Source: Al Jazeera (30 November 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/30/singapore-tightens-rules-on-death-penalty-appeals
Singapore has passed new legislation to tighten rules surrounding last-minute legal appeals against executions.
The Post-Appeal Applications in Capital Cases Bill, adopted on Tuesday, was drafted in response to a series of cases in recent years where condemned prisoners have filed legal applications after exhausting the appeal and clemency process.
“The amendments will provide greater clarity and guidance on the process and considerations which PACPs [prisoner awaiting capital punishment] and their counsel should have regard to when making post-appeal applications,” senior parliamentary secretary for law and ruling party member Rahayu Mahzam told parliament as she presented the bill. “The amendments also do not affect access to justice. PACPs are not prevented from filing their applications and ventilating their arguments in court.”
The new law says a convicted prisoner can only take post-appeal and clemency actions with the permission of the Court of Appeal, and that applications can only be filed if the prisoner has “new relevant evidence” that they could not have presented earlier.
Among the other measures, the Court of Appeal will be the only court empowered to grant a stay of execution.
“Singapore seems to be more interested in preserving the perceived sanctity of their courts than ensuring people facing death have every opportunity to appeal their sentence,” Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch told Al Jazeera. “For such a grievous, rights violating penalties like capital punishment, Singapore should be bending over backwards to facilitate appeals rather than trying to chop off death row prisoners’ last chance at justice.”
Singapore resumed hangings after the coronavirus pandemic, attracting global attention over its execution of 33-year-old Malaysian Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, whose lawyers and family fought to the last minute to stop his hanging.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the legal efforts to save the life of Nagaenthran, who had been convicted of drug trafficking, describing them as a “blatant and egregious abuse” of the legal process and adding that it was “improper to engage in or encourage last ditch attempts” to delay or stop an execution.
At least 10 people have been hanged in Singapore this year, and about 60 people are on death row, according to the Transformative Justice Collective, a Singapore activist group calling for an immediate moratorium.
Most of those facing the death penalty in the country of 5.5 million have been convicted for drug offences, with people carrying more than a tiny amount of a substance such as heroin presumed to be trafficking.
“Under international law, States that have not yet abolished the death penalty may only impose it for the ‘most serious crimes’, involving intentional killing,” a group of United Nations experts said in July. “Drug offences clearly do not meet this threshold.”
Singapore’s government says capital punishment saves lives because it deters drug crime, and has the support of the majority of the population.
Showing posts with label appeal process. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appeal process. Show all posts
Sunday, 11 December 2022
Tuesday, 15 March 2022
The Singapore lawyer who defends those facing the gallows
Source: Al Jazeera (7 March 2022)
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/7/death-penalty-the-singapore-lawyer
Singapore is known for being tough on crime, with some of the harshest punishments in the world, including a mandatory death sentence for certain offences, including drug-related crimes.
One lawyer, M Ravi, has been taking on the state in high-profile cases for decades.
Ravi has been diagnosed as bipolar and is currently suspended from practising law on mental health grounds, but he has been heavily involved in the case of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian man with a learning disability found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to death.
A last-minute appeal that attracted worldwide attention gave Nagaenthran a reprieve, and he contracted COVID-19 in November of last year, further delaying the process.
Singapore’s Court of Appeal heard his case on March 1, and has reserved judgement until an undisclosed date.
Ravi spoke to Al Jazeera about why he takes on such challenging cases. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Al Jazeera: You are one of the few lawyers involved in the defence of people facing the death penalty. Why do you take on such cases?
M Ravi: My original focus was mainly commercial and corporate cases, looking at intellectual property, technology, that kind of stuff.
In 2003, when a Malaysian boy Vignes Mourthi was facing the death penalty [for smuggling 27 grams of heroin into the country], I mounted a last-minute constitutional challenge at the request of the former opposition leader in Singapore, Mr J B Jeyaretnam. He’s almost like a Nelson Mandela of Singapore.
On the eve of the execution, I asked the then Chief Justice if we could reopen this case. He said that the case had run its course and there was little I could do.
I then asked [that] if I could show that he was innocent, would Mourthi still be hanged? He said yes. That was a horrifying statement. I saw the way the poor and the oppressed were being treated. It brought me to fight against the death penalty in Singapore.
Al Jazeera: The Law Society of Singapore has suspended you from practising law on psychiatric grounds following your diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What has happened?
M Ravi: As I was preparing to argue Nagaenthran’s appeal, my doctor said suddenly that I am unwell. And that’s it, the Law Society said I have to stop as the doctor found that I am unwell.
I’m still doing work, preparing bundles of papers. If I don’t do that, Nagaenthran will be in the gallows.
The psychiatrists that have spoken to me from around the world, and other people I have spoken to, said that I don’t need treatment and just need rest.
Of course I am frustrated. I was originally told by my doctor that I can still argue Nagaenthran’s case and my MC [medical note] should end on January 13. Then he extended it to March 13. And the court is not going to wait, the Attorney General is pressing that Nagaenthran’s case should go ahead and be rushed through.
Al Jazeera: What other challenges do you face when taking on these difficult cases, going up against the Singapore state?
M Ravi: The Law Society and the Attorney General have applied to the Court of Appeal to suspend me from practice – or even strike me off.
That’s because of a case in 2020, the case of Gobi Avedian. He was supposed to be executed, but I managed to stop it.
The authorities are extremely frustrated because I frustrated their scheme of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that this is the first miscarriage of justice case in Singapore.
In this case, the Court of Appeal said we have made a mistake. The question I asked the Attorney General is ‘What if I had not come to practice law in this case?’ Gobi would have been gone. I criticised the entire administration of the death penalty.
Then there is the media. They constantly say that I am mad. There is psychological harassment about my psychiatric condition.
Al Jazeera: Will Singapore ever get rid of the death penalty?
M Ravi: It will. Just look at the case of Yong Vui Kong. He was only 19 when he was caught [trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2007].
This boy was supposed to be executed and, on the eve of the execution, I filed to stop it.
It took three, four years, but finally the law was amended [Yong was spared]. The law now gives judges some discretion.
So there is a precursor to tell us that things can change. Singapore is ripe to repeal the death penalty, most countries in the Southeast Asia region don’t practise it. Philippines is a no, Myanmar no, Thailand no, Indonesia yes but still slow.
And now we have Richard Branson taking them on and telling other rich people about it.
I think they have no choice but to get rid of it.
Al Jazeera: How confident are you and your team of Nagaenthran’s appeal?
M Ravi: It’s a humungous amount of work. There are five Deputy Public Prosecutors, they are all at the top. Singapore finds a lot of resources to kill people.
I think I will be able to win. Five judges are [hearing] the case. If it’s a shut case and not serious and open, they wouldn’t even come.
Secondly, psychiatric prison experts from the UK and Australia have given their expert opinion to say that the methods used by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore are backwards. The tests are all wrong. The manner in which they are administered are very childish.
Singapore is known for being tough on crime, with some of the harshest punishments in the world, including a mandatory death sentence for certain offences, including drug-related crimes.
One lawyer, M Ravi, has been taking on the state in high-profile cases for decades.
Ravi has been diagnosed as bipolar and is currently suspended from practising law on mental health grounds, but he has been heavily involved in the case of Nagaenthran Dharmalingam, a Malaysian man with a learning disability found guilty of drug offences and sentenced to death.
A last-minute appeal that attracted worldwide attention gave Nagaenthran a reprieve, and he contracted COVID-19 in November of last year, further delaying the process.
Singapore’s Court of Appeal heard his case on March 1, and has reserved judgement until an undisclosed date.
Ravi spoke to Al Jazeera about why he takes on such challenging cases. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Al Jazeera: You are one of the few lawyers involved in the defence of people facing the death penalty. Why do you take on such cases?
M Ravi: My original focus was mainly commercial and corporate cases, looking at intellectual property, technology, that kind of stuff.
In 2003, when a Malaysian boy Vignes Mourthi was facing the death penalty [for smuggling 27 grams of heroin into the country], I mounted a last-minute constitutional challenge at the request of the former opposition leader in Singapore, Mr J B Jeyaretnam. He’s almost like a Nelson Mandela of Singapore.
On the eve of the execution, I asked the then Chief Justice if we could reopen this case. He said that the case had run its course and there was little I could do.
I then asked [that] if I could show that he was innocent, would Mourthi still be hanged? He said yes. That was a horrifying statement. I saw the way the poor and the oppressed were being treated. It brought me to fight against the death penalty in Singapore.
Al Jazeera: The Law Society of Singapore has suspended you from practising law on psychiatric grounds following your diagnosis of bipolar disorder. What has happened?
M Ravi: As I was preparing to argue Nagaenthran’s appeal, my doctor said suddenly that I am unwell. And that’s it, the Law Society said I have to stop as the doctor found that I am unwell.
I’m still doing work, preparing bundles of papers. If I don’t do that, Nagaenthran will be in the gallows.
The psychiatrists that have spoken to me from around the world, and other people I have spoken to, said that I don’t need treatment and just need rest.
Of course I am frustrated. I was originally told by my doctor that I can still argue Nagaenthran’s case and my MC [medical note] should end on January 13. Then he extended it to March 13. And the court is not going to wait, the Attorney General is pressing that Nagaenthran’s case should go ahead and be rushed through.
Al Jazeera: What other challenges do you face when taking on these difficult cases, going up against the Singapore state?
M Ravi: The Law Society and the Attorney General have applied to the Court of Appeal to suspend me from practice – or even strike me off.
That’s because of a case in 2020, the case of Gobi Avedian. He was supposed to be executed, but I managed to stop it.
The authorities are extremely frustrated because I frustrated their scheme of the death penalty. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that this is the first miscarriage of justice case in Singapore.
In this case, the Court of Appeal said we have made a mistake. The question I asked the Attorney General is ‘What if I had not come to practice law in this case?’ Gobi would have been gone. I criticised the entire administration of the death penalty.
Then there is the media. They constantly say that I am mad. There is psychological harassment about my psychiatric condition.
Al Jazeera: Will Singapore ever get rid of the death penalty?
M Ravi: It will. Just look at the case of Yong Vui Kong. He was only 19 when he was caught [trafficking heroin into Singapore in 2007].
This boy was supposed to be executed and, on the eve of the execution, I filed to stop it.
It took three, four years, but finally the law was amended [Yong was spared]. The law now gives judges some discretion.
So there is a precursor to tell us that things can change. Singapore is ripe to repeal the death penalty, most countries in the Southeast Asia region don’t practise it. Philippines is a no, Myanmar no, Thailand no, Indonesia yes but still slow.
And now we have Richard Branson taking them on and telling other rich people about it.
I think they have no choice but to get rid of it.
Al Jazeera: How confident are you and your team of Nagaenthran’s appeal?
M Ravi: It’s a humungous amount of work. There are five Deputy Public Prosecutors, they are all at the top. Singapore finds a lot of resources to kill people.
I think I will be able to win. Five judges are [hearing] the case. If it’s a shut case and not serious and open, they wouldn’t even come.
Secondly, psychiatric prison experts from the UK and Australia have given their expert opinion to say that the methods used by the Institute of Mental Health in Singapore are backwards. The tests are all wrong. The manner in which they are administered are very childish.
Monday, 4 February 2019
India: 2018 saw highest death penalties since 2000
Source: Anadolu Agency (25 January 2019)
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/india-2018-saw-highest-death-penalties-since-2000/1374594
In nearly two decades, Indian courts awarded highest number of death penalties last year, a new report has found.
