council of Europe is co-organising a round table on capital
punishment in Belarus on Thursday 28 February as part of the World Congress
Against the Death Penalty in Brussels.
Belarus is the only country in Europe to still use the death penalty.
Executions are usually carried out in secret and relatives may only be informed
weeks or months later.
However, Belarus has made a number of positive statements on the death penalty
in recent years and the number of executions in the country has fallen from 47
in 1998 to 4 in 2018.
The round table will focus on historical aspects of capital punishment in
Belarus, the current situation and future strategies to move towards abolition.
The event, which will take place from 11.30am to 1.30pm in the Orange Room of
the Palais d’Egmont in Brussels, is being organised by the Council of Europe
together with NGOs Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM), the International
Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Viasna.
Participants will include Anaïs Marin, the UN Special Rapporteur on human
rights in Belarus and representatives of the Belarusian authorities.
Through the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe has
created a death-penalty free zone covering more than 830 million people across
47 countries.
(source: coe.int)
GLOBAL:
Death-penalty backlash - Support amassing against executions globally
At least 1 abolitionist is raising the alarm that there is increased scrutiny
on countries seeking to reintroduce the death penalty.
Speaking at a forum in Brussels, Belgium, on Tuesday, Sandra Babcock, the
founding director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, did not
give further details but said that her organisation was committed to
continuing to find creative methods in its fight against the death penalty.
Babcock is among 1,500 abolitionists gathered in Europe’s epicentre for the
7th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, which officially opened this
Wednesday morning at the European Union Parliament.
On Friday, they will take to the streets of Brussels to march for an end to the
death penalty around the world.
In 2018, the United States alone carried out 25 executions. There were believed
to have been hundreds more in China, but the figures are not disclosed by the
government.
Many other countries, like Jamaica, did not impose the death penalty but kept
it on their books. The last hanging here was in 1988.
At Tuesday’s panel discussion, attorneys championing the fight against the
death penalty detailed their struggles in Indonesia, Nigeria, India and
Pakistan.
“A part of the narrative in India is that we need to execute more to see if it
is a deterrent,” said attorney Maitreyi Misra of the National Law University
India, citing the problem of crime, particularly sexual offences, in India.
Some 396 people are now on death row in India, which carried out its last
execution in 2015, when Yakub Memon was hanged following his conviction of
financing the 1993 Mumbai bombing.
Misra said a major issue attorneys have identified are the prison conditions
of death-row inmates, who are denied the opportunity to work and access to
mental-health treatment.
“Sometimes the issue of justice becomes tied to the bureaucracy of access to
resources,” she said.
Just outside the Brussels meeting room from which Misra spoke, a giant globe
was suspended in the hallway, with Caribbean countries like Jamaica, The
Bahamas, St Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, and St Vincent and the
Grenadines painted in red, similar to other territories where the death
penalty remains on the books.
“Mandatory death penalty erodes the principle of separation of powers,” argued
Angela Uwandu, the head of Advocats Sans Frontières, Nigeria. She said the
retention of the law compels judges to impose executions even when, based on
discretion, they are inclined to do otherwise.
It is realities like these why Sarah Belal, the executive director of Justice
Project Pakistan, says that at times, it becomes frustrating for abolitionists.
“You just have to be shame-proof,” Belal said.
To compound things, she says donors do not fund litigation for death-row
inmates and it can be an expensive process to keep their appeals in a court
saddled with delays.
At the same time, Belal said that in the past 5 years, 85 % of death-penalty
convictions in Pakistan have been overturned.
“You just don’t quit, you just have to exhaust the government and the justice
system and the stakeholders,” she said.
*****************************
1,500 to march against death penalty
More than 1,500 abolitionists will take to the streets of Brussels, Belgium on
Friday to march for an end to the death penalty in several countries.
The anti-death penalty advocates are in the European capital for the 7th World
Congress Against the Death Penalty.
They say there continues to progress in the death penalty battle, but the job
is far from over with 52 states or territories still carrying out capital
punishment.
DEATH PENALTY BY THE NUMBERS:
106 abolitionist States for all crimes----States or territories where the death
penalty is abolished
8 abolitionist states for ordinary crimes----States or territories where the
death penalty is abolished unless there are exceptional circumstances
32 states with a moratorium on executions----States or territories where the
death penalty is implemented but no executions have been carried out for at
least 10 years and which did not oppose the latest UN resolution for a
universal moratorium on executions
52 retentionist states----States or territories where the death penalty is
implemented.
At a panel discussion Tuesday evening, attorneys championing the fight against
the death penalty detailed their struggles in Indonesia, Nigeria, India and
Pakistan.
"Sometimes the issue of justice becomes tied to the bureaucracy of access to
resources," said attorney Maitreyi Misra of the National Law University in
India.
She said some 396 people are now on death row in India, which carried out its
last execution in 2015.
According to Misra, although there have been no executions in the past three
years, prison conditions for death row inmates continue to pose a big problem
as the convicts are denied the opportunity to work as well as access to mental
health treatment.
Pakistan has also been seeing consistent reductions in the number of executions
dropping from 322 in 2016 to 14 last year.
In addition, in the past 5 years, 85 % of death penalty convictions have been
overturned.
However, that is little comfort for Sarah Belal, the executive director of
Justice Project Pakistan.
"It doesn’t mean anything until there is policy change on the books to reduce
the number of crimes where there is the death penalty," she said.
