July 17
ZAMBIA:
Lusaka woman gets death sentence for poisoning her 2 sons
The Lusaka High Court has sentenced to death by hanging a 29-year-old woman of
Lusaka for killing her children by administering Doom, a pesticide, to them.
This is in a matter where Miriam Mulenga on January 24, 2017 murdered her
5-year old and 1-year-old children, Mwiche and Dawson.
Mulenga had administered the pesticide to 3 of her children and attempted to
commit suicide due following allegations that her husband was having an affair
with another woman as a result of which she was traumatised owing to certain
characteristics of their marriage.
Fortunately, one of the children and Mulenga survived as the pesticide did not
have a big impact on them due to their age.
The police had discovered a bottle of Doom insecticide in Mulenga’s room.
Mulenga and her firstborn child were admitted to the University Teaching
Hospital (UTH).
When Mulenga gained consciousness, she began to act strangely after seeing the
lifeless bodies of her children in the mortuary.
During trial, the convict’s niece, a grade ten pupil at Matero Girls Secondary
School told High Court judge Getrude Chawatama that on the material day, after
a power outage in the evening, Mirriam asked her children to follow her to the
bedroom.
The juvenile had testified that she proceeded to the kitchen to wash dishes and
whilst in the kitchen, two women visited Mirriam and asked her to accompany
them to a funeral within the neighbourhood but Mirriam refused, claiming that
she had a headache.
The juvenile said that after some time, she heard one of her cousins calling
for help.
She narrated that her cousin’s crying was unusual and she rushed to the
bedroom.
The 17-year-old told court that when she entered the bedroom, she found Mirriam
and her 3 children crying.
She said upon asking Mirriam what transpired, she responded that she
administered doom to her children and that she equally consumed the pesticide.
The juvenile testified that Mirriam asked her to call her friend Sabina but
unfortunately Sabina was not home.
She added that she decided to go to Sabina’s sister’s house and told her about
the incident.
The girl said that when she rushed back home, she noticed that one of her
cousin was bleeding from the nose and she rushed the child who was bleeding to
a near by shop and bought him some milk but the efforts to save her cousin
proved futile as he was bleeding excessively.
The juvenile further told court that Mirriam’s surviving child disclosed that
the mother had administered poison to them.
Delivering judgment yesterday, justice Chawatama found that the convict had the
knowledge that administering Doom to her children would result to their death.
Justice Chatwama refused the suggestion by a medical specialist that the
convict’s sanity be ascertained as she was normal when she committed the
offense.
She said that although Mulenga showed remorse or was emotional for killing her
children, she blamed her husband for being the cause of her actions.
The court found that the evidence of the prosecution was not challenged by
Mulenga as she opted to remain silent in her defence.
Judge Chawatama also found that Mulenga had a chance to confide in her friend
that she had marital disputes but she only decided to do so after she had
administered the poisonous substance to her 3 children.
“There is no doubt that the accused not only endangered the life of Mwiche
Nakazwe and Dawson Sikazwe but also caused their death. I find that the accused
did not suffer from insanity at the time. I find the accused guilty of the
offence of murder and I sentence her to death by hanging,” she said.
And Mulenga’s husband, Coaster Sikazwe, said that Mulenga deserved the death
penalty.
“She deserves the judgment, though I have forgiven her. The matter is in the
hands of state but the judgment will not bring back my children, she deserves
the judgment,” said Sikazwe
(source: themastonline.com)
SRI LANKA:
“If you hang 100 guilty but 1 innocent, the system is a failure”: Ex-Prisons
Chief
A retired senior Prisons Department official who has witnessed 7 judicial
executions says he is against the capital punishment as no judicial system in
the world is infallible and there is a chance that a wrong person can be sent
to the gallows.
“You can hang 100 guilty men but if you hang 1 innocent man, the system is a
failure,” said H.G. Dharmadasa, a former Commissioner of Prisons, who
officiated at seven judicial hangings including the controversial one of D.J.
Siripala better known as Maru Sira in 1975.