According to The Indian Express, a local daily, the report -- Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2018 -- released by New Delhi-based National Law University said that courts pronounced 162 death sentences in 2018 which are highest in a year since 2000.
India is one of the countries where awarding capital punishment is legal. In 2017, Indian courts had pronounced capital punishment to 108 persons.
The daily noted that rise in death penalties could be a result of an amended law, under which the capital punishment can be given to those convicted of rape and gang rape of girls below the age of 12.
On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old student was brutally assaulted with iron rods and gangraped in a private bus in the capital New Delhi -- a horrific crime that roused anger in India. The then government set up a panel which suggested changes in Indian Panel Code (IPC), which were subsequently adopted by Indian Parliament in August 2018.
According to the report, eight of 29 Indian states -- Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura -- did not award any death sentence during this period.
The report notes that most of the death penalties were awarded by trial courts which can be challenged in Supreme Court of India.
Last year, the Supreme Court had commuted death sentences to life imprisonment in 11 of the 12 cases it heard, the daily noted.
The spike in capital punishment has triggered a debate in India.
Rebecca John, an Indian lawyer, told The Wire, a local news website: “This scheme is a serious abnegation of all constitutional principles settled over decades by courts of law, and poses a direct threat to the fundamental right to life and liberty.”
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/india-2018-saw-highest-death-penalties-since-2000/1374594
In nearly two decades, Indian courts awarded highest number of death penalties last year, a new report has found.
According to The Indian Express, a local daily, the report -- Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2018 -- released by New Delhi-based National Law University said that courts pronounced 162 death sentences in 2018 which are highest in a year since 2000.
India is one of the countries where awarding capital punishment is legal. In 2017, Indian courts had pronounced capital punishment to 108 persons.
The daily noted that rise in death penalties could be a result of an amended law, under which the capital punishment can be given to those convicted of rape and gang rape of girls below the age of 12.
On December 16, 2012, a 23-year-old student was brutally assaulted with iron rods and gangraped in a private bus in the capital New Delhi -- a horrific crime that roused anger in India. The then government set up a panel which suggested changes in Indian Panel Code (IPC), which were subsequently adopted by Indian Parliament in August 2018.
According to the report, eight of 29 Indian states -- Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Jammu and Kashmir, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, and Tripura -- did not award any death sentence during this period.
The report notes that most of the death penalties were awarded by trial courts which can be challenged in Supreme Court of India.
Last year, the Supreme Court had commuted death sentences to life imprisonment in 11 of the 12 cases it heard, the daily noted.
The spike in capital punishment has triggered a debate in India.
Rebecca John, an Indian lawyer, told The Wire, a local news website: “This scheme is a serious abnegation of all constitutional principles settled over decades by courts of law, and poses a direct threat to the fundamental right to life and liberty.”
Saturday, 27 November 2010
China claims one tenth overturned
China: 10 percent of death sentences overturned
Fri, Nov 26, 2010
From: China Daily/Asia News Network
Beijing - China's top court has overturned, on average, 10 percent of all death sentences nationwide since 2007 when it took back the right of final review from lower courts, a senior court official said.
Hu Yunteng, head of the research department under the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said regaining the review "played an obvious role" in reducing the number of executions.
"It has ensured that the death penalty can only be applied for the most serious crimes," he told China Daily.
But Hu declined to specify the number of death sentences carried out each year.
In 1981, to tackle rising crime, the highest court granted provincial courts the authority to pass death sentences.
The practice, widely criticized following reports of miscarriages of justice, ended on Jan 1, 2007, when the SPC was again given the sole power to review and ratify death sentences.
Hu said death sentences were overturned mostly for lack of evidence, procedural flaws or for an inappropriate penalty.
"The SPC will not tolerate any mistakes regarding evidence or procedure and will thoroughly investigate" questionable judgments, he said, adding that the quality of local courts' handling of death penalty cases is improving.
"We must make sure the use of the death sentence is accurate and free of mistakes to respect and protect the convicts and their rights."
Earlier, Zhang Jun, SPC vice-president, told judicial departments to only impose a death penalty for the most heinous crimes.
The SPC also increased its criminal tribunals from two to five to better examine all death sentences passed, Hu said.
The SPC also ordered that all cases that carried a possible death penalty must be heard at a court session, with the defendant or defendants in attendance, he added.
The move "prevents unjust, false or invalid cases on the one hand and, on the other hand, respects the rights of defendants", he said.
About 90 percent of death sentences passed are for serious crimes ranging from intentional homicide, robbery, serious injury, rape, drug trafficking to kidnapping, according to Hu.
In August, the National People's Congress, the top legislature, dropped the death penalty for 13 economy related, non-violent crimes in the latest amendment to the country's Criminal Law.
Hu said the SPC "strongly supports" the move as it has sent "a positive signal for strictly controlling the imposition of a death penalty".
Despite these moves, he said, the final review still faces challenges, including the use of torture as well as poor standards among some rural judges.
In one of the country's most notorious forced-confession cases, Zhao Zuohai, after serving 11 years in prison, was released in early May after the man he was alleged to have murdered turned up alive.
The Henan farmer said the police tortured him into making a confession.
Zhao Bingzhi, head of the criminal law research committee under the China Law Society, said it's essential for the SPC to classify and summarize cases where the death penalty has been overturned and then release them to guide lower courts.
"What's more, the SPC should go beyond only examining evidence, and establish rules to better define serious crimes where the death penalty is applicable to ensure its appropriate use," he said.
-China Daily/Asia News Network
Fri, Nov 26, 2010
From: China Daily/Asia News Network
Beijing - China's top court has overturned, on average, 10 percent of all death sentences nationwide since 2007 when it took back the right of final review from lower courts, a senior court official said.
Hu Yunteng, head of the research department under the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said regaining the review "played an obvious role" in reducing the number of executions.
"It has ensured that the death penalty can only be applied for the most serious crimes," he told China Daily.
But Hu declined to specify the number of death sentences carried out each year.
In 1981, to tackle rising crime, the highest court granted provincial courts the authority to pass death sentences.
The practice, widely criticized following reports of miscarriages of justice, ended on Jan 1, 2007, when the SPC was again given the sole power to review and ratify death sentences.
Hu said death sentences were overturned mostly for lack of evidence, procedural flaws or for an inappropriate penalty.
"The SPC will not tolerate any mistakes regarding evidence or procedure and will thoroughly investigate" questionable judgments, he said, adding that the quality of local courts' handling of death penalty cases is improving.
"We must make sure the use of the death sentence is accurate and free of mistakes to respect and protect the convicts and their rights."
Earlier, Zhang Jun, SPC vice-president, told judicial departments to only impose a death penalty for the most heinous crimes.
The SPC also increased its criminal tribunals from two to five to better examine all death sentences passed, Hu said.
The SPC also ordered that all cases that carried a possible death penalty must be heard at a court session, with the defendant or defendants in attendance, he added.
The move "prevents unjust, false or invalid cases on the one hand and, on the other hand, respects the rights of defendants", he said.
About 90 percent of death sentences passed are for serious crimes ranging from intentional homicide, robbery, serious injury, rape, drug trafficking to kidnapping, according to Hu.
In August, the National People's Congress, the top legislature, dropped the death penalty for 13 economy related, non-violent crimes in the latest amendment to the country's Criminal Law.
Hu said the SPC "strongly supports" the move as it has sent "a positive signal for strictly controlling the imposition of a death penalty".
Despite these moves, he said, the final review still faces challenges, including the use of torture as well as poor standards among some rural judges.
In one of the country's most notorious forced-confession cases, Zhao Zuohai, after serving 11 years in prison, was released in early May after the man he was alleged to have murdered turned up alive.
The Henan farmer said the police tortured him into making a confession.
Zhao Bingzhi, head of the criminal law research committee under the China Law Society, said it's essential for the SPC to classify and summarize cases where the death penalty has been overturned and then release them to guide lower courts.
"What's more, the SPC should go beyond only examining evidence, and establish rules to better define serious crimes where the death penalty is applicable to ensure its appropriate use," he said.
-China Daily/Asia News Network
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Indonesia: Bali prosecutors claim deterrence
Push for Bali nine execution
Tom Allard DENPASAR
November 20, 2010
From: The Sydney Morning Herald online
INDONESIAN prosecutors yesterday urged that the Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran be executed, saying the punishment was just, supported by the Indonesian people and would act as a deterrent.
The prosecution argument concluded the hearings of the final legal appeal by the members of the so-called Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate against the death penalty.
Chan and Sukumaran, who were not in court, have asked for their sentence to be commuted to a 20-year prison term, citing their rehabilitation in prison and that the crime was not serious enough to warrant the death sentence given Indonesia's recognition of the sanctity of life.
But the prosecutors argued: "Every human has the right to live but upholding this right doesn't mean they are allowed to violate someone else's rights… Sentencing is not only to rehabilitate, but also to deter."
Chan and Sukumaran can expect to hear the verdict in about six months, after the evidence from the Bali hearings has been sent to Jakarta and considered by a panel of judges.
The prosecutors agreed with the defence, that only the most serious crime should receive the death penalty, but said arranging the export of more than eight kilograms of heroin fitted into that category.
The prosecution's assessment was not unexpected. It is required to defend the decision of the previous court and the duo has been consistently handed the death sentence in each court case so far.
In the Australians' favour is that executions have not been carried out in Indonesia in the two years since a Constitutional Court ruling found the punishment should be used sparingly and those on death row should be given the chance to rehabilitate.
Tom Allard DENPASAR
November 20, 2010
From: The Sydney Morning Herald online
INDONESIAN prosecutors yesterday urged that the Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran be executed, saying the punishment was just, supported by the Indonesian people and would act as a deterrent.
The prosecution argument concluded the hearings of the final legal appeal by the members of the so-called Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate against the death penalty.
Chan and Sukumaran, who were not in court, have asked for their sentence to be commuted to a 20-year prison term, citing their rehabilitation in prison and that the crime was not serious enough to warrant the death sentence given Indonesia's recognition of the sanctity of life.
But the prosecutors argued: "Every human has the right to live but upholding this right doesn't mean they are allowed to violate someone else's rights… Sentencing is not only to rehabilitate, but also to deter."
Chan and Sukumaran can expect to hear the verdict in about six months, after the evidence from the Bali hearings has been sent to Jakarta and considered by a panel of judges.
The prosecutors agreed with the defence, that only the most serious crime should receive the death penalty, but said arranging the export of more than eight kilograms of heroin fitted into that category.
The prosecution's assessment was not unexpected. It is required to defend the decision of the previous court and the duo has been consistently handed the death sentence in each court case so far.
In the Australians' favour is that executions have not been carried out in Indonesia in the two years since a Constitutional Court ruling found the punishment should be used sparingly and those on death row should be given the chance to rehabilitate.
Indonesia: Bali prosecutors argue for death
Prosecutors urge death penalty for Bali 9 ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
From: AAP (in The Australian online)
November 19, 2010 4:45PM
INDONESIAN prosecutors have called on the country's supreme court to uphold the death sentences of Bali Nine ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Prosecutor Siti Sawiyah said today that death by firing squad was the appropriate punishment for the Sydney drug traffickers and that their final appeal - known as a judicial review - should be thrown out of court.
"These man have committed a crime that was organised, with a neatly arranged plan, it was orderly and secretive," Ms Sawiyah told the Denpasar District Court.
"The Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta, which will examine this case should ... reject the judicial review."