Meanwhile, Sandra Babcock, the founding director of the Cornell Center on the
Death Penalty say advocates are now seeing engage donors to fund litigation for
their people on death row.
Babcock, and other advocates say it is very costly to keep bring challenges
against the death penalty on behalf of convicts.
(source for both: Jamaica Gleaner)
*********************
Human Rights Council holds high-level panel on the death penalty, in particular
with respect to the rights to non-discrimination and equality
The Human Rights Council this morning held its biennial high-level panel
discussion on the question of the death penalty, with a focus on human rights
violations in the context of the death penalty, in particular with respect to
the rights to non-discrimination and equality.
Coly Seck, President of the Human Rights Council, reminded that the Council was
holding the biennial high-level panel on the question of the death penalty in
line with its resolutions 26/2 and 36/17, when it decided to focus the
discussion on the violations of human rights in the context of the death
penalty, particularly when it concerned the rights to non-discrimination and
equality.
In her opening statement, Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights, reminded that death rows were disproportionately populated by
the poor and economically vulnerable; members of ethnic minorities; people with
psychosocial or intellectual disabilities; foreign nationals; indigenous
persons; and other marginalized members of society. Condemning people to death
for conduct that should not be criminalized in the first place was never
compatible with a State’s human rights obligations. The High Commissioner
encouraged all States to take a stand on the right side of history and join the
international trend towards abolition.
Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European
Affairs, and Defence of Belgium, speaking on behalf of a group of States that
co-sponsored the resolution to hold this panel, regretted that the death
penalty continued to be applied in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or
consensual relations between people of the same sex. Poverty and the death
penalty were linked, including due to financial access to legal recourse.
Maintaining the death penalty had no impact on the crime rate and it was time
to unilaterally turn the page on that practice.
The panellists were Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Nepal; Melinda Janki, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana; and Fatimata
M’Baye, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights Association.
Yuval Shany, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, acted as the discussion
moderator.
Mr. Shany drew attention to the adoption by the Human Rights Committee of the
General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, according to which the death
penalty could not be “reconciled with full respect for the right to life.” The
General Comment made particular reference to the problem of inequality in the
application of the death penalty.
Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said that in Nepal
the abolition of the death penalty had been possible through a long and
conscious effort of all stakeholders, including political leaders, civil
society, human rights defenders, and the media. It was a conscious national
choice and a reflection of shared values.
Melinda Janki, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana, noted that the death
penalty, like slavery, sent a message that some lives were worth less than
others. It disproportionately affected the poor, the marginalized, the
illiterate and the mentally challenged, whereas the rich were able to pay
lawyers or get a non-guilty verdict.
Fatimata M’Baye, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights
Association, drew attention to the case of a blogger who had posted an article
about social discrimination in Mauritania and been accused of blasphemy, then
sentenced to death. The United Nations could play a role in ending the death
penalty by asking those States that still practiced it to abandon that
punishment in the name of the right to life.
In the ensuing discussion, speakers expressed belief that the abolition of the
death penalty and torture had elevated human dignity and advanced human rights.
The death penalty was a human right violation. They hailed the adoption in the
United Nations General Assembly of a resolution on a moratorium on the death
penalty in December 2018, but noted that around the world capital punishment
continued to be imposed in violation of major international standards. Speakers
expressed deep concern that the death penalty was imposed in a disproportionate
and discriminatory manner to juvenile offenders, women victims of domestic
violence, minorities, foreign nationals, persons with disabilities, and poor
and economically vulnerable populations. Some, however, noted that every State
had the right to choose its legal and criminal justice systems, without
external interference, and that the rights of defendants always had to be
weighed against the rights of victims and their families, and the broader
rights of the community and society.
Speaking were Iceland on behalf of a group of countries, Montenegro,
Luxembourg, Italy, Mexico, Singapore on behalf of a group of countries, Chile
on behalf of a group of countries, Brazil on behalf of a group of countries,
European Union, New Zealand, Pakistan, Australia, Malaysia, Fiji, Slovenia,
Ecuador, France, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, and
Greece.
Also taking the floor were the following civil society organizations: Friends
World Committee for Consultation, Centre for Global Nonkilling, International
Lesbian and Gay Association, Together against the death penalty, and
International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of
Torture), and the National Human Rights Institution: Commission on Human Rights
of the Philippines.
The Council will next continue with its high-level segment.
Opening Statement by the President of the Council
COLY SECK, President of the Human Rights Council, reminded that the Council was
holding its biennial high-level panel on the question of the death penalty in
line with resolutions 26/2 and 36/17 of the Human Rights Council, where the
latter decided to hold at the fortieth session a high-level biennial panel
discussion on the violations of human rights in the context of the death
penalty, particularly when it concerned the rights to non-discrimination and
equality.
Keynote Statements
MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that
the United Nations opposed the use of the death penalty everywhere and in all
circumstances. Worldwide, some 170 States had either abolished the death
penalty in law, or did not carry out executions in practice. At the end of
2018, 121 States had voted in favour of the General Assembly resolution for a
moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The theme of the high-level panel
was particularly well chosen because nowhere was discrimination more evident
than when one looked at the people on death row – the people who society had
decided were beyond rehabilitation and should be killed. The Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights conducted visits around the globe and
consistently reported that death rows were disproportionately populated by the
poor and economically vulnerable; members of ethnic minorities; people with
psychosocial or intellectual disabilities; foreign nationals; indigenous
persons; and other marginalized members of society. Often illiteracy or
language barriers meant that the right to effective legal representation of
defendants facing the death penalty was not respected. One of the breaches of
due process rendered the application of the most severe and irreversible
punishment arbitrary, as the Human Rights Committee had reiterated in its
recent General Comment on the right to life. In some countries, discrimination
extended even to provisions of the criminal code itself.