Judges and juries, he says, can make mistakes and the manner in which crimes
are sensationalised in the media which often blur the line between fact and
fiction can influence judgments. “World over there have been several instances
of the wrong person being hanged which is why I am opposed to the death
sentence being carried out,” he said.
Another important factor to consider is that executions have not contributed to
the reduction of crime. “Even when the death penalty was in operation in the
country, crimes were committed. Out of all those sentenced to death, it is
around 20% who were executed. Even if one commits a crime that carries the
death penalty, criminals know the chances of them reaching the gallows is slim
and hence will not be deterred even if a few are hanged.”
No judicial executions have been carried out in Sri Lanka since 1976 and the
present moratorium of 43 years is the longest the country has had. Attempts
have been made in the past to have capital punishment abolished but the law
remains in place.
In May 1958, the Government of then Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike
abolished the death penalty with the enactment of the Suspension of the Capital
Punishment Act No. 20 of 1958, but it was short-lived. Less than a
year-and-a-half later Bandaranaike was assassinated and his successor W.
Dahanayaka’s Government reintroduced the death penalty with the Capital
Punishment (Repeal) Act which was made effective retrospectively to punish
those responsible for the Prime Minister’s murder. In July 1962, Talduwe
Somarama, the man found guilty of shooting Bandaranaike, was hanged at
Welikada.
Prior to 1968, all the execution was officiated by a person called the Fiscal
who came from the Fiscal Department. The Department was subsequently abolished
and the responsibility of officiating at executions was given to the Prisons
Department.
When Dharmadasa joined in 1968, a part of the training was to witness an
execution and write a small report. The day he first saw a man being hanged is
still well-etched in his memory. “I remember coming to Welikada Prison early
that day as I was keen to speak to the man who was to be executed. By then I
had been in Prison service for just over a month or two. The Superintendent on
duty, after some hesitation, let me meet the prisoner who had been moved to the
cell next to the gallows as is the general practice to do so on the night
before the execution.”
The condemned man, he recalls, was a fairly young man, a carpenter from
Moratuwa. He was found guilty of murder, but he believed he had not committed
any crime as the man he had killed was a menace to the entire village. “He said
the man he killed was extorting money from innocent people and harassing all
the villagers. One day he was returning home from work when the 2 came face to
face, which led to an altercation and the condemned man had stabbed the other
with the chisel which he used for his carpentry work, thus killing him.”
What Dharmadasa recalls about the man was his determination not to face death
like a coward. “He told me he has a wife and young child and he had told his
wife who visited him the previous day (a visit from next of kin is allowed the
day before execution but under strict security) that if she finds a suitable
man, to marry him and look after the child. He knew his fate was sealed but had
no bitterness. After all these years, I remember him as a person who was out of
the ordinary.”
Judicial executions are carried out under strict rules which are drawn from the
Prisons Ordinance, Prison Regulations (Prison Rules) and the operational rules
laid down in the departmental standing orders.
The process for the Prison Department begins with the letter sent from the
President’s Office which sets the date and time for the execution. The time set
is always 8 a.m.
After the letter is received by the prison authorities, maybe a week or even
two days before the set date, the condemned prisoner is informed, and he is
given special security from that time onwards with two prison officers assigned
to him.
Executions were carried out only in Bogambara and Welikada Prison before 1976
and all the hangings that Dharmadasa officiated at were at Kandy.
“There were 2 executioners for the whole country at the time. They are informed
of the pending execution and they must arrive at the Prison the previous day.
They usually come by train as they are given a railway warrant to travel. Those
days we did not have many vehicles. They bring with them a leather bag with all
the paraphernalia needed for the hanging; the rope, a little pillowcase like
cloth to place over the prisoner’s head and the suit that the prisoner has to
wear when he is taken to the gallows.
“Once they arrive, the executioners are kept inside the prison gate because of
the fear that if they go out there is a possibility someone can abduct them or
they could meet with an accident and then there will be no one to carry out the
hanging,” Dharmadasa said.