Fellow prosecutor Ida Ayu Sulasmi said the death penalty was necessary to deter others from committing similar crimes.
"The Indonesian people and society, especially the people of Bali, consider Bali a tourist destination and illegal distribution of narcotics is a serious threat that could alter the image of Bali tourism," she said.
Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were two of nine Australians convicted over a 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.
Their judicial review seeks to have their death sentences reduced to 20 years' prison.
Appeal hearings have been held in the Denpasar court, but the case will now be sent to the supreme court for a verdict.
The appeal rests in large part on evidence the men have been successfully rehabilitated and are now role models inside prison.
It also argues previous rulings against the men erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs, even though they were caught before exportation actually occurred.
If the appeal fails, the pair will be forced to seek clemency from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who generally takes a dim view of drug smugglers.Fellow Bali Nine death row inmate Scott Rush's judicial review is also currently before the supreme court.
Five other members of the drug smuggling plot - Martin Stephens, Matthew Norman, Michael Czugaj, Si Yi Chen and Tan Duc Than Nguyen - are serving life sentences.
The final member of the drug ring, courier Renae Lawrence, is serving a 20-year sentence.
From: AAP (in The Australian online)
November 19, 2010 4:45PM
INDONESIAN prosecutors have called on the country's supreme court to uphold the death sentences of Bali Nine ringleaders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Prosecutor Siti Sawiyah said today that death by firing squad was the appropriate punishment for the Sydney drug traffickers and that their final appeal - known as a judicial review - should be thrown out of court.
"These man have committed a crime that was organised, with a neatly arranged plan, it was orderly and secretive," Ms Sawiyah told the Denpasar District Court.
"The Indonesian Supreme Court in Jakarta, which will examine this case should ... reject the judicial review."
Fellow prosecutor Ida Ayu Sulasmi said the death penalty was necessary to deter others from committing similar crimes.
"The Indonesian people and society, especially the people of Bali, consider Bali a tourist destination and illegal distribution of narcotics is a serious threat that could alter the image of Bali tourism," she said.
Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were two of nine Australians convicted over a 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.
Their judicial review seeks to have their death sentences reduced to 20 years' prison.
Appeal hearings have been held in the Denpasar court, but the case will now be sent to the supreme court for a verdict.
The appeal rests in large part on evidence the men have been successfully rehabilitated and are now role models inside prison.
It also argues previous rulings against the men erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs, even though they were caught before exportation actually occurred.
If the appeal fails, the pair will be forced to seek clemency from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who generally takes a dim view of drug smugglers.Fellow Bali Nine death row inmate Scott Rush's judicial review is also currently before the supreme court.
Five other members of the drug smuggling plot - Martin Stephens, Matthew Norman, Michael Czugaj, Si Yi Chen and Tan Duc Than Nguyen - are serving life sentences.
The final member of the drug ring, courier Renae Lawrence, is serving a 20-year sentence.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Indonesia: Australian police appeal for mercy
Aussie Cops Seek Mercy for Bali 9 Drug Smuggler
Made Arya Kencana & AFP
September 16, 2010
From: The Jakarta Globe
Denpasar. The former Australian Federal Police commissioner who passed on intelligence to Indonesian police that helped doom the so-called Bali Nine drug smugglers, asked a court here on Thursday to spare the life of one of the smugglers.
Testifying at the appeal of 24-year-old Scott Rush, Mick Keelty, the former AFP commissioner, told the court that Rush was a "small-time player" and did not deserve his sentence of death by firing squad.
"His [Rush's] role was minimal. He was a courier," Keelty said during the hearing at the Denpasar District Court.
Keelty told the court that as the AFP's top-ranking officer in 2005, he had given the green light on two occasions for information to be passed on to his Indonesian counterparts about the nine Australians who conspired to smuggle 8.2 kilograms of heroin from Bali into Australia.
The Australian, a daily newspaper, reported in August that the AFP asked the Indonesian police in April 2005 to "attempt to keep the group under surveillance, identify the source of the drugs and obtain as much evidence and intelligence as possible to help the AFP nail the organizers in Australia."
The newspaper also reported that four days later, the AFP sent Indonesian authorities another letter containing the "dates, times and flight details of the Bali Nine's return to Australia."
Keelty told the court that the AFP, which was tipped off about the plan by a lawyer working for Rush's father, included intelligence on Rush's "minimal role" and his young age at the time of the foiled drug run.
Rush, whose original life sentence was changed to death on appeal by prosecutors, was 19 years old when he was caught with heroin strapped to his body at Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport.
"This young man had just gone to Indonesia for the first time. In fact, it was the very first time he ever got out of Australia," Keelty told the court.
Michael Phelan, the current AFP deputy commissioner, told the court that Rush did not have a criminal record in Australia and because it was his first drug offense he would face "less than 10 years" if convicted of the same crime at home.
The hearing was adjourned until Sept. 26.
Rush was not in court on Thursday but last month he publicly apologized to the court and begged for forgiveness. Two other Bali Nine members, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, have also launched appeals against their death sentences.
Made Arya Kencana & AFP
September 16, 2010
From: The Jakarta Globe
Denpasar. The former Australian Federal Police commissioner who passed on intelligence to Indonesian police that helped doom the so-called Bali Nine drug smugglers, asked a court here on Thursday to spare the life of one of the smugglers.
Testifying at the appeal of 24-year-old Scott Rush, Mick Keelty, the former AFP commissioner, told the court that Rush was a "small-time player" and did not deserve his sentence of death by firing squad.
"His [Rush's] role was minimal. He was a courier," Keelty said during the hearing at the Denpasar District Court.
Keelty told the court that as the AFP's top-ranking officer in 2005, he had given the green light on two occasions for information to be passed on to his Indonesian counterparts about the nine Australians who conspired to smuggle 8.2 kilograms of heroin from Bali into Australia.
The Australian, a daily newspaper, reported in August that the AFP asked the Indonesian police in April 2005 to "attempt to keep the group under surveillance, identify the source of the drugs and obtain as much evidence and intelligence as possible to help the AFP nail the organizers in Australia."
The newspaper also reported that four days later, the AFP sent Indonesian authorities another letter containing the "dates, times and flight details of the Bali Nine's return to Australia."
Keelty told the court that the AFP, which was tipped off about the plan by a lawyer working for Rush's father, included intelligence on Rush's "minimal role" and his young age at the time of the foiled drug run.
Rush, whose original life sentence was changed to death on appeal by prosecutors, was 19 years old when he was caught with heroin strapped to his body at Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport.
"This young man had just gone to Indonesia for the first time. In fact, it was the very first time he ever got out of Australia," Keelty told the court.
Michael Phelan, the current AFP deputy commissioner, told the court that Rush did not have a criminal record in Australia and because it was his first drug offense he would face "less than 10 years" if convicted of the same crime at home.
The hearing was adjourned until Sept. 26.
Rush was not in court on Thursday but last month he publicly apologized to the court and begged for forgiveness. Two other Bali Nine members, Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, have also launched appeals against their death sentences.
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Bali appeals with Indonesian court
Two Bali Nine convicts lodge death sentence appeals
Desy Nurhayati, The Jakarta Post, Denpasar
Sat, 08/14/2010 9:46 AM
Two Australian drug convicts on death row have formally launched final appeals on Friday, seeking to have their sentences commuted to 20 years in prison.
Attorneys for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, members of the so-called "Bali Nine" syndicate of heroin smugglers, lodged the appeal to the Supreme Court via the Denpasar District Court.
Attorneys Todung Mulya Lubis said the appeal was not filed on the basis of new evidence, but due to a misapplication of the law by the judges.
"We filed the appeal as we consider this case violates the right to life. It is a basic right guaranteed in our Constitution," he said, adding that the death sentence would not discourage people from committing crimes and violated human rights.
He said that according to the UN, the death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious crimes, which excludes drug-related crimes.
"It's true they should be punished, but they don't deserve the death penalty. We are seeking to have it reduced to a 20-year prison term."
Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were convicted for an attempt in 2005 to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.
In the appeal, both argue that they had been successfully rehabilitated and were now teachers and role models for fellow inmates at Kerobokan Prison.
"The judges should take into consideration that both convicts have changed a lot. They teach their fellow inmates skills such as operating computers and painting."
The appeal also argues that previous rulings against the pair erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs. It said the pair should have been given more lenient sentences because while they attempted to export the drugs, they did not succeed in doing so.
"Technically speaking, there was no export of the drugs. An attempt to export is not the same as exporting," Todung said. attorneys Nyoman Sudiantara said the pair’s legal team would request that both men be present at the appeals hearing.
Four witnesses will be called to testify at fresh hearings, likely to begin next month. They a prominent Australian psychologist from Monash University Paul Mullen, prominent Ireland-based human rights law expert William Schabas, Kerobokan Prison head Siswanto and former Indonesian Supreme Court justice Yahya Harahap.
Chan and Sukumaran are launching their appeal less than a month after fellow death row inmate Scott Anthony Rush launched his own. If this final appeal fails, the three men will be left with one last chance to avoid the death sentence — clemency from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Five other members of the drug smuggling plot are serving life sentences in Bali’s Kerobokan Prison.
Of the remaining two, Martin Stephens’ judicial review is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, while courier Renae Lawrence is serving a 20-year prison sentence.
Desy Nurhayati, The Jakarta Post, Denpasar
Sat, 08/14/2010 9:46 AM
Two Australian drug convicts on death row have formally launched final appeals on Friday, seeking to have their sentences commuted to 20 years in prison.
Attorneys for Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, members of the so-called "Bali Nine" syndicate of heroin smugglers, lodged the appeal to the Supreme Court via the Denpasar District Court.
Attorneys Todung Mulya Lubis said the appeal was not filed on the basis of new evidence, but due to a misapplication of the law by the judges.
"We filed the appeal as we consider this case violates the right to life. It is a basic right guaranteed in our Constitution," he said, adding that the death sentence would not discourage people from committing crimes and violated human rights.
He said that according to the UN, the death penalty should only be imposed for the most serious crimes, which excludes drug-related crimes.
"It's true they should be punished, but they don't deserve the death penalty. We are seeking to have it reduced to a 20-year prison term."
Chan, 26, and Sukumaran, 29, were convicted for an attempt in 2005 to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.
In the appeal, both argue that they had been successfully rehabilitated and were now teachers and role models for fellow inmates at Kerobokan Prison.
"The judges should take into consideration that both convicts have changed a lot. They teach their fellow inmates skills such as operating computers and painting."
The appeal also argues that previous rulings against the pair erred by finding them guilty of exporting drugs. It said the pair should have been given more lenient sentences because while they attempted to export the drugs, they did not succeed in doing so.
"Technically speaking, there was no export of the drugs. An attempt to export is not the same as exporting," Todung said. attorneys Nyoman Sudiantara said the pair’s legal team would request that both men be present at the appeals hearing.
Four witnesses will be called to testify at fresh hearings, likely to begin next month. They a prominent Australian psychologist from Monash University Paul Mullen, prominent Ireland-based human rights law expert William Schabas, Kerobokan Prison head Siswanto and former Indonesian Supreme Court justice Yahya Harahap.
Chan and Sukumaran are launching their appeal less than a month after fellow death row inmate Scott Anthony Rush launched his own. If this final appeal fails, the three men will be left with one last chance to avoid the death sentence — clemency from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
Five other members of the drug smuggling plot are serving life sentences in Bali’s Kerobokan Prison.