Some people were sentenced to the death penalty only for being part of the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community or for having
expressed an opinion, for membership of a political group, or for having
exercised their freedom of religion. Condemning people to death for conduct
that should not be criminalized in the first place was never compatible with a
State’s human rights obligations. Discussions of capital punishment often
neglected women. They were indeed executed at much lower rates than men, and in
some cases were even exempted from the death penalty. But gender discrimination
remained an important aspect of the death penalty. A study published in 2018 by
the Cornell Centre showed that women who had been sentenced to death across the
world were often judged not only on the basis of their crime, but because they
were perceived to have betrayed traditional gender roles. Some women were
sentenced to death for perceived moral transgressions such as adultery, or even
witchcraft. Other women who were sentenced to death for murdering their partner
had been victims of severe and repeated domestic abuse for years, and had lived
in fear for their lives, but the law in their country only recognized
self-defence as a legal defence in the case of direct and imminent lethal
threat. Human rights were not monoliths; they developed as societies became
more inclusive, integrating the voices and experiences of people who had
previously been marginalized, the High Commissioner noted. She encouraged all
States to take a stand on the right side of history and join the international
trend towards abolition.
DIDIER REYDERS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European
Affairs, and Defence, in charge of Beliris and of the Federal Cultural
Institutions of Belgium, speaking on behalf of a group of States - Benin, Costa
Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland, as well as Belgium –
that had sponsored the resolution that decided to hold this panel,
congratulated the Gambia for ratifying the second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as Malaysia for
recently abolishing the death penalty, which brought the number of States that
had abolished or suspended the use of the death penalty for more than 10 years
to 170. He regretted, however, that the death penalty continued to be applied
in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or consensual relations between
people of the same sex. These rules only targeted certain segments of society
as they exercised their unalienable rights. Poverty and the death penalty were
linked, including due to financial access to legal recourse. The death penalty
was disproportionately applied to racial and ethnic minorities, foreigners,
sexual minorities and women and there was discrimination in the application of
the law. He hoped the panel would focus on the rights of non-discrimination and
equality. Finally, the Minister said he wished to share two messages, first
that the death penalty was a violation of a basic human right, that to life,
and that it was not a question of culture, as human rights were universal, but
one of political will. He categorically opposed the death penalty in all
circumstances. His second message was that maintaining the death penalty had no
impact on the crime rate and it was time to unilaterally turn the page on this
practice. Belgium would host the seventh international congress against the
death penalty with the non-governmental organization Ensemble Contre la Peine
de Mort. In September, the group of States would present a new resolution
regarding the death penalty.
Statement by the Moderator of the Panel
YUVAL SHANY, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, noted that, in resolution
36/17, the Council had decided that the 2019 biennial high-level panel
discussion would address human rights violations related to the use of the
death penalty, in particular with respect to the rights to non-discrimination
and equality. The resolution called upon States to ensure that the death
penalty was not imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as
apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and consensual same-sex relationships. Mr. Shany
drew attention to the adoption by the Human Rights Committee of General Comment
36 on the right to life, which was adopted by all 18 experts on the Committee
in October 2018. According to the Committee, the death penalty could not be
“reconciled with full respect for the right to life”. It was emphasized that
the General Comment considered the most serious crimes only as serious crimes
involving intentional killing and that such crimes did not include offenses
whose very criminalization violated the freedom of expression, freedom of
religion and other civil and political freedoms. The General Comment made
particular reference to the problem of inequality in the application of the
death penalty, and noted in particular the challenges of age, parenthood,
disability and past victimhood, as factors that should normally militate
against the application of the death penalty.
Statements by the Panellists
PRADEEP KUMAR GYAWALI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, noted that the
right to life was sacred and inviolable in Nepal. The faith in personal
liberty, integrity and dignity of human life, and respect for human rights lay
at the heart of Nepal’s choice to go for the complete abolition of the death
penalty. It was a conscious national choice, and a reflection of shared values.
There was a long background of how Nepal had come to the stage of complete
abolition of the death penalty. The first moratorium on the death penalty had
been made in 1931, with some exceptions related to the army and sedition. Even
at times when the death penalty was not abolished, it had been used in the
“rarest of the rarest cases” only. The amendment to the National Code in 1964
had abolished the death penalty in general. However, its remnants had still
been there for serious military and sedition crimes governed by a separate law.
Death penalty provisions had been introduced in certain grave crimes under a
law in 1985, but within five years that law had been repealed. The Constitution
of 1990 had explicitly prohibited capital punishment. Thus, it had taken almost
59 years for Nepal to reach full abolition of the death penalty. The
Constitution of 2015 considered the right to life as the bedrock of all human
rights and prohibited the death penalty in all cases. The abolition had been
possible through a long and conscious effort of all stakeholders, including
political leaders, civil society, human rights defenders, and the media.