After their arrival, the executioners have something important to do. They have
to weigh the prisoner on a normal scale, and they test the rope with a sandbag
filled to the exact weight of the prisoner.
The next morning, the prisoner is prepared for the gallows. “There is a
jumpsuit the prisoner is dressed in. There is also certain security equipment
that is used. These are the leg straps that bind the legs close so that he can
only take small steps while a body belt is also placed on the prisoner so his
hands are restrained and cannot be raised above the elbows. A cap like a small
pillowcase is placed over his head to cover the face once the prisoner is
brought near the gallows.”
There are also very few officials who are present at the scene of a judicial
execution. These include the Prison Superintendent who is officiating, the two
jailers, or at least one of those who received the condemned prisoner when he
was brought from court after he was sentenced. One of them must be present to
identify him as the person they received. The Chief Jailor too can be present.
The Prison Medical Officer and a member of the clergy from the religion that
prisoner belongs to is also allowed to be present. If the man is a Buddhist,
the monk will chant pirith as he is marched to the gallows.
Dharmadasa says it is normal to ask the prisoner if he would like something in
particular for breakfast the morning of the execution, but these are also
limited. “There is no truth to talk that they are given an adiyak (a shot of
alcohol) if they make one such last wish. The truth is, many don’t eat
anything. How can you expect a man who knows he is going to die an hour or 2
later to eat?”
For a death of a prisoner to end in a judicial killing, not only should the
noose be placed in a right way by the hangman who is trained for this, but the
drop, when the levers are pulled, must be calculated accurately according to
the weight of the prisoner. “There is something called the ‘table of drop’. The
drop from the gallows has to be calculated according to the weight of the
prisoner. If the prisoner is too heavy and the drop is too long, then there
have been instances recorded where the prisoner’s head has got severed.”
In Sri Lanka, Dharmadasa says, there is no legal document with the ‘table of
drop’ but what was used in the past was based on the Singapore or Indian
manual.
It is also mandatory for a post-mortem to be carried out after an execution so
that the cause of death can be given even though this happens in the presence
of the medical officer. The cause of death is normally given as ‘rapture of the
spinal cord due to judicial hanging’. The body is handed over to the next of
kin after the execution but burials are done under the supervision of the
Prison officials.
However well-laid-down the procedures are for carrying out State sanctioned
executions and however clinical the process looks from the outside, it is a
traumatic experience for those who are legally required to carry it out, as the
former Prisons Commissioner knows only too well.
“Even if I carry out official orders from the supreme leader of the country, I
am still part of that process. I had to carry it out as it is my duty to do so
but few know the trauma any civilised person undergoes when witnessing an
execution.”
(source: ft.lk)
PHILIPPINES:
CBCP to attend Senate hearing on death penalty
An official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) will
attend the Senate hearing on the re-imposition of death penalty in the country
when the 18th Congress opens this month.
Rudy Diamante, executive secretary of the CBCP-Episcopal Commission on Prison
Pastoral Care said they will try to persuade lawmakers to set aside the
proposal “which we think, is not the solution to the crimes and drug problem in
the country.“
Diamante, who is also part of the Coalition Against Death Penalty said, around
17 senators, who are mostly allies of the Duterte administration, support the
re-imposition of the capital punishment for drug traffickers.
“The Church will not stop in its fight against bringing back death penalty for
heinous crimes like drug trafficking in the country,” Diamante said in a CBCP
News post. Pro-life groups have also urged the lawmakers to junk the proposal.
Although most nations have abolished the capital punishment, over 60 % of the
world’s population live in countries where the death penalty is retained, such
as in China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
(source: Manila Bulletin)
SINGAPORE:
Alleged drug trafficker with IQ of 69 on death sentence, in his final bid to
escape the gallows with aid of lawyers and activists
29-year old Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam is an individual who has an IQ of
69, a finding by the prosecution’s psychiatrist which judges, including in the
Court of Appeal, accepted and affirmed.