Of the remaining two, Martin Stephens’ judicial review is currently being considered by the Supreme Court, while courier Renae Lawrence is serving a 20-year prison sentence.
Friday, 13 August 2010
Indonesia: remorse appeal for life
Bali nine pair admit guilt in bid to avoid firing squad
Tom Allard
From: The Sydney Morning Herald
August 13, 2010
Sydneysiders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have, for the first time, admitted their role in the Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate, but asked to be handed a 20-year prison term as they launch their final judicial appeals to avoid the firing squad.
The admission of guilt, contained in documents submitted to a Denpasar court today, follows repeated pleas of not guilty at three previous trials.
The two were arrested with seven other Australians in 2005 for trying to smuggle eight kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.
Chan and Sukumaran were found guilty of smuggling the drugs and sentenced to death at the three other trials, accused of being the ringleaders of the plot.
The appeal requests the Indonesian Supreme Court consider their efforts to rehabilitate themselves and take on leadership roles in Kerobokan prison by training other prisoners in skills to prepare them for life outside the prison walls.
Both Chan and Sukumaran acknowledge that what they did had been harmful to the community and themselves, but that they had vowed to be "better" men.
Their court submissions argue both have "changed radically" since being imprisoned.
As for their lack of previous co-operation with authorities, Chan and Sukumaran apologise and put it down to an "inability to think clearly".
Sukumaran's submission argues he was traumatised by the arrest in a foreign country and had "poor advice from a certain party".
As required by law, the judicial review is based on legal argument that previous rulings made manifest errors, including not properly considering that the two had been rehabilitated and a finding by Indonesia's constitutional court that the death penalty should only be used sparingly as a "special and alternative punishment".
Sukumaran's submission also argues that Indonesia has signed the UN convention of civil and political rights, a treaty which underpins a body of international law that explicitly rejects the use of the death penalty for narcotics crimes.
Evidence from other members of the Bali nine needs to be treated with caution, it says. It also cites the Indonesian constitution's recognition that all people have a basic right to life.
A key argument is that previous rulings had mistakenly found them guilty of exporting drugs. As the drug mules were arrested before they left Indonesia's customs area at Denpasar airport, the judicial review argues that the act of exporting did not take place.
Rather, they had only attempted to smuggle the heroin to Australia.
"An attempted crime is usually subject to a more lenient sentence compared to one that has been completed. This is because of the consequences that arise differ between the two crimes," the judicial reviews say.
"The narcotics did not reach its users."The fact that the crime was only an "attempt", and that Chan and Sukumaran had made strong efforts, with the assistance of prison officials, to rehabilitate themselves warranted a 20-year sentence, they argue.
The trial of Chan and Sukumaran is likely to begin in a couple of weeks and a verdict handed down before the end of the year.
The other Bali nine member facing the death penalty, Scott Rush, launched his final appeal last month. Rush's first hearing before the court is on Wednesday.
Tom Allard is the Herald's correspondent in Indonesia.
Tom Allard
From: The Sydney Morning Herald
August 13, 2010
Sydneysiders Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran have, for the first time, admitted their role in the Bali nine heroin smuggling syndicate, but asked to be handed a 20-year prison term as they launch their final judicial appeals to avoid the firing squad.
The admission of guilt, contained in documents submitted to a Denpasar court today, follows repeated pleas of not guilty at three previous trials.
The two were arrested with seven other Australians in 2005 for trying to smuggle eight kilograms of heroin from Bali to Australia.
Chan and Sukumaran were found guilty of smuggling the drugs and sentenced to death at the three other trials, accused of being the ringleaders of the plot.
The appeal requests the Indonesian Supreme Court consider their efforts to rehabilitate themselves and take on leadership roles in Kerobokan prison by training other prisoners in skills to prepare them for life outside the prison walls.
Both Chan and Sukumaran acknowledge that what they did had been harmful to the community and themselves, but that they had vowed to be "better" men.
Their court submissions argue both have "changed radically" since being imprisoned.
As for their lack of previous co-operation with authorities, Chan and Sukumaran apologise and put it down to an "inability to think clearly".
Sukumaran's submission argues he was traumatised by the arrest in a foreign country and had "poor advice from a certain party".
As required by law, the judicial review is based on legal argument that previous rulings made manifest errors, including not properly considering that the two had been rehabilitated and a finding by Indonesia's constitutional court that the death penalty should only be used sparingly as a "special and alternative punishment".
Sukumaran's submission also argues that Indonesia has signed the UN convention of civil and political rights, a treaty which underpins a body of international law that explicitly rejects the use of the death penalty for narcotics crimes.
Evidence from other members of the Bali nine needs to be treated with caution, it says. It also cites the Indonesian constitution's recognition that all people have a basic right to life.
A key argument is that previous rulings had mistakenly found them guilty of exporting drugs. As the drug mules were arrested before they left Indonesia's customs area at Denpasar airport, the judicial review argues that the act of exporting did not take place.
Rather, they had only attempted to smuggle the heroin to Australia.
"An attempted crime is usually subject to a more lenient sentence compared to one that has been completed. This is because of the consequences that arise differ between the two crimes," the judicial reviews say.
"The narcotics did not reach its users."The fact that the crime was only an "attempt", and that Chan and Sukumaran had made strong efforts, with the assistance of prison officials, to rehabilitate themselves warranted a 20-year sentence, they argue.
The trial of Chan and Sukumaran is likely to begin in a couple of weeks and a verdict handed down before the end of the year.
The other Bali nine member facing the death penalty, Scott Rush, launched his final appeal last month. Rush's first hearing before the court is on Wednesday.
Tom Allard is the Herald's correspondent in Indonesia.
Monday, 1 February 2010
Indonesia: Legal doubts delay executions
Indonesian Executions Stalled as Judicial-Review Question Languishes Unanswered
From The Jakarta Globe, 31 January, 2010
By Heru Andriyanto
The absence of executions in 2009 was the result not of an intentional moratorium but because the Supreme Court has failed to provide a specific timeframe within which death row inmates are allowed to request a judicial review, the Attorney General’s Office said.
The AGO last year proposed that the top court issue a ruling to limit the period, to prevent inmates from buying time. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.
"There is no ruling from the Supreme Court that provides us legal standing to execute inmates who have yet to take a stance [on whether to ask for a judicial review] within a certain period," AGO spokesman Didiek Darmanto said.
Inmate Gunawan Santosa has exploited the weak point. The Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for Gunawan for hiring Navy officers to kill his father-in-law. Gunawan has notified the AGO he would ask for a judicial review, but has continuously delayed doing so.
"Why should he hurry? There is no law that limits our time to ask for a judicial review so we take our time," said Alamsjah Hanafiah, Gunawan’s lawyer.
Under Indonesian law, after a Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, the death row inmate has two possible extraordinary measures to escape the death sentence — judicial review and presidential pardon.
Requesting a judicial review by the Supreme Court requires the inmate to provide new evidence supporting his innocence. Asking for a presidential pardon must be preceded by an admission to the crime.
Alamsjah said he would refer to the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who also hired someone to murder a Supreme Court judge but was sentenced to just 15 years in prison.
"Many death row inmates don’t use their rights to extraordinary legal options, but at the last minute might request presidential clemency or a judicial review," Didiek said.
"In addition, carrying out the death sentence costs us a huge amount of money," he said.
Last year’s execution hiatus was a sharp contrast to 2008, when the AGO ordered the execution of 10 inmates — a record in the post-Suharto era.
The flurry of executions started after a humiliating bribery scandal rocked the AGO in March 2008. Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
International human rights group Amnesty International noted that the executions in 2008 totaled only one less than the 11 recorded in the "entire preceding decade."
Amnesty International strongly criticized Indonesia for voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions.
According to the AGO, the country has 107 inmates on death row. Including Gunawan, six have been declared ready to face the firing squad.
The five others include drug trafficker Meirika Franola and convicted murderers Bahar bin Matsar, Jurit bin Abdullah, Ibrahim bin Ujang and Suryadi Swabhuana.
The AGO also said six death-row inmates — Irwan Sadawa Hia, Taroni Hia, Dody Marshal, Jufry, alias Muh Dahri, Imran Sinaga and Rambe Hadipah Paulus Purba — had escaped from prison and were at large.
Although no inmate was put to death in 2009, the number of inmates on death row has fallen from 112 last year. Two condemned inmates, Banged Siahaan and Edith Yunita Sianturi, died of natural causes while in custody, and three other inmates had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by the Supreme Court following judicial reviews.
The three were Australian nationals Matthew Norman, Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali Nine. They were arrested in April 2005 for attempting to smuggle heroin out of Bali.
"The death sentence is cruel and inhuman. It fails as a deterrent so we need to take a lesson from other countries who have abolished capital punishment but at the same time successfully reduced crime and corruption," said Usman Hamid, the chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a human rights group.
From The Jakarta Globe, 31 January, 2010
By Heru Andriyanto
The absence of executions in 2009 was the result not of an intentional moratorium but because the Supreme Court has failed to provide a specific timeframe within which death row inmates are allowed to request a judicial review, the Attorney General’s Office said.
The AGO last year proposed that the top court issue a ruling to limit the period, to prevent inmates from buying time. But Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin Tumpa sent the request back to the AGO to let prosecutors decide, with a suggestion that the period be restricted to 180 days.
"There is no ruling from the Supreme Court that provides us legal standing to execute inmates who have yet to take a stance [on whether to ask for a judicial review] within a certain period," AGO spokesman Didiek Darmanto said.
Inmate Gunawan Santosa has exploited the weak point. The Supreme Court has upheld a death sentence for Gunawan for hiring Navy officers to kill his father-in-law. Gunawan has notified the AGO he would ask for a judicial review, but has continuously delayed doing so.
"Why should he hurry? There is no law that limits our time to ask for a judicial review so we take our time," said Alamsjah Hanafiah, Gunawan’s lawyer.
Under Indonesian law, after a Supreme Court has rejected an appeal, the death row inmate has two possible extraordinary measures to escape the death sentence — judicial review and presidential pardon.
Requesting a judicial review by the Supreme Court requires the inmate to provide new evidence supporting his innocence. Asking for a presidential pardon must be preceded by an admission to the crime.
Alamsjah said he would refer to the case of Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, who also hired someone to murder a Supreme Court judge but was sentenced to just 15 years in prison.
"Many death row inmates don’t use their rights to extraordinary legal options, but at the last minute might request presidential clemency or a judicial review," Didiek said.
"In addition, carrying out the death sentence costs us a huge amount of money," he said.
Last year’s execution hiatus was a sharp contrast to 2008, when the AGO ordered the execution of 10 inmates — a record in the post-Suharto era.
The flurry of executions started after a humiliating bribery scandal rocked the AGO in March 2008. Prosecutor Urip Tri Gunawan was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).
International human rights group Amnesty International noted that the executions in 2008 totaled only one less than the 11 recorded in the "entire preceding decade."
Amnesty International strongly criticized Indonesia for voting against a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions.
According to the AGO, the country has 107 inmates on death row. Including Gunawan, six have been declared ready to face the firing squad.
The five others include drug trafficker Meirika Franola and convicted murderers Bahar bin Matsar, Jurit bin Abdullah, Ibrahim bin Ujang and Suryadi Swabhuana.
The AGO also said six death-row inmates — Irwan Sadawa Hia, Taroni Hia, Dody Marshal, Jufry, alias Muh Dahri, Imran Sinaga and Rambe Hadipah Paulus Purba — had escaped from prison and were at large.