MELINDA JANKI, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana, said the mere
existence of the death penalty was a form of discrimination. The death penalty,
like slavery, said that some lives were worth less than others and robbed the
criminal of his dignity. The death penalty disproportionately affected the
poor, the marginalised, the illiterate and the mentally challenged whereas the
rich were able to pay lawyers or get a non-guilty verdict. In Guyana, some
citizens did not speak English as a fist language and needed a translator that
they might not get. Ms. Janki said she opposed the death penalty in all
circumstances. The Justice Institute of Guyana had linked up with Greater
Caribbean for Life, Amnesty and the Death Penalty Project and grass roots
projects, sending a memorandum on the death penalty to the President of Guyana
and high level ministers. She celebrated the success in December 2018 when
Guyana abstained on the vote for a moratorium on the death penalty.
FATIMATA M’BAYE, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights
Association, said that there had been a moratorium on the death penalty in
Mauritania since 1987, though there were still death penalty rulings handed
down. She drew attention to the case of Mohamed Ould Mkheitir, a blogger who
had posted an article about social discrimination in Mauritania, which meant he
was accused of blasphemy. When he was arrested, he was asked to repent and
quickly withdraw the article, but unfortunately, he was still prosecuted
quickly by the police. This case had given rise to a great deal of violence and
hatred within the local community. Mohamed was sentenced to death in 2015 by
the penal court of the country, which was confirmed in 2016. There was an
appeal launched, and a two-year sentence was later handed down. Ms. M’Baye said
that the blogger was currently being held in a secret location. The source of
law in Mauritania was Islamic law, and women were often sentenced to the death
penalty, many times accused of infanticide. The death penalty was an egregious
practice that was humiliating and degrading. The United Nations could play a
role in ending the death penalty by asking those States that still practiced it
to abandon this punishment in the name of the right to life.
Discussion
Iceland, speaking on behalf of a group of Nordic and Baltic countries, voiced
alarm over the evidence of the discriminatory use of the death penalty against
persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, or based on their gender or
sexual orientation. Could the panellists share best practices in addressing the
discriminatory use of the death penalty against women, especially when linked
to adultery? Montenegro was deeply concerned that the death penalty was imposed
in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner to juvenile offenders, women
victims of domestic violence, minorities, foreign nationals, persons with
disabilities, and poor and economically vulnerable populations. Luxembourg
reminded that it was marking the fortieth anniversary of the abolition of the
death penalty for all crimes. It was a real source of hope that the list of
countries abolishing the death penalty was growing longer, but concerns
remained about the risk of backlash in all parts of the world.
Italy hailed the adoption in the United Nations General Assembly of a
resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty in December 2018, but noted
that around the world capital punishment continued to be imposed in violation
of major international standards. Mexico stated that the death penalty was a
basic human rights violation, which could result in very seriously damaged
legal guarantees. Mexico shared its experience of using its diplomatic and
consular network to assist its nationals condemned to the death penalty abroad.
Singapore, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, noted that the rights of
defendants always had to be weighed against the rights of victims and their
families, and the broader rights of the community and society to be able to
live in peace and security. Every State had the right to choose its legal and
criminal justice systems, without external interference.
Chile, speaking on behalf of a group of States, re-stated the importance of
protecting the right to life, adding that the death penalty had a
disproportionate impact on people in vulnerable situations due to limited
access. It rejected the death penalty against all persons in all contexts but
particularly against women and children. Brazil, speaking on behalf of a group
of States, stated that they were firmly and unequivocally against the death
penalty. The death penalty was a human rights violation that was incompatible
with the prevention of torture and contradictory with social rehabilitation.
The group called on all States to sign a moratorium on the death penalty and to
adhere to the second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. European Union held an unambiguous and absolute
opposition to capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances,
stating that it was inhumane and unnecessary, and called for States still using
the death penalty to comply with international standards that guaranteed
equality before and by the law. It asked for the panel’s recommendations on how
to effectively address gender bias in the application of the death penalty.
New Zealand, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said they remained
against the death penalty and urged States to abolish this penalty. They were
deeply concerned about laws that provided the death penalty in cases of
apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same sex relationships, as well as
for drugs offenses. The group asked the panel how legal systems could prevent
discrimination against women and girls in capital sentencing. Pakistan said it
lifted the moratorium on the death penalty after a large terrorist attack on a
school in Peshawar and stated that the death penalty was awarded to terrorists
after the due process of law. It reminded the Council that every State had the
inalienable sovereign right to choose its legal and criminal judicial systems
in pursuit of its people’s welfare, peace and security. Australia opposed the
death penalty in all circumstances against all people and regretted that some
countries continued to see the death penalty as an acceptable form of
punishment. Australia urged all States to heed the call for abolition. It
counselled that transparency around the use of the death penalty was critical
to ensure that human rights standards were upheld.
Friends World Committee for Consultation highlighted the impact of
discrimination in the use of the death penalty on children of parents sentenced
to death, and the discrimination they experienced because of the execution of
their parents. Friends World Committee asked the panel: pending abolition, what
support or guidance could be given so that the best interest of the child was
always taken into account when sentencing a parent? Centre for Global
Nonkilling emphasized that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals
left no place for discrimination. Sustainable development was also seen to
include a right for personal development, including personal amendment and
rehabilitation, even in the worst cases. International Lesbian and Gay
Association noted that globally, there were still six States where the death
penalty was implemented for consensual same-sex relations. The formal and
informal persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons remained
unchallenged in too many States, and laws that imposed the death penalty for
sexual conduct violated the right to life.