This level of IQ meant that Nagaenthran is among those with “extremely low
range of functioning”, according to the internationally recognised WAIS-IV
test, which measures cognitive abilities.
In other words, he has borderline intellectual functions.
The courts have also accepted the evidence from the prosecution’s psychiatrists
that Nagaethran suffered from mild ADHD of the inattentive type; and that his
executive functioning skills (including verbal fluency, set-shifting, abstract
reasoning, strategy formative, and problem solving) were impaired.
Yet, today the Malaysia national sits in Singapore’s Changi Prison, some 10
years after he was first arrested for trafficking in 42.72g of diamorphine,
commonly known as heroin.
Nagaethran has spent 8 of those 10 years on death row – and has seen all his
legal battles against his death sentence come to naught, including a denial by
the Public Prosecutor to issue him a Certificate of Cooperation (COC) which
would have allowed the courts to commute his death sentence to life
imprisonment.
His last hope of escaping the gallows comes down to a grant of clemency from
the Singapore President who will be advised by the Singapore cabinet.
The outcome of the clemency application is being filed and the outcome will be
delivered soon afterward, which also means that he might have even less time to
lodge any further challenges, given that Singapore is swift in carrying out
executions after the final appeal for mercy is denied.
Nagaethran’s sentence should jolt us all and raise serious questions of how the
death sentence is carried out in Singapore which, as Nagaethran’s case shows,
does not show mercy even to those in his shoes.
Mr M Ravi, Nagaethran’s family lawyer, highlighted another issue in his piece
on Malaysian news portal, 'Malaysiakini':
A very significant point which was not raised in Nagaenthran’s appeal was that
the expert evidence of the state’s third medical expert, Dr Koh Wun Wu, was
made without further independent medical examination of Nagaenthran.
It was made instead with the objective of “making observations” on Ung’s
[defence’s psychiatrist] conclusions.
This practice, known as ‘poking holes’ in the defence’s report, is an
unacceptable practice in criminal trials. To me, this renders the Court of
Appeal’s decision as being one in breach of the right to a fair trial under
international law.
And while the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), under which Nagaethran was charged and
found guilty, provides for the courts to sentence persons with an “abnormality
of mind” to life imprisonment instead of death in capital cases, the judges in
Nagaethran’s case found that “borderline intellectual functioning” was
insufficient to qualify as “abnormality of mind” as stipulated in the MDA.
Even so, supporters of Nagaenthran are not giving up just yet.
Mr Ravi is submitting a Memorandum to the Malaysian Government on Tuesday, 16
July, calling on it to raise Nagaethran’s case with the International Court of
Justice (ICJ).
In his submission, Mr Ravi argues that executing Nagaethran even though he
suffers from an intellectual impairment “raises grave concerns as to whether
this could be a miscarriage of justice considering the legal test to be applied
in Singapore.”
Mr Ravi also cites international conventions, treatises, and customary
international laws which bind Singapore, and which prohibit the execution of
persons with such intellectual impairment.
He notes that the U.N General Assembly, since 2007, admonishes countries which
retain the death penalty from imposing it “on persons with mental or
intellectual disabilities”.
The European Union and court decisions in India have all prohibited the
execution of intellectually or mentally impaired persons, he added.
“This matter should compel the Malaysian government to lodge a complaint with
the ICJ,” Mr Ravi said in his memorandum to the Malaysia government. He urged
the Malaysian government to safeguard the life of its own citizen who is facing
impending death.
“In light of the punishment’s irreversibility, the very limited time available
may not be enough for preparing submissions to the ICJ. Therefore, if a
submission to the ICJ is to be ultimately made, that submission should ideally
be made as soon as possible.”
“As I am in the process of drafting a memorandum to the Malaysian government,”
Mr Ravi said, “I sadly recall his distraught mother and brother’s pleas and how
I was consoling them not to lose hope.”
Mr Ravi, along with activists, will hold a press conference in the Malaysian
capital, Kuala Lumpur, on 23 July, on the case.