Although no inmate was put to death in 2009, the number of inmates on death row has fallen from 112 last year. Two condemned inmates, Banged Siahaan and Edith Yunita Sianturi, died of natural causes while in custody, and three other inmates had their death sentences commuted to life in prison by the Supreme Court following judicial reviews.
The three were Australian nationals Matthew Norman, Thanh Duc Tan Nguyen and Si Yi Chen, members of the so-called Bali Nine. They were arrested in April 2005 for attempting to smuggle heroin out of Bali.
"The death sentence is cruel and inhuman. It fails as a deterrent so we need to take a lesson from other countries who have abolished capital punishment but at the same time successfully reduced crime and corruption," said Usman Hamid, the chairman of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a human rights group.
Bangladesh: Coup executions condemned
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Amnesty International public statement
1 February 2010
Amnesty International condemns last week’s execution in Bangladesh of five men found guilty of killing the country’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Six other men sentenced to death in their absence in the same case are living outside Bangladesh, and the government is seeking their extradition. The execution of these five men will make their extradition highly unlikely. There is a high risk that they, too, might be executed.
Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. According to a United News of Bangladesh (UNB) report, Awami League activists led by a local Awami League leader attacked the house of Aziz Pasha, one of 12 men sentenced to death for killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in Tetra village in Harirampur Upazila in Manikganj on 31 January. Witnesses have told UNB reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house on fire. Aziz Pasha who was sentenced in his absence reportedly died outside Bangladesh but his brother lives in his house. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.
The five who were executed on 28 January were found guilty of the murder by the Supreme Court on 27 January and according to media reports in Bangladesh they were executed shortly after midnight on 28 January 2010, less than twenty four hours after their conviction.
Amnesty International opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions. Amnesty International calls on the government of Bangladesh to ensure transparency about its handling of this case.
In Bangladesh it is standard practice for mercy petitions calling for the commutation of death sentences to be considered by the President after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
However, the President dismissed the mercy petitions of three of the men, before the Supreme Court’s final review of their sentences.
The mercy petition of one of the condemned men was considered after the Supreme Court’s final decision was announced on 27 January, but it was dismissed within hours of it being sent to the President. Lawyers for the man say the speed with which a decision was given for a mercy petition is unprecedented in a death penalty case in the history of Bangladesh.
The fifth man did not submit a mercy petition to the President.
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences against the five men on 27 January. No other judicial remedy was available to the five former army officers convicted of carrying out the killing. Their lawyers say the men’s execution so close to the final judicial review of their sentences is unprecedented in Bangladesh.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members were killed when a group of military officers entered his house and opened fire on them in an attempted coup on August 15th
Acting President Kondaker Mushtaq Ahmed, who took office following the death of Sheik Mujobur Rahman as well as his successor, President Ziaur Rahman, had granted the accused officers immunity from prosecution. The immunity was lifted by Sheikh Hasina when she became Prime Minister in 1996.
The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, bringing people to justice must not in itself violate the human rights of the accused.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
For Immediate Release
1 February 2010
AI Index: ASA 13/003/2010
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Amnesty International public statement
1 February 2010
Amnesty International condemns last week’s execution in Bangladesh of five men found guilty of killing the country’s founding leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Six other men sentenced to death in their absence in the same case are living outside Bangladesh, and the government is seeking their extradition. The execution of these five men will make their extradition highly unlikely. There is a high risk that they, too, might be executed.
Family members of the convicts also live in fear of being attacked by political activists of the ruling Awami League party. According to a United News of Bangladesh (UNB) report, Awami League activists led by a local Awami League leader attacked the house of Aziz Pasha, one of 12 men sentenced to death for killing Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, in Tetra village in Harirampur Upazila in Manikganj on 31 January. Witnesses have told UNB reporters that the attackers looted the valuables and set the house on fire. Aziz Pasha who was sentenced in his absence reportedly died outside Bangladesh but his brother lives in his house. Amnesty International calls on the Government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to establish an impartial and independent investigation into this attack. The government should publicly condemn any such attacks and bring anyone involved to justice.
The five who were executed on 28 January were found guilty of the murder by the Supreme Court on 27 January and according to media reports in Bangladesh they were executed shortly after midnight on 28 January 2010, less than twenty four hours after their conviction.
Amnesty International opposes the execution of these five men, which should never have taken place. The haste in which they were carried out raises serious questions about the timing and procedures for these executions. Amnesty International calls on the government of Bangladesh to ensure transparency about its handling of this case.
In Bangladesh it is standard practice for mercy petitions calling for the commutation of death sentences to be considered by the President after all judicial remedies have been exhausted.
However, the President dismissed the mercy petitions of three of the men, before the Supreme Court’s final review of their sentences.
The mercy petition of one of the condemned men was considered after the Supreme Court’s final decision was announced on 27 January, but it was dismissed within hours of it being sent to the President. Lawyers for the man say the speed with which a decision was given for a mercy petition is unprecedented in a death penalty case in the history of Bangladesh.
The fifth man did not submit a mercy petition to the President.
The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences against the five men on 27 January. No other judicial remedy was available to the five former army officers convicted of carrying out the killing. Their lawyers say the men’s execution so close to the final judicial review of their sentences is unprecedented in Bangladesh.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and most of his family members were killed when a group of military officers entered his house and opened fire on them in an attempted coup on August 15th
Acting President Kondaker Mushtaq Ahmed, who took office following the death of Sheik Mujobur Rahman as well as his successor, President Ziaur Rahman, had granted the accused officers immunity from prosecution. The immunity was lifted by Sheikh Hasina when she became Prime Minister in 1996.
The killing of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and his family members were grave human rights abuses, and those who committed them should be brought to justice. However, bringing people to justice must not in itself violate the human rights of the accused.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or the method used by the state to kill the prisoner.
The death penalty violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
For Immediate Release
1 February 2010
AI Index: ASA 13/003/2010
Bangladesh: Transparency needed over hasty executions and safety of family members must be ensured
Monday, 3 August 2009
China again claims execution decline
Fewer executions expected, top judge says
By Xie Chuanjiao
From China Daily, 29 July 2009
The number of criminal executions will be reduced in China, with the sentence of death penalty with reprieve handed out more often in courts.
Zhang Jun, vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said legislation will be improved to restrict the number of death sentences and the SPC will tighten restrictions on the use of capital punishment.
The sentence of "death penalty with reprieve" would be used more often in courts, Zhang said.
Death penalty with reprieve can be commuted to life in prison and later reduced to 20 years and even lessened further for good behavior.
"As it is impossible for the country to abolish capital punishment under current realities and social security conditions, it is an important effort to strictly control the application of the penalty by judicial organs," Zhang said in an interview with Legal Daily.
"Judicial departments should use the least number of death sentences as possible, and death penalties should not be given to those having a reason for not being executed," Zhang said.
He said the death penalty has had strong support from many people for more than 5,000 years and that the punishment was seen as "an eye for an eye and a life for a life".
The country will retain death sentence, but it should be applied only to "an extremely small number" of serious offenders, he said.
The SPC has been working to ensure that the death sentence is given only to those who have committed extremely serious or heinous crimes that lead to grave social consequences.
Zhang said the highest court exercises extreme caution in handing down the death sentence to those guilty of killing family members or neighbors over disputes.
People who plead guilty, compensate family members of the victims, or are pardoned by the latter are generally given more lenient punishments.
Last week, the SPC overturned a death sentence handed to a man surnamed Shao, who killed his lover when he found out she was having an affair with another man in September 2006.
Shao's crime was judged as serious enough for capital punishment, but the SPC considered the woman was also partly responsible.
Shao had shown regret and compensation was paid to the victim's family, the SPC said.
Moreover the case did not have a major social impact, so the SPC suspended Shao's capital punishment.
In January 2007, the SPC reserved the right to review all death penalty decisions made by lower courts.
Provincial high courts had handled appeals until that point but had been criticized after reports of miscarriage of justice.
With the SPC given the sole power to review and ratify all death sentences, the country is applying fewer death sentences. An average of 15 percent of sentences were overturned in 2007 and 10 percent were overturned in 2008, insiders told China Daily.
Last year a total of 159,020 criminals were sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or more than five years in prison, accounting for 15.8 percent of all criminal sentences.
Related stories:
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China -- 10 March 2009
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
By Xie Chuanjiao
From China Daily, 29 July 2009
The number of criminal executions will be reduced in China, with the sentence of death penalty with reprieve handed out more often in courts.
Zhang Jun, vice-president of the Supreme People's Court (SPC), said legislation will be improved to restrict the number of death sentences and the SPC will tighten restrictions on the use of capital punishment.
The sentence of "death penalty with reprieve" would be used more often in courts, Zhang said.
Death penalty with reprieve can be commuted to life in prison and later reduced to 20 years and even lessened further for good behavior.
"As it is impossible for the country to abolish capital punishment under current realities and social security conditions, it is an important effort to strictly control the application of the penalty by judicial organs," Zhang said in an interview with Legal Daily.
"Judicial departments should use the least number of death sentences as possible, and death penalties should not be given to those having a reason for not being executed," Zhang said.
He said the death penalty has had strong support from many people for more than 5,000 years and that the punishment was seen as "an eye for an eye and a life for a life".
The country will retain death sentence, but it should be applied only to "an extremely small number" of serious offenders, he said.
The SPC has been working to ensure that the death sentence is given only to those who have committed extremely serious or heinous crimes that lead to grave social consequences.
Zhang said the highest court exercises extreme caution in handing down the death sentence to those guilty of killing family members or neighbors over disputes.
People who plead guilty, compensate family members of the victims, or are pardoned by the latter are generally given more lenient punishments.
Last week, the SPC overturned a death sentence handed to a man surnamed Shao, who killed his lover when he found out she was having an affair with another man in September 2006.
Shao's crime was judged as serious enough for capital punishment, but the SPC considered the woman was also partly responsible.
Shao had shown regret and compensation was paid to the victim's family, the SPC said.
Moreover the case did not have a major social impact, so the SPC suspended Shao's capital punishment.
In January 2007, the SPC reserved the right to review all death penalty decisions made by lower courts.
Provincial high courts had handled appeals until that point but had been criticized after reports of miscarriage of justice.
With the SPC given the sole power to review and ratify all death sentences, the country is applying fewer death sentences. An average of 15 percent of sentences were overturned in 2007 and 10 percent were overturned in 2008, insiders told China Daily.
Last year a total of 159,020 criminals were sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or more than five years in prison, accounting for 15.8 percent of all criminal sentences.
Related stories:
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China -- 10 March 2009
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Indonesia: Activists condemn plan to limit appeals
Groups Denounce AGO Plan to Cap Execution Appeals
By Heru Andriyanto
The Jakarta Globe
22 May, 2009
Human rights groups are blasting an Attorney General's Office plan to limit the window of time inmates facing the firing squad would be allowed to lodge a final case review - to 30 days. Under Indonesian law, condemned inmates may request a case review once the Supreme Court rejects their appeal, but they must present new evidence
"It's very unlikely inmates could secure new evidence in only 30 days," said Papang Hidayat, head of research at the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) on Thursday.
"In other words, more and more inmates will be put to death if [the AGO proposal] becomes law."
He said Kontras remains firm in its position that capital punishment should be outlawed. Last year, the state executed 10 inmates convicted of terrorism, drug trafficking and murder. There are 111 inmates currently on death row.