Malaysia noted that the decision to abolish the death penalty and a moratorium
on all pending sentences was a significant development in the context of human
rights promotion and protection in Malaysia. Malaysia emphasized that its
Government was engaging in active deliberations with various stakeholders on
the issue. Fiji noted that it abolished the death penalty in 2015, following
the adoption of the 2013 Fijian Constitution. Fiji called on States that still
used the death penalty to apply it in a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary
manner. Slovenia said it strongly opposed the death penalty in all
circumstances and for all cases. Where abolition was not immediately possible,
Slovenia strongly supported establishing a moratorium on capital punishment
with a view of abolishing it in the future.
Ecuador highlighted that the death penalty was incompatible with the right to
life. Historically, Ecuador had been opposed to capital punishment, which for
the first time was abolished in its constitution of 1906. France opposed the
death penalty in all circumstances and everywhere, noting that certain groups
were affected disproportionately by capital punishment due to their
marginalization and lack of resources. Iraq stated that every country had the
sovereign right to choose its judicial system, as a reflection of its society
and culture. It stressed that very serious crimes had been committed by
terrorist organizations in Iraq.
Iran respected those who had abolished the death penalty, but it could not
accept any universal prescription to that effect. Iran remained committed to
observing the rule of law and due process in the criminal justice system, while
continuing to study the best ways to serve justice. Bangladesh stressed that
its application of the death penalty was restricted to very selective cases of
the most heinous crimes. No child or pregnant woman could be sentenced to
death. Argentina believed that the abolition of the death penalty and torture
had elevated human dignity and advanced human rights. The death penalty was a
human rights violation.
India reiterated its stance that it was a simplistic approach to characterize
the death penalty as a human rights issue in the context of the right to life
of the convicted prisoner. This approach was deeply flawed and controversial.
There should be no external interference in the criminal justice system of any
sovereign State. India had specific provisions for the suspension of the death
penalty in exceptional cases, like for pregnant women. Saudi Arabia stated that
it used the death penalty for only for most serious crimes and in the most
serious circumstances, after a fair trial had been guaranteed. All procedures
were in accordance with international standards as Islamic Sharia lay down the
provisions of the punishments to guarantee the supreme rights of the people.
All States had the sovereign right to bring justice through their own
procedures. Greece opposed the death penalty in all cases and circumstances and
highlighted the death penalty’s negation of the reformative function that any
punishment should bare. It was particularly concerned that the death penalty
disproportionately affected women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and
intersex persons, and human rights defenders and therefore urged States to do
their utmost to ensure a fair trial.
Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, via video transmission, stated
it was working towards redressing the public misconception that the death
penalty deterred crime. It addressed criminality through a human rights-based
approach, including proposals on restorative justice. Together against the
death penalty was deeply concerned that the death penalty continued to be used
in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and sexual orientation or gender
identity, stating that this was not compliant with non-discriminatory law. It
called on all countries to sign a moratorium. International Federation of ACAT
(Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture) stated that the poor and
economically vulnerable were overrepresented on death rows due to their lack of
access to finance and knowledge of their rights, opining that even when legal
aid was offered it was not appropriate nor effective. The Federation was
particularly concerned that women were discriminated against following domestic
violence and during detention, as prisons did not meet their needs.
Concluding Remarks
YUVAL SHANY, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, noted that many delegates had
commended the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty. However, a
concern around what some had termed as a backlash against abolition in this
field was also noted. A number of representatives had also noted the
irreversibility of the death penalty. It was also noted that there was an
increasing consensus that the death penalty if applied should only be applied
for the most serious crimes. There was also a strong concern from all corners
of the room about the problem of discrimination in regard to poverty, sexual
orientation, women, psychosocial disability and other issues. The panel was
asked: how could all address biases, racial biases, gender biases and other
biases in the application of the death penalty, and identify good practices so
the death penalty was applied in a non-discriminatory fashion?
PRADEEP KUMAR GYAWALI, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nepal, expressed
optimism that the world would soon reach the goal of complete abolition of the
death penalty. Mr. Gyawali noted the importance of respecting the sovereign
rights of nations, but he emphasized that the right to life was a cornerstone
to all human rights. All States were called upon to comply their national
justice systems with the universal values of human rights. No judicial system
was immune to human errors, and the death penalty was highlighted as an error
which could not be reversed.
MELINDA JANKI, Director of Justice Institute Guyana, said that the bias against
women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and poor people
in the justice system, first needed to be identified and then quantified. In
order to counter that bias, it was necessary to foster international
cooperation, and train judges, lawyers and police officers so that they knew
what was happening in the criminal justice system. As for the argument on
sovereignty, Ms. Janki found it difficult to follow. A State was made up of
citizens and it had the duty to protect all of them. The sovereignty argument
was meant to say that judges and lawyers decided who should live or die. The
death penalty was an act of revenge rather than justice. Lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex persons had the right to decide whom they
loved; the world needed more love.
FATIMATA M’BAYE, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights
Association, noted that no individual deserved the death penalty. Society
needed to enter into conciliation and forgiveness. The death penalty was one of
the most serious forms of violence, which only bred more violence and
vengeance. Women were often penalized in light of social behavioural norms, and
adultery was the most important manifestation of that phenomenon. The
international community must provide assistance to States to ensure follow-up
on any adopted laws.
Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR).
(source: africanews.com)
VATICAN CITY:
Pope on death penalty: offer the condemned the possibility to change life
The Pope, in a video message, exhorts rulers and all those who have the
responsibility in their countries to take the necessary steps towards the total
abolition of the death penalty.
Pope Francis sent a video message to the “World Congress Against the Death
Penalty” organized by the association, “Together against the Death Penalty” (
ECPM) that is holding a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, from February 26 to March
1.