Nagaethran’s legal battle:
22 April 2009: Arrested in Singapore
22 Nov 2011: Convicted by High Court, sentenced to death
27 Jul 2011: Appeal dismissed by Court of Appeal
2012: MDA amended by Singapore Parliament
10 Dec 2014:PP informed Court Naga would not be issued COC
2015: Sought leave to commence judicial review of COC denial
4 May 2018: Application for leave refused by court
2016: Naga sought to re-open his appeal (against the PP’s denial to issue a
COC)
2 Dec 2016: Application dismissed by Court of Appeal
14 Sept 2017: Application for re-sentencing rejected
27 May 2019: Appeal against re-sentencing rejection denied
2019: Appeal for presidential clemency submitted
Currently: Awaiting outcome of clemency appeal
(source: theonlinecitizen.com)
PAKISTAN:
U.N. top court to rule on India-Pakistan death penalty dispute
The World Court is set to rule on Wednesday (July 17) in a case where India
accuses Pakistan of not allowing diplomatic assistance to an Indian national
sentenced to death by Islamabad.
The decision of the United Nations court, formally known as the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) will be read out at 3 pm local time (1300gmt).
In hearings before the 15-judge panel earlier this year, India argued that the
court should order the release of Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, a former Indian
navy commander who was arrested in Pakistan in March 2016 and convicted of
spying.
India filed a claim against Pakistan before the ICJ in May 2017 arguing
Islamabad had breached the 1963 Vienna Convention by not allowing diplomatic
assistance to Jadhav during his secretive trial. India won an injunction that
ordered Jadhav’s execution stayed while the court looked into the case.
Pakistan said that India was trying to use the court intended to resolve
international disputes as a criminal appeals court. They also said the relief
sought by India was disproportionate even if the treaty were violated, and at
most Jadhav’s case could be reviewed.
The ICJ is the U.N.’s highest court, and its decisions are binding — though it
has no power to enforce them and they have been ignored in rare instances.
(source: newsfirst.lk)
INDONESIA:
Drug Mules Face Death Penalty for Trafficking Crystal Meth
Police arrested a teacher from North Aceh District, Zainudin (36), for
possession and transporting 1 kilogram of crystal meth. The arrest was made on
Tuesday, July 9, while the suspect was traveling on route to Palembang, South
Sumatra, from Medan.
Police say Zainudin was the last out of 3 suspects they had previously eyed on.
His 2 accomplices Asrin (30) and Sugianto (42) were arrested by the South
Sumatra Police just 1 day earlier for transporting 2 kilograms of crystal meth.
South Sumatra Police Chief Ir. Gen. Firli explained that the 3 men were indeed
targets that were based on an ongoing investigation.
“In total, we confiscated 3 kilograms crystal meth,” said Firli.
In total, police arrested 4 suspects related to the case of drug mule (a person
who transports illegal drugs by swallowing them or concealing them in a body
cavity) and will charge them with the death sentence under Article 114 and
Article 112 (2).
(source: tempo.co)
CHINA----execution
Man in NW China executed after decades-long blood feud
A man in northwest China was executed Wednesday for killing 3 neighbors in
apparent revenge for his mother's death more than 2 decades earlier.
The Supreme People's Court in Shaanxi province announced that it implemented
the death penalty on Zhang Koukou for intentional homicide against 3 men — 2
brothers and their father — surnamed Wang.
The court statement detailed the 2 families' longstanding enmity — a blood feud
that dates back to 1996.
That year, a dispute between Zhang's mother and 1 of the brothers, then
17-year-old Wang Zhengjun, resulted in her succumbing to a fatal injury. Taking
into consideration Wang's youth and the behavior of Zhang's mother during the
quarrel, the court at the time fined Wang 9,639 yuan ($1,400) and sentenced him
to 7 years in prison for intentionally injuring another person.
Zhang was still a teenager when his mother died. Over the following 22 years,
the Supreme Court says, he continued to harbor resentment for her death. He
struggled with his job, lifestyle and mental health.