The Supreme Court this year ruled that the AGO could unilaterally set a deadline for case review requests in capital punishment cases, citing as precedent that in civil cases, a review deadline stands at 180 days.
But Abdul Hakim Ritonga, an AGO deputy in charge of judicial killings, said last week that 180 days was too long, and proposed 30 days instead. Abdul leads a five-member AGO team tasked with setting up a new appeals deadline.
Rusdi Marpaung with the human rights group Imparsial said the proposal reflected the AGO’s view that executions were "business as usual."
"I cannot understand why the AGO feels so easy in planning more executions. In our view, the death sentence is against the 1945 Constitution and accordingly must be abolished," Rusdi said.
While abolishing capital punishment appears to be an uphill battle, particularly during an election year, Papang suggested that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, which has executed 19 inmates since 2004, could impose a moratorium on death sentences.
"The most important thing to do is to mend the poor judicial system that is unable to deliver fair justice to death row inmates,” Papang said.
"Just take a look at the fact that many foreign inmates facing the capital punishment were not provided with interpreters in the court," he said. "I think if the legal proceedings were held fairly, many inmates would have escaped capital punishment."
By Heru Andriyanto
The Jakarta Globe
22 May, 2009
Human rights groups are blasting an Attorney General's Office plan to limit the window of time inmates facing the firing squad would be allowed to lodge a final case review - to 30 days. Under Indonesian law, condemned inmates may request a case review once the Supreme Court rejects their appeal, but they must present new evidence
"It's very unlikely inmates could secure new evidence in only 30 days," said Papang Hidayat, head of research at the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) on Thursday.
"In other words, more and more inmates will be put to death if [the AGO proposal] becomes law."
He said Kontras remains firm in its position that capital punishment should be outlawed. Last year, the state executed 10 inmates convicted of terrorism, drug trafficking and murder. There are 111 inmates currently on death row.
The Supreme Court this year ruled that the AGO could unilaterally set a deadline for case review requests in capital punishment cases, citing as precedent that in civil cases, a review deadline stands at 180 days.
But Abdul Hakim Ritonga, an AGO deputy in charge of judicial killings, said last week that 180 days was too long, and proposed 30 days instead. Abdul leads a five-member AGO team tasked with setting up a new appeals deadline.
Rusdi Marpaung with the human rights group Imparsial said the proposal reflected the AGO’s view that executions were "business as usual."
"I cannot understand why the AGO feels so easy in planning more executions. In our view, the death sentence is against the 1945 Constitution and accordingly must be abolished," Rusdi said.
While abolishing capital punishment appears to be an uphill battle, particularly during an election year, Papang suggested that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration, which has executed 19 inmates since 2004, could impose a moratorium on death sentences.
"The most important thing to do is to mend the poor judicial system that is unable to deliver fair justice to death row inmates,” Papang said.
"Just take a look at the fact that many foreign inmates facing the capital punishment were not provided with interpreters in the court," he said. "I think if the legal proceedings were held fairly, many inmates would have escaped capital punishment."
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
DP improvements not for economic crimes: China
The Supreme People's Court (SPC) is attempting to improve consistency in the application of the death penalty in China in cases involving violence, robbery or drug trafficking.
The SPC is developing a guideline to "unify standards" for lower courts, according to a senior judge quoted by state newsagency Xinhua.
The guideline would apply to murder, robbery, abduction, drug trafficking and intentional injury, which the judge said accounted for nearly all death sentences handed down.
"It will include the necessary conditions for handing down the death sentence to those found guilty of any of the five crimes," he said.
"We must unify standards across the county so as to avoid such situations where different sentences are handed down to people found guilty of committing similar crimes."
However the report said the guideline was not expected to apply to cases involving economic crimes.
Xinhua said professor Chen Weidong, from the Renmin University of China, said unifying standards for capital punishment in serious economic cases would be complicated as "the value and harm done by economic crimes differ greatly, and the time is not yet right to set guidelines".
Capital, and punishment
China applies the death penalty to 68 offences, including for non-violent crimes.
A number of high-profile financial scandals have generated debate in China recently over the use, and consistency, of death sentences for economic offences.
Amnesty International (AI) reported an appeal by businesswoman Du Yimin was rejected on 13 January, after she was sentenced to death for illegally raising 700 million yuan (102 million U.S. dollars) in investments in her beauty parlours.
"Du Yimin’s death sentence has caused a debate about consistency in application of the death penalty," AI said.
"The day before she was sentenced to death, an official who used 15.8 billion Yuan of public funds to cover his personal spending was sentenced to fixed term imprisonment."
She was convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds", although her lawyer argued she should have been convicted of the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits", which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 yuan (73,000 U.S. dollars).
She could be executed at any time if her sentence is confirmed by the SPC.
'Reduced', but insufficient evidence
The SPC has claimed it overturned 15 per cent of death sentences in 2007 and the first half of 2008, although the government has consistently failed to release statistics to verify this claim.
Statistics about the use of the death penalty in China are classified as 'state secrets'.
Xinhua reported in June 2008 that the "high rejection rate shows how cautious the judiciary has been with capital punishment after the SPC took back the right to review death sentences from lower courts" from 1 January that year.
The presiding judge of the SPC's Third Criminal Law Court, Gao Jinghong, said at that time that the majority of the death sentences overturned were inappropriate or lacked sufficient evidence.
Xinhua also reported claims in May 2008 that Chinese courts had handed down 30 per cent fewer death sentences in 2007, compared with 2006 figures.
Related stories:
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
The SPC is developing a guideline to "unify standards" for lower courts, according to a senior judge quoted by state newsagency Xinhua.
The guideline would apply to murder, robbery, abduction, drug trafficking and intentional injury, which the judge said accounted for nearly all death sentences handed down.
"It will include the necessary conditions for handing down the death sentence to those found guilty of any of the five crimes," he said.
"We must unify standards across the county so as to avoid such situations where different sentences are handed down to people found guilty of committing similar crimes."
However the report said the guideline was not expected to apply to cases involving economic crimes.
Xinhua said professor Chen Weidong, from the Renmin University of China, said unifying standards for capital punishment in serious economic cases would be complicated as "the value and harm done by economic crimes differ greatly, and the time is not yet right to set guidelines".
Capital, and punishment
China applies the death penalty to 68 offences, including for non-violent crimes.
A number of high-profile financial scandals have generated debate in China recently over the use, and consistency, of death sentences for economic offences.
Amnesty International (AI) reported an appeal by businesswoman Du Yimin was rejected on 13 January, after she was sentenced to death for illegally raising 700 million yuan (102 million U.S. dollars) in investments in her beauty parlours.
"Du Yimin’s death sentence has caused a debate about consistency in application of the death penalty," AI said.
"The day before she was sentenced to death, an official who used 15.8 billion Yuan of public funds to cover his personal spending was sentenced to fixed term imprisonment."
She was convicted of "fraudulent raising of public funds", although her lawyer argued she should have been convicted of the lesser offence of "illegally collecting public deposits", which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 yuan (73,000 U.S. dollars).
She could be executed at any time if her sentence is confirmed by the SPC.
'Reduced', but insufficient evidence
The SPC has claimed it overturned 15 per cent of death sentences in 2007 and the first half of 2008, although the government has consistently failed to release statistics to verify this claim.
Statistics about the use of the death penalty in China are classified as 'state secrets'.
Xinhua reported in June 2008 that the "high rejection rate shows how cautious the judiciary has been with capital punishment after the SPC took back the right to review death sentences from lower courts" from 1 January that year.
The presiding judge of the SPC's Third Criminal Law Court, Gao Jinghong, said at that time that the majority of the death sentences overturned were inappropriate or lacked sufficient evidence.
Xinhua also reported claims in May 2008 that Chinese courts had handed down 30 per cent fewer death sentences in 2007, compared with 2006 figures.
Related stories:
China: Death over milk, but no official answers -- 29 January 2009
China: Executions to preserve order, control -- 12 December 2008
Judge backs harsh sentences: China -- 20 April 2008
Party claims economic penalty 'prudent' -- 4 August, 2007
China: Courts claim fewer executions -- 31 July, 2007
China call for cautious death penalty - again -- 8 April, 2007
China: Judges try to limit death penalty -- 14 November, 2006
China reforms good, but not enough -- 8 November, 2006
China: Supreme Court review from January -- 1 November, 2006
Political questions over China's new appeal judges -- 2 July, 2006
China to retain death penalty, with reforms -- 13 March 2006
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Indonesia: 'Firing squad not torture'
A constitutional challenge to Indonesia's method of execution has failed, with a court ruling the pain of execution by firing squad did not amount to torture.
Lawyers for the three men sentenced to death for the October 2002 Bali bombing argued death by shooting violated the constitution's ban on torture.
But the Constitutional Court yesterday rejected the application to have the executions carried out by another method.
"There is no method of execution without pain," presiding judge Mohammad Mahfud said, according to newsagency AAP.
"The feeling of pain suffered by those convicted of the death penalty is the logical consequence attached to the process of death," The Age reported he said.
Other methods of execution such as beheading, electrocution or lethal injection carried "the risk of inaccuracy in the execution which, in the end, will create pain", but this did not amount to torture under the constitution.
Executions can proceed
The attorney general's office claimed in August that the constitutional challenge was no impediment to the executions being carried out.
But yesterday's decision means the government can have the men shot without claims the legal process had not run its course.
A spokesman for the attorney general said last week the government would announce plans for the executions on Friday (24 October).
Torture claim
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra asked the court to rule the firing squad unconstitutional, instead requesting a method such as lethal injection or beheading, which they have claimed in the past was more "Islamic".
They argued a delay between the shots by a firing squad and their deaths would constitute torture.
Surgeon Jose Rizal told the constitutional court in September that aiming at the heart may not be accurate.
"An accurate shot causes instant death, but it if misses, it takes time to die," he said.
Catholic priest Charlie Burrows told the court he witnessed the execution of two Nigerian drug traffickers in June 2008, when the men took seven minutes to die after they were shot.
"They were moaning again and again for seven minutes," he told said in court. "I think it is cruel, the torture."
Defence lawyer Wirwan Adnan yesterday claimed the court's 76 page decision recommended the government consider other execution methods that could ensure a fast death.
Related stories:
Bali bombers: One week to live? - 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006
Lawyers for the three men sentenced to death for the October 2002 Bali bombing argued death by shooting violated the constitution's ban on torture.
But the Constitutional Court yesterday rejected the application to have the executions carried out by another method.
"There is no method of execution without pain," presiding judge Mohammad Mahfud said, according to newsagency AAP.
"The feeling of pain suffered by those convicted of the death penalty is the logical consequence attached to the process of death," The Age reported he said.
Other methods of execution such as beheading, electrocution or lethal injection carried "the risk of inaccuracy in the execution which, in the end, will create pain", but this did not amount to torture under the constitution.
Executions can proceed
The attorney general's office claimed in August that the constitutional challenge was no impediment to the executions being carried out.
But yesterday's decision means the government can have the men shot without claims the legal process had not run its course.
A spokesman for the attorney general said last week the government would announce plans for the executions on Friday (24 October).
Torture claim
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra asked the court to rule the firing squad unconstitutional, instead requesting a method such as lethal injection or beheading, which they have claimed in the past was more "Islamic".
They argued a delay between the shots by a firing squad and their deaths would constitute torture.
Surgeon Jose Rizal told the constitutional court in September that aiming at the heart may not be accurate.
"An accurate shot causes instant death, but it if misses, it takes time to die," he said.