ECPM acts to fight against the death penalty around the world. The association
promotes the universal abolition through the creation and dissemination of
publications and teaching tools, as part of public campaigns and lobbies
governments at both national and international levels.
(source: vaticannews.va)
IRAN:
Annual report on the death penalty 2018
The 11th Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Iran, by Iran Human Rights (IHR)
and ECPM, coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution of
1979. The Islamic revolution marks the start of an era where the death penalty
became a “normal” part of the people’s everyday lives. The first death
sentences were carried out only three days after the victory of the revolution,
as four of the Shah’s generals were executed by firing squads on the roof of
“Rafah School”, which was Ayatollah Khomeini’s headquarters at that time. The
death sentences were issued, and the executions carried out on the night of
February 15, 1979, after a session, only a few hours long, of a newly
established Revolutionary Court, without the presence of a defense lawyer and
lacking a process with even a minimum resemblance to a fair trial. Pictures of
the dead generals covered the front pages of the main Iranian newspapers the
next morning. Lack of due process, unfair trials and arbitrary executions
continue now, four decades after that February night. IHR has documented close
to 6000 executions in the 4th decade of the Islamic Republic’s life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 Annual Report at a Glance
At least 273 people were executed in 2018, 48% decrease compared to 2017
93 executions (34%) were announced by official sources. In 2017, 21 % had been
announced by the authorities
Approximately 66% of all executions included in the 2018 report, i.e. 180
executions, were not announced by the authorities
At least 188 executions (66% of all executions) were for murder charges
At least 24 people (8,7% of all executions) were executed for drug-related
charges- 207 less than in 2017
None of the drug-related executions were announced by the official sources
13 executions were conducted in public spaces
At least 6 juvenile offenders were among those executed
At least 5 women were executed
At least 62 executions in 2018 and more than 3,526 executions since 2010 have
been based on death sentences issued by the Revolutionary Courts
At least 272 death row prisoners were forgiven by the families of the murder
victims
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The present report shows, however, that 2018 distinguishes itself from the
previous years. The report shows that in 2018 at least 273 people were executed
in Iran. This is the lowest number documented since 2007 and represents a 47%
reduction from execution numbers in 2017. More importantly, the reduction is
mainly due to a decline in the number of drug-related executions, following
enforcement of new amendments to the Anti-Narcotic law which aim at restricting
the use of the death penalty for such offenses. The number of drug-related
executions declined from 230 in 2017 to 24 in 2018.
Commenting on the reduction in the execution numbers in the 2018 report,
Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR said, “This is probably the
most significant step towards limitation in the use of the death penalty in the
history of the Islamic Republic, and probably 2018’s most significant change in
death penalty trends worldwide. We hope it is the first step of many that the
Iranian authorities must take in order to improve their dark human rights
record”.
Iranian authorities have admitted on several occasions that the political cost
of drug-related executions has become too high. In a recent meeting with the
General Secretary and other high ranking officers of Iran’s Drug Control
Headquarters, the head of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani, said, : ”Death
penalty must be the last way of combating the drug problems”, and continued,
“the costs of the executions is very high, you must not underestimate the
costs”. This refers to the increasing international pressure on the Iranian
authorities for the high number of drug-related executions in the past.
Due to the lack of transparency, it is not known how many death sentences have
been commuted due to the new legislation, but the execution of 20 drug
offenders in the last 3 months of the year gives reason to fear that the few
months’ halt in implementation of drug-related death sentences might have come
to an end.
IHR and ECPM welcome the significant reduction in the use of the death penalty
due to the enforcement of the new amendments to the Anti-Narcotic law and hope
that this trend will continue towards complete abolition. However main
challenges remain relating to the death penalty in Iran; lack of due process,
provisions of laws contradictory to international human rights treaties, public
executions, juvenile executions, harassment of human rights defenders, and lack
of transparency on the use of the death penalty remain major issues.
In violation of their international obligations, Iranian authorities continue
executions of juvenile offenders. At least six juvenile offenders were executed
in 2018, one more than the previous year, and several juveniles are in danger
of execution. Commenting on the juvenile executions Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, the
Executive Director of ECPM said: “Iran must end its shameful practice of child
execution. We call on the international community, especially the EU, to put
the issue of the death penalty in general and juvenile execution in particular
at the top of their demands in their dialogue with the Iranian authorities”.
In 2018, Iranian authorities once again displayed their systematic violations
of due process and the rule of law. Televised confessions, unfair trials and
reports of torture, are reminders of the fact that sustainable improvements in
the status of human rights, and serious steps towards abolition of the death
penalty, are not possible without fundamental changes in Iran’s judicial
system.
Iranian authorities have, moreover, demonstrated their willingness to use the
death penalty as a means to intimidate civil society and to counteract public
protests. Execution of the Gonabadi dervish Mohammad Salas as a response to the
weeks-long protests by the Gonabadi dervish community; execution of the Kurdish
political prisoners Zanyar Moradi, Loghman Moradi and Ramin Hossein Panahi, as
a mean to intimidate the growing Kurdish civil movements; and threatening the
striking truck drivers and shopkeepers with death penalty, are just a few
examples of how the Iranian authorities use the death penalty as an instrument
of oppression of the people.