But there were no further conflicts between the 2 households — until last year.
In early 2018, Zhang learned that Wang would be returning to their village to
celebrate the Spring Festival. On the eve of the Lunar New Year, after Wang and
his brother had just come back from offering sacrifices to their ancestors,
Zhang approached and stabbed them to death. Then, he went to the home of Wang
Zixin, the father, and fatally stabbed him as well before setting the family's
car on fire.
Zhang fled the scene, only to surrender himself to police 2 days later.
(source: Associated Press)
INDIA:
Kathua case: HC to hear plea for death penalty to accused tomorrow
The Punjab and Haryana High Court will on Thursday hear the plea of the Kathua
rape and murder victim's father, who wants an enhancement of the sentence
awarded to the convicts.
The case came up for preliminary hearing on Wednesday.
The counsel for the father, Utsav Bains, gave a brief background of the case.
Dubbing the matter as important, the bench headed by Justice Rajiv Sharma said
the case will be heard on Thursday, when connected matters are scheduled for
hearing.
The father of the 8-year-old victim is seeking death penalty for 3 of the
convicts who have been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court.
The father wants the jail term of 3 other convicts to be increased and has also
challenged the acquittal of an accused.
In his petition, the father has called the case rarest of the rare. He has said
that the nature of the crime indicates perversion and depravity.
(source: tribuneindia.com)
YEMEN:
Quash Death Sentences Against Opposition Figures (Yemen: UA 51.19 - Update)
Urgent Action
On 9 July 2019, the Huthi-run Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) of Sana’a
sentenced to death 30 academics and political figures based on trumped-up
charges, including espionage for the Saudi Arabia-led Coalition. Amongst those
is Youssef al-Bawab, a 45-year-old father of five, linguistics professor and
political figure, who was arbitrarily arrested in late 2016. Amnesty calls on
the Huthi de facto authorities to quash the death sentences of Youssef al-Bawab
and the 29 other men and release them immediately as they are being punished
for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression.
Write a letter in your own words or using the sample below as a guide to one or
both government officials listed. You can also email, fax, call or Tweet them.
Mohamed Abdelsalam
Ansarullah Representative at UN-led peace talks
Email: mdabdalsa...@gmail.com
Twitter: @abdusalamsalah
Dr. Ahmed Awad Binmubarak
Embassy of the Republic of Yemen
2319 Wyoming Ave NW
Washington, DC 20008
Phone: (202) 965-4760 // Fax: (202)337-2017
Email: informat...@yemenembassy.org
Twitter: @YemenEmbassy_DC
Salutation: Dear Ambassador
Dear Mr. Abdelsalam,
On 9 July 2019, the Huthi-run Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) of Sana’a
sentenced to death 30 academics and political figures. The 30 men will appeal
their sentence. Six other people also on trial were acquitted.
Amongst those sentenced to death is Youssef al-Bawab, a 45-year-old father of
five, linguistics professor and political figure, who was arbitrarily arrested
in late 2016. He was charged in April 2017, alongside 35 others, with several
offences carrying the death penalty. Throughout his detention, proceedings
against him and others in the same case were seriously flawed, and included
enforced disappearance, excessive pre-trial detention, undue delays in his
trial, incommunicado detention, claims of torture and other ill-treatment and
lack of access to legal counsel and medical care.
During one of the trial sessions on 2 April 2019, Youssef al-Bawab stated how
he and others had been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment throughout
their detention at the Political Security Office (PSO) in Sana’a, including
beatings, being hung from the ceilings and tied up using iron chains. The court
did not respond to Youssef’s statement and the judge failed to order an
investigation into these claims.
I urge you to ensure that the death sentences against Youssef al-Bawab and the
29 other men are quashed and that they are immediately released, as they are
being punished solely for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of
expression. In the meantime, I urge you to ensure that they are protected from
torture and other ill-treatment, granted access to adequate medical treatment
and regular access to their lawyer and family.
Yours sincerely,
(source: Amnesty International USA)
_______________________________________________
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