Catholic priest Charlie Burrows told the court he witnessed the execution of two Nigerian drug traffickers in June 2008, when the men took seven minutes to die after they were shot.
"They were moaning again and again for seven minutes," he told said in court. "I think it is cruel, the torture."
Defence lawyer Wirwan Adnan yesterday claimed the court's 76 page decision recommended the government consider other execution methods that could ensure a fast death.
Related stories:
Bali bombers: One week to live? - 13 October 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die -- 25 August 2008
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006
Monday, 13 October 2008
South Korea: Challenge to death penalty law
A South Korean death row inmate has been given leave to make a constitutional challenge to the country's death penalty law.
The Gwangju High Court filed the appeal on 3 October on behalf of a 70 year-old who was convicted of murdering four tourists on board his boat, according to The Korea Times.
The newspaper reported that he asked the provincial court to file his petition claiming the death penalty is unconstitutional.
It said his appeal would be suspended until the Consititutional Court ruled on the application.
The validity of the current death penalty law was last confirmed in 1996.
The judge at his trial said: "At the time of the latest constitutional ruling on the death penalty in 1996, the Constitutional Court stated it was constitutional although it indicated the need to scrap the capital punishment on a long term basis."
Amnesty International said in December 2007 that South Korea was "in practice" an abolitionist country, after it had not executed anyone for ten years.
The last executions in South Korea were on 30 December 1997, when 18 men and 5 women were executed in prisons across the country.
Related stories:
South Korea: Death penalty for child murders? -- 09 April 2008
South Korea: 100 days for abolition -- 06 February 2008
South Korea: Renewed calls for abolition -- 12 October 2007
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February 2006
The Gwangju High Court filed the appeal on 3 October on behalf of a 70 year-old who was convicted of murdering four tourists on board his boat, according to The Korea Times.
The newspaper reported that he asked the provincial court to file his petition claiming the death penalty is unconstitutional.
It said his appeal would be suspended until the Consititutional Court ruled on the application.
The validity of the current death penalty law was last confirmed in 1996.
The judge at his trial said: "At the time of the latest constitutional ruling on the death penalty in 1996, the Constitutional Court stated it was constitutional although it indicated the need to scrap the capital punishment on a long term basis."
Amnesty International said in December 2007 that South Korea was "in practice" an abolitionist country, after it had not executed anyone for ten years.
The last executions in South Korea were on 30 December 1997, when 18 men and 5 women were executed in prisons across the country.
Related stories:
South Korea: Death penalty for child murders? -- 09 April 2008
South Korea: 100 days for abolition -- 06 February 2008
South Korea: Renewed calls for abolition -- 12 October 2007
Call for South Korea to show 'leadership' -- 27 June 2006
South Korea death penalty hearing -- 10 April 2006
South Korea: Kim Dae-jung's call for abolition -- 06 March 2006
South Korea – former president calls for abolition -- 27 February 2006
Monday, 25 August 2008
Uncertain when Islamist bombers will die
Time is running out for the Indonesian government to execute three Islamist terrorists this week for the October 2002 Bali bombing.
Attorney-General Hendarman Supandji has reportedly said he wanted the men shot before the start of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting and forgiveness.
This year Ramadan is expected to begin at sunset on 31 August.
However it is not clear whether the attorney-general has signed the necessary orders, and whether there would be enough time for authorities to make the final preparations.
Indonesian media report the Bali police and prosecutors are working together to coordinate arrangements for the executions.
Death row prisoners in Indonesia are usually given 72 hours notice when a date is set.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Ali Ghufron (also known as Mukhlas) and Imam Samudra were convicted of organising the bombing, in which 202 people died.
The men are being held in a prison on Nusakambangan Island, off the coast of Central Java.
In July 2008, two Bali prosecutors reportedly inspected a field on the island where the executions would be carried out.
If they are not executed this week, the government is expected to wait until after Ramadan, rather than risk a religious backlash.
The prisoners have said in the past that they welcomed their execution, although they would prefer to be beheaded, which they claimed was a more 'Islamic' form of execution.
Constitutional challenge underway
The three may be shot while the country's Constitutional Court is considering their challenge to the standard method of execution.
In mid-August, the court agreed to hear an application from the men's lawyers arguing execution by firing squad amounted to torture.
"The appellants have a constitutional right not to be tortured," the application said. They argued that a delay between the shots by a firing squad and their deaths would constitute torture.
The court asked them to expand on their submissions at the court's next hearing, set down for this week.
The bombers' lawyers also have sent a letter to the attorney-general requesting a delay until a Constitutional Court challenge is completed.
The application is widely seen as a further legal manoeuvre designed to delay the executions, but the government has said it would have no bearing on when the sentences were carried out.
"Preparations are continuing - we don't need to wait for a decision from the Constitutional Court. When we are ready, we will execute," a government spokesman said after the preliminary court hearing on 14 August.
Law and Human Rights Minister Andi Mattalatta said in early August that the constitutional challenge had no implication for the impending executions.
"Execution is one problem and the decision of the Constitutional Court is another," he said.
"There is no relationship."
'Foreign pressure' claim
The defence legal team also attempted to incite opposition to the executions by portraying the government as giving in to foreign pressure.
"The question now is why is the Attorney-General's office in a hurry to execute them?" lawyer Adnan Wirawan said.
"Are they under the pressure of the Australian community to execute the three bombers right away?"
'Security tightened'
The Antara newsagency has reported that security had been tightened around Nusakambangan Island in preparation for the executions.
According to the report, the head of Nusakambangan's Batu Correctional Institute, Sudijanto, issued a circular on 11 August prohibiting local fishermen from the waters around the island, citing security reasons.
Related stories:
Bali executions will inspire martyrs: expert -- 25 February 2008
Bali bombers may soon get their wish -- 10 November 2007
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April 2006
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
Executions in Japan despite appeal plans
Japan's justice minister Kunio Hatoyama has now approved the execution of thirteen prisoners, with three more hangings carried out yesterday.
Three men were hanged in Tokyo and Osaka for murders committed up to 23 years ago.
Tsutomu Miyazaki, 45, and Shinji Mutsuda, 37, were hanged in Tokyo, and Yoshio Yamasaki, 73, was executed in Osaka.
Miyazaki has been infamous in Japan for nearly 20 years after he was arrested and charged with the violent murders of four young girls in 1988 and 1989. Agence France-Presse reported this week that he "mutilated the bodies of the victims, slept next to the corpses and drank their blood".
Mutsuda was convicted of murder and robbery, and Yamasaki was convicted of murdering two women in 1985 and 1990 for insurance money.
A question of sanity
The question of whether Miyazaki was sane enough to be held criminally responsible for the killings was central to his various court appearances.
Over nearly 20 years it took his case to move through the legal process, Miyazaki said a "rat man" was responsible for the killings, referring to a cartoon character he drew.
His lawyers argued he was suffering from mental illness, an argument reinforced by psychiatric assessments.
Mainichi Japan reported that he repeated incomprehensible statements during his court hearings.
"I feel as if I committed the crimes in my dreams," he said in one hearing.
"I was scared because a 'rat person' appeared. My alter ego suddenly appeared and committed the acts," he said at another time.
It said various psychiatric evaluations had returned different assessments of his mental state.
He was variously diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder, a multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia, with different assessments of the level to which he could be held responsible.
Appeal underway
Miyazaki was executed despite the fact that his lawyer was preparing to apply for a retrial.
"I had been preparing to file a request for a retrial over the past few months," Maiko Tagusari said, according to a second report by Mainichi Japan.
"I strongly protested (to the ministry) for carrying out the execution even though they knew about my plans.
"What I had feared actually happened."
She said she wrote to Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama in late May asking him not to order the execution of Miyazaki.
Political support
India's Economic Times reported that Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said after the executions he supported the use of the death penalty.
"In Japan, the majority view is that capital punishment should be maintained, so I feel no need to change what we have continued doing until now," he said.
However he appeared to acknowledge the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty, adding: "But we also have to keep an eye on trends of world opinion."
Related stories:
Japan: Execution possible despite mental doubts -- 10 June, 2008
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 12 April, 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April, 2008
Japan: Sixteen hanged in thirteen months -- 04 February, 2008
Japan finally names three executed -- 09 December, 2007
Minister wants ‘tranquil’ killing: Japan -- 29 October, 2007
Japan: New minister will approve hangings -- 04 September, 2007
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Three men were hanged in Tokyo and Osaka for murders committed up to 23 years ago.
Tsutomu Miyazaki, 45, and Shinji Mutsuda, 37, were hanged in Tokyo, and Yoshio Yamasaki, 73, was executed in Osaka.
Miyazaki has been infamous in Japan for nearly 20 years after he was arrested and charged with the violent murders of four young girls in 1988 and 1989. Agence France-Presse reported this week that he "mutilated the bodies of the victims, slept next to the corpses and drank their blood".
Mutsuda was convicted of murder and robbery, and Yamasaki was convicted of murdering two women in 1985 and 1990 for insurance money.
A question of sanity
The question of whether Miyazaki was sane enough to be held criminally responsible for the killings was central to his various court appearances.
Over nearly 20 years it took his case to move through the legal process, Miyazaki said a "rat man" was responsible for the killings, referring to a cartoon character he drew.
His lawyers argued he was suffering from mental illness, an argument reinforced by psychiatric assessments.
Mainichi Japan reported that he repeated incomprehensible statements during his court hearings.
"I feel as if I committed the crimes in my dreams," he said in one hearing.
"I was scared because a 'rat person' appeared. My alter ego suddenly appeared and committed the acts," he said at another time.
It said various psychiatric evaluations had returned different assessments of his mental state.
He was variously diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder, a multiple personality disorder or schizophrenia, with different assessments of the level to which he could be held responsible.
Appeal underway
Miyazaki was executed despite the fact that his lawyer was preparing to apply for a retrial.
"I had been preparing to file a request for a retrial over the past few months," Maiko Tagusari said, according to a second report by Mainichi Japan.
"I strongly protested (to the ministry) for carrying out the execution even though they knew about my plans.
"What I had feared actually happened."
She said she wrote to Justice Minister Kunio Hatoyama in late May asking him not to order the execution of Miyazaki.
Political support
India's Economic Times reported that Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda said after the executions he supported the use of the death penalty.
"In Japan, the majority view is that capital punishment should be maintained, so I feel no need to change what we have continued doing until now," he said.
However he appeared to acknowledge the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty, adding: "But we also have to keep an eye on trends of world opinion."
Related stories:
Japan: Execution possible despite mental doubts -- 10 June, 2008
Executions in Japan -- 2006 - 2008 -- 12 April, 2008
Japan: Minister steps up rate of hangings -- 12 April, 2008
Japan: Sixteen hanged in thirteen months -- 04 February, 2008
Japan finally names three executed -- 09 December, 2007
Minister wants ‘tranquil’ killing: Japan -- 29 October, 2007
Japan: New minister will approve hangings -- 04 September, 2007
Long wait, sudden death in Japan -- 28 August, 2006
Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Viet Nam: Life, and death, sentences for drugs
In the past month, two Vietnamese-born western citizens have seen very different outcomes in appeals against their sentences for drug offences.
The legal charity Repreive announced in early April that UK citizen Le Manh Luong was granted clemency by President Nguyen Minh Triet.
Repreive led a high-profile campaign on behalf of Mr Luong, who was sentenced to death in November 2006.