Finally, with the crisis in Iran’s economy, people's focus has been directed
towards the massive corruption within the establishment. Iranian authorities
fear for nationwide protests against the massive corruption within the Islamic
Republic’s system and have been using corruption as an excuse to arrest,
condemn to death and execute in order to spread fear in the society. In this
context, three men charged with corruption and sentenced several others to
death. These sentences and executions are regarded as a means to spread fear in
the society rather than fighting corruption.
IHR and ECPM are concerned that with further deterioration of the economy and
increasing frustration and anger among the people, the authorities will use
more violence, and above all will increase the use of the death penalty as
their only and most efficient weapon to face the unrest.
With the launch of this report, IHR and ECPM call upon the international
community, and Iran’s European dialogue partners, to press for a moratorium on
the use of the death penalty, and for major reforms in the country’s judicial
system, which does not at this time meet minimum international standards. IHR
and ECPM call on Iranian authorities to seriously consider the recommendations
made in this report including to allow access to prisoners on death row and to
impose a 5 years moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
In 2019, Iran will have its 3rd Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the
last UPR review in 2014, Iran accepted only one of the 41 recommendations
relating to the death penalty. This year’s UPR is an important opportunity for
the international community to put the issue of the death penalty on the agenda
again. The positive experience of sustained pressure and focus on drug-related
executions can and should be applied to other aspects of the death penalty.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
**************
Iran executed 273 people in 2018, says human rights group
The news comes as around 1,500 delegates gathered in Brussels for the 7th World
Congress Against the Death Penalty.
Speaking to the media at the conference, Mahmood Amiry Moghaddam of IHR said
the deaths were confirmed through independent sources, but that two-thirds of
them were not announced officially.
IHR verifies all unofficial reports by consulting 2 independent sources, often
eye-witnesses, family members or lawyers.
Although the figure is high, IHR says it represents a 10-year low for the
country.
The group says the four leading charges that result in execution in Iran are
murder, moharebeh (corruption on earth), drug-related offences and rape.
"Corruption on earth" is the second most frequent charge for the death penalty.
Broadly defined, it can be applied to a wide range of offences, including
political affiliation, cooperation with the so-called Islamic State and
economic corruption.
Moghaddam says it is largely up to the discretion of the Revolutionary Court to
decide what crimes can be categorised as moharebeh.
“The due process, which is, in general, violated daily in Iran, is even worse
in the Revolutionary Courts," Moghaddam said.
IHR says Iran also has the highest rate of juvenile executions in the world,
with 6 confirmed executions of minors in 2018, including 2 child brides charged
with the murders of their husbands.
In the annual report, IHR urges the international community to cooperate with
Iran with the stipulation of “compliance with human rights standards.”
Due to a lack of transparency from the Iranian government, it is difficult for
IHR to gauge the actual number of deaths by capital punishment.
This is especially prevalent in the ethnic minority regions of Iran where
official reports of execution are lowest.
(source: euronews.com)
EGYPT:
Egypt activists condemn executions as illegal
Egyptian human rights activists have condemned the recent executions of 12
political prisoners as a violation of the judiciary’s own procedural laws.
In a statement released today, Ahmed El-Attar of the Egyptian Commission for
Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) highlighted that the death sentences carried out by
Egyptian authorities this month were unconstitutional, as the punishments were
carried out on the defendants even as they were appealing the ruling.
“The lawyers of the three defendants in the case of the [murder of the] son of
the Chancellor and the nine [accused] in the case of the Attorney General, both
submitted formal requests for a re-examination by the Public Prosecutor’s
Office; the Egyptian authorities should have suspended execution orders until
the petition was resolved,” the statement read. “They didn’t follow procedure
and carried [out] the death sentences on all the defendants.”
“The authorities violated with their own procedural laws, Article 448 of the
Egyptian Code of Criminal Procedure,” El-Attar added.
The execution of nine men accused of plotting the assassination of Egypt’s
attorney general in 2015 warranted international condemnation last week, after
videos circulated of the defendants declaring they had been forced to confess
under torture.
“The defendants were subjected to the most severe forms of torture, and forced
to confess to the murder under duress during interrogation. In court they
denied the charges, citing the severity of their injuries and requested medical
reports to prove their claim of duress,” El-Attar says. “Their judges,
Counsellor Mohamed Allam and Counsellor Hassan Farid, ignored their legitimate
right to request the medical examination or investigation.”
Rupert Colville, the spokesman for the UN Human Rights Office said last week
that the UN has serious concerns about the conflicted process of fair trials in
the cases and urged Egypt to properly investigate allegations of torture.
The death sentences were also condemned by Turkish President Recep Tayyip
Erdogan, who vowed to not meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi
until other prisoners were released.
“This is a crime against humanity,” Erdogan said, adding: “When you look at the
figures, at least 42 people were executed since Al-Sisi took power and lately 9
young people were executed.”
However, Al-Sisi responded to criticism and defended the death penalty at a
summit between Arab and European states yesterday, saying the two regions had
“2 different cultures”.
Rights defenders are concerned that European states focused on security have
lent Al-Sisi international legitimacy at a time when his supporters are pushing
through constitutional amendments that could allow him to stay in power until
2034.
“It is distressing that the leaders at the summit have not addressed adequately
the threats to freedom of expression and assembly, fundamental rights which are
under threat in many places in the Arab world,” Oxfam’s Middle East and North
Africa regional Director, Marta Lorenzo, said in a statement.
Since becoming president following a military coup in 2013, Al-Sisi has ruled
Egypt with an iron fist. The government has launched a crackdown on anyone
suspected of opposing Al-Sisi, with former Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi,
the country’s first democratically elected leader, also imprisoned and facing a
retrial after previously being sentenced to death.
El-Attar called on the international community to support efforts to pressure
the authorities into abolishing the death penalty, which could save some 50
prisoners set to be executed.
“The right to life is one of the most basic human rights. In all societies,
religions, constitutions and in international law, each person has the right to
be heard, and tried, in a just court of law. In Egypt no said justice exists,
when all the legitimate authorities are focused on wiping out any challenge by
murdering and imprisoning opponents.”
(source: middleeastmonitor.com)
******************
Sorrow and confusion among Copts follow the death sentence imposed on two monks
for the murder of a bishop
A court sentenced 2 monks to death over the murder of the abbot of the
monastery of St Macarius in Wadi El Natrun. For Egyptian Christians and the
leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church, this is a sad day and represents a
catastrophe that will be appealed as soon as possible.
The details of the case are still murky. Many of the pieces of the puzzle are
missing, nor is it clear why the death penalty was imposed. Sources that spoke
to AsiaNews, said that they will wait for further developments before
commenting on the matter.
On Saturday, a court in Damanhur imposed the death penalty on Wael Saad, known
by his monastic name Isaiah al-Makari, and Ramon Rasmi Mansour, known as
Faltaous al-Makari, who wept at the ruling. Both were defrocked after the
assassination.
"The defendants were led by the devil to the path of evil and vice,” said Judge
Gamal Toson of the Damanhour court in his ruling. They committed “the greatest
of the greatest sins and the greatest of crimes which the heavenly religions
forbade".
For him, the 2 men are responsible for the murder on 29 July 2018 of Coptic
Orthodox bishop Anba Epiphanios, abbot of the monastery of St Macarius, an
event that shocked Egypt’s Coptic community and monastic circles.
Following the murder, the Church banned monks from using social media and
suspended admissions into its seminaries for 1 year.
The disregard shown by the 2 men for the abbot’s advanced age and spiritual
role played an important role in the sentencing and ruled out extenuating
circumstances in the case.
Now the case goes for review. In Egypt, death sentences are reviewed by the
country’s highest religious authority. The Grand Mufti of Egypt is now tasked
with reviewing the court decision. His ruling is expected on 24 April.
Throughout the trial the 2 defendants proclaimed their innocence. For the
prosecution however, the two were responsible for the murder, due to a
financial dispute with the abbot.
The 2 men religious were also blamed for unspecified violations of monastic
rules, which led to them being defrocked following a trial before a religious
court.
For Bishop Anba Aghathon, the verdict a "catastrophe" and a "sad day" for the
community. He urged believers to pray for the monks, hoping that an appeal will
be launched as soon as possible.
Esam Ebaid, secretary of the European Union for Egyptians and a member of the
Christian Union, a Dutch political party, slams the sentence, noting that the
investigation was marred by corruption and political interests.
For him, the verdict is an offence against monasticism and leaves the door open
to interference into the affairs of monasteries and land seizures.
Egypt has a population of about 95 million, mostly Muslims. Christians
represent about 10 %, a majority of whom are members of the Coptic Orthodox
Church.
In 2016 and 2017, a wave of deadly terrorist attacks swept over the country,
with Christians among the targets.
(source: asianews.it)
*****************
Turkey says EU hypocritical for attending Egypt summit after executions
Turkey criticised European Union leaders on Tuesday for attending a summit
hosted by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi days after 9 men were
executed for killing Egypt's chief prosecutor.
Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said it was hypocritical for EU leaders, who
have told Ankara that reinstating the death penalty in Turkey would finally
crush its hopes of joining their bloc, to attend the meeting in Egypt.
"The whole EU leadership supporting Sisi and being in the same place as him on
the days after these young saplings were martyred, executed is a photograph of
exactly what we are saying," he said. "This is a double standard, it is
hypocrisy."
Sisi defended the death penalty on Monday at the summit in the Red Sea resort
of Sharm el-Sheikh between Arab and EU states, saying the two regions had "2
different cultures".
Relations between Ankara and Cairo have been strained since the Egyptian army
ousted President Mohamed Mursi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, following
mass protests against his rule in 2013.
The Muslim Brotherhood has close ties with Turkey's ruling AK Party and many of
its members have fled to Turkey since the group's activities were banned in
Egypt.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan also criticised the EU on Tuesday for
attending the summit in Egypt.
"Can you talk about democracy in these EU countries that attended Sisi's
invitation? Can you talk about rights and freedoms there? Can you talk about
human rights there?" he said at a rally in the northern province of Giresun.
Turkey aspires to join the EU but its accession negotiations, launched in 2005,
are at a standstill amid concerns over its record on human rights and the rule
of law.
Egypt says the Brotherhood, the world's oldest Islamist movement, is a
terrorist organisation. Most of its senior members have been arrested, driven
into exile or underground.
The Brotherhood says it is a peaceful organisation.
Rights groups strongly criticised the recent executions in Egypt, saying they
and others were carried out after unfair trials.
(source: Reuters)
MALAYSIA:
Final decision on death penalty abolition next month
De facto law minister Liew Vui Keong says he has finished compiling
stakeholders' views and the laws that need to be amended in the event that the
death penalty is abolished. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, February 26,
2019.
The government will make a final decision next month on abolishing the death
penalty, de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong told The Star.
He said he has finished compiling stakeholders’ views and the laws that need to
be amended in the event that capital punishment is done away with.
(source: malaysianinsight.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