He was convicted along with three Vietnamese defendants for trafficking 339 kilograms of heroin through Viet Nam to Hong Kong and China.
In contrast, in mid-March an appeal court increased to death the sentence given to Vietnamese-Australian Jasmine Luong, according to an AFP report.
Ms Luong was arrested in Tan Son Nhat airport in February 2007 with nearly 1.5 kilograms of heroin hidden in her luggage and shoes.
Prosecutors appealed against the original life sentence imposed in December 2007.
Clemency hope
She now has the right to appeal to the president for clemency, and the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister were expected to support an appeal.
The decision to grant clemency to Mr Luong should raise hopes that she would also be successful in having her death sentence overturned.
Five Australians have had their death sentences commuted in Viet Nam since 2003, in all five cases with the support of strong representations from the Australian government appealing for the sentences to be commuted.
Another Australian citizen, Tony Manh, is waiting for a response to his application for clemency, after an appeal court confirmed his death sentence in November 2007 for heroin trafficking.
'Debt forced decision'
According to the report by the Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Luong was expected to argue in her application for clemency that she agreed to carry the drugs to pay her estranged husband's gambling debts.
The newspaper said she claimed she was offered $US15,000 (AUD$16,620) by an unidentified man to carry the drugs to Sydney, and given $US4700 payment in advance.
Her two children were being cared for by relatives in Sydney.
'What is heroin?'
According to information released by Reprieve, Mr Luong suffered from brain damage after his house was bombed by a US B-52 bomber during the Viet Nam War.
The organisation said he suffered from clinical depression and displayed suicidal tendencies, and his lawyer believed the other defendants used him as a scapegoat, knowing of his mental health issues.
Mr Luong reportedly asked the court during his trial questions such as: "What is heroin?" and "What is a weapon?"
His niece and family spokesperson, Thanh Le, said in a Reprieve statement that "he will [now] have the horrific ankle and wrist shackles removed".
"My uncle’s death sentence has put an incredible strain on the family but we have been overwhelmed by the support for him," she said.
The fate of Mr Luong's Vietnamese co-defendants has not been reported.
Related stories:
Drug penalty violates international law -- 06 May, 2007
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November, 2006
Another Australian spared in Viet Nam – 19 November, 2006
Viet Nam: Take action against the death penalty -- 24 June, 2006
To begin, good news in Viet Nam -- 18 February, 2006
The legal charity Repreive announced in early April that UK citizen Le Manh Luong was granted clemency by President Nguyen Minh Triet.
Repreive led a high-profile campaign on behalf of Mr Luong, who was sentenced to death in November 2006.
He was convicted along with three Vietnamese defendants for trafficking 339 kilograms of heroin through Viet Nam to Hong Kong and China.
In contrast, in mid-March an appeal court increased to death the sentence given to Vietnamese-Australian Jasmine Luong, according to an AFP report.
Ms Luong was arrested in Tan Son Nhat airport in February 2007 with nearly 1.5 kilograms of heroin hidden in her luggage and shoes.
Prosecutors appealed against the original life sentence imposed in December 2007.
Clemency hope
She now has the right to appeal to the president for clemency, and the Sydney Morning Herald reported the Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister were expected to support an appeal.
The decision to grant clemency to Mr Luong should raise hopes that she would also be successful in having her death sentence overturned.
Five Australians have had their death sentences commuted in Viet Nam since 2003, in all five cases with the support of strong representations from the Australian government appealing for the sentences to be commuted.
Another Australian citizen, Tony Manh, is waiting for a response to his application for clemency, after an appeal court confirmed his death sentence in November 2007 for heroin trafficking.
'Debt forced decision'
According to the report by the Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Luong was expected to argue in her application for clemency that she agreed to carry the drugs to pay her estranged husband's gambling debts.
The newspaper said she claimed she was offered $US15,000 (AUD$16,620) by an unidentified man to carry the drugs to Sydney, and given $US4700 payment in advance.
Her two children were being cared for by relatives in Sydney.
'What is heroin?'
According to information released by Reprieve, Mr Luong suffered from brain damage after his house was bombed by a US B-52 bomber during the Viet Nam War.
The organisation said he suffered from clinical depression and displayed suicidal tendencies, and his lawyer believed the other defendants used him as a scapegoat, knowing of his mental health issues.
Mr Luong reportedly asked the court during his trial questions such as: "What is heroin?" and "What is a weapon?"
His niece and family spokesperson, Thanh Le, said in a Reprieve statement that "he will [now] have the horrific ankle and wrist shackles removed".
"My uncle’s death sentence has put an incredible strain on the family but we have been overwhelmed by the support for him," she said.
The fate of Mr Luong's Vietnamese co-defendants has not been reported.
Related stories:
Drug penalty violates international law -- 06 May, 2007
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November, 2006
Another Australian spared in Viet Nam – 19 November, 2006
Viet Nam: Take action against the death penalty -- 24 June, 2006
To begin, good news in Viet Nam -- 18 February, 2006
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Bali bombers may soon get their wish
The three men sentenced to death for killing 202 people in the October 2002 bombings in Bali have again said they are looking forward to their martyrdom at the hands of an Indonesian firing squad.
The penalty held out as a deterrent to serious crimes will soon be prepared for the men convicted of playing key roles in the plot to bomb the nightclub strip in the island's Kuta district.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (also known as Ali Ghufron) have been waiting for the Government to finalise arrangements for their execution after the Supreme Court rejected their appeal in early October.
The three have reportely rejected the final avenue open to them, an appeal for clemency to President Yudhyono. Their lawyers have, however, suggested they would use every legal means available to delay the executions.
"We will not ask for a pardon," Mukhlas said recently.
"This is about heaven and hell. Asking for pardon is a big sin."
Achmad Michdan said: "They are all ready should their executions have to be carried out. They said they are even looking forward to their executions."
Family farewells
In late October their wives, mothers and children spent several hours with two of them in what journalists described as "an emotional final visit" to the prison on the southern Java island of Nusakambangan.
According to The Australian newspaper, the principal of the school where the men learnt their Islamist ideology described the meeting as "cheerful and happy".
A later report in the same newspaper said the women had brought lunch boxes packed with the mens' favourite foods and were accompanied by two journalists with a video camera.
The report said at the meeting with Amrozi and Imam Samudra, their lawyer had a reassuring message from the absent Mukhlas.
Achmad Michdan said: "Mukhlas said the family don't need to be saddened by the execution because what they have done is something they truly believe is right."
White cloth and angels
Imam Samudra described his wishes for after his execution.
"Nobody, neither family nor parents, nor wife or children, can cry out loud in front of my dead body." His corpse should be buried wrapped in white cloth.
"That way I will die, God willing, a martyr."
Amrozi, who has been dubbed 'the smiling bomber' by the Australian media, said: "People ask me, why am I smiling? I am happy because I will be united with 72 angels in heaven."
"In the past I have killed many with my bombs. I have been tested by spending time in this prison.
"But if you make infidels angry, you will be rewarded. And soon I will enjoy the fruit of my deeds, if I am executed, God willing."
One regret, no fears
Samudra reportedly described how he thanked God when he heard the bombings had been carried out.
"I immediately prayed prostrate on the floor to give thanks to God, because of all the oppressed Muslims I had defended."
He said he only felt sadness for the Muslims he had killed: "I regretted it. I cried."
Samudra also said they were not afraid to die, although they would prefer to be beheaded.
"Absolutely we are not afraid," he said.
"That's what I've been waiting for ... firstly with execution we will go to heaven and then our wish to see God and the angels is far higher than the wish of the infidels for our death.
"Why would we be scared of death? Even now we are not scared to be executed.
"[US President] Bush and his allies, you all will go to hell but me and all my friends in the world will go to heaven.
"No, no, no there won't be any clemency because its not Islamic law - that is part of democracy and the law of democracy, and we are totally against democracy."
'Part of the struggle'
The Australian reported after the meeting that Ustad Hasyim Abdullah, principal of the al-Mukmin Islamic school in Solo, central Java, said the three were not willing to beg for presidential clemency as they did not believe they had done anything wrong.
He said their families had "no problem with the executions - they have accepted this, it is part of the struggle".
Related stories:
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October, 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December, 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August, 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April, 2006
The penalty held out as a deterrent to serious crimes will soon be prepared for the men convicted of playing key roles in the plot to bomb the nightclub strip in the island's Kuta district.
Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, Imam Samudra and Mukhlas (also known as Ali Ghufron) have been waiting for the Government to finalise arrangements for their execution after the Supreme Court rejected their appeal in early October.
The three have reportely rejected the final avenue open to them, an appeal for clemency to President Yudhyono. Their lawyers have, however, suggested they would use every legal means available to delay the executions.
"We will not ask for a pardon," Mukhlas said recently.
"This is about heaven and hell. Asking for pardon is a big sin."
Achmad Michdan said: "They are all ready should their executions have to be carried out. They said they are even looking forward to their executions."
Family farewells
In late October their wives, mothers and children spent several hours with two of them in what journalists described as "an emotional final visit" to the prison on the southern Java island of Nusakambangan.
According to The Australian newspaper, the principal of the school where the men learnt their Islamist ideology described the meeting as "cheerful and happy".
A later report in the same newspaper said the women had brought lunch boxes packed with the mens' favourite foods and were accompanied by two journalists with a video camera.
The report said at the meeting with Amrozi and Imam Samudra, their lawyer had a reassuring message from the absent Mukhlas.
Achmad Michdan said: "Mukhlas said the family don't need to be saddened by the execution because what they have done is something they truly believe is right."
White cloth and angels
Imam Samudra described his wishes for after his execution.
"Nobody, neither family nor parents, nor wife or children, can cry out loud in front of my dead body." His corpse should be buried wrapped in white cloth.
"That way I will die, God willing, a martyr."
Amrozi, who has been dubbed 'the smiling bomber' by the Australian media, said: "People ask me, why am I smiling? I am happy because I will be united with 72 angels in heaven."
"In the past I have killed many with my bombs. I have been tested by spending time in this prison.
"But if you make infidels angry, you will be rewarded. And soon I will enjoy the fruit of my deeds, if I am executed, God willing."
One regret, no fears
Samudra reportedly described how he thanked God when he heard the bombings had been carried out.
"I immediately prayed prostrate on the floor to give thanks to God, because of all the oppressed Muslims I had defended."
He said he only felt sadness for the Muslims he had killed: "I regretted it. I cried."
Samudra also said they were not afraid to die, although they would prefer to be beheaded.
"Absolutely we are not afraid," he said.
"That's what I've been waiting for ... firstly with execution we will go to heaven and then our wish to see God and the angels is far higher than the wish of the infidels for our death.
"Why would we be scared of death? Even now we are not scared to be executed.
"[US President] Bush and his allies, you all will go to hell but me and all my friends in the world will go to heaven.
"No, no, no there won't be any clemency because its not Islamic law - that is part of democracy and the law of democracy, and we are totally against democracy."
'Part of the struggle'
The Australian reported after the meeting that Ustad Hasyim Abdullah, principal of the al-Mukmin Islamic school in Solo, central Java, said the three were not willing to beg for presidential clemency as they did not believe they had done anything wrong.
He said their families had "no problem with the executions - they have accepted this, it is part of the struggle".
Related stories:
Bali: Execution closer for bombing leaders -- 09 October, 2007
Bali bombers lodge appeals -- 08 December, 2006
Execution delay for Bali bombers -- 21 August, 2006
Bali bombers closer to execution -- 11 April, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
