Source: The Indian Express (5 November 2021)
https://indianexpress.com/article/world/singapore-malaysian-indian-nagaenthran-k-dharmalingam-death-sentence-appeal-petition-7608025/
An online petition to save an Indian-origin Malaysian from gallows next week has gathered nearly 40,000 signatures with human rights activists urging the government to halt the execution, saying the man is intellectually disabled.
Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam, who is on death row at Singapore’s Changi Prison, was convicted in 2010 for drug trafficking.
Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on Wednesday said that the High Court and the Court of Appeal held that Nagaenthran’s mental responsibility for his offence was not substantially impaired.
He was found to have clearly understood that what he did was a crime and took the “calculated risk” to pay off his debt.
This was the finding by the High Court while sentencing the convict to death in 2010 for importing drugs into Singapore and it was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which “flatly rejected his account of being coerced under duress”, TODAY newspaper quoted the MHA as saying.
The MHA also said it is helping Nagaenthran’s family with travel arrangements from Malaysia to Singapore and that his visitors will be granted extended face-to-face visits daily, according to the Singapore tabloid.
Nagaenthran was convicted and given the death penalty in November 2010 for importing 42.72 grams of heroin a year before.
“His petition to the President for clemency was unsuccessful,” the MHA said.
An online report, cited by media outlets, said Nagaenthran would be hanged on November 10.
The petition to President Halimah Yacob to pardon Nagaenthran was started on October 29. It seeks 50,000 signatures in support of the clemency plea to the president. It has gathered 39,962 signatures as of Thursday.
The petition states that the convict should be pardoned because he had testified that he was “coerced” into drug trafficking by a man who had threatened to kill his girlfriend.
It also states that Nagaenthran has an intellectual disability and a low IQ, impaired executive functioning and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
“Given that Nagaenthran is intellectually disabled, committed a non-violent crime and was allegedly coerced by assaults and threats, we sincerely appeal for President Halimah Yacob to uphold Singapore’s commitment to the UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) by pardoning Nagaenthran’s death sentence,” media reports said, citing the petition.
Nagaenthran had first appealed to be resentenced under amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act that were passed in 2012.
The amendments allow a court to sentence a drug offender to life imprisonment instead of death if he is merely a courier on the condition that the public prosecutor issues the offender a certificate of substantive assistance for helping the Central Narcotics Bureau disrupt drug-trafficking activities.
Nagaenthran then lodged a second appeal for a judicial review into the public prosecutor’s decision not to issue him a certificate of substantive assistance.
The High Court dismissed both applications and in 2019, the Court of Appeal dismissed both of Nageanthran’s appeals against the High Court’s decision.
Showing posts with label clemency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clemency. Show all posts
Monday, 8 November 2021
Tuesday, 2 November 2021
20,000 Please for Presidential Pardon over Malaysian Man on Death Row
Source: Coconuts KL (2 November 2021)
https://coconuts.co/kl/news/20000-plead-for-presidential-pardon-over-malaysian-man-on-death-row/
Nearly 20,000 people have signed an online petition pleading to Singapore President Halimah Yacob for clemency over an intellectually-disabled Malaysian man on death row.
Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam was 21 when he was arrested in Singapore in 2009 and subsequently convicted for trafficking 42.72g of diamorphine, a narcotic analgesic used to treat severe pain. Now 33, Nagaenthran reportedly suffers from ADHD and has a very low IQ of 69.
He faces imminent execution on Nov. 10.
His family was informed of the scheduled hanging two weeks ago, according to Singaporean activist-journalist Kirsten Han, who said that she has also been assisting the family with travel arrangements so that they can bid him farewell.
“Given that Nagaenthran is intellectually disabled; committed a non-violent crime; and was allegedly coerced by assaults and threats, we sincerely appeal for President Halimah Yacob to uphold Singapore’s commitment to the [United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] by pardoning Nagaenthran’s death sentence,” the petition set up Thursday by human rights advocate Olivia Seow said. The petition also said that the Singapore justice system had failed to protect people with disabilities.
Those who commit crimes related to more than a dozen offenses including kidnapping, murder, and drug trafficking may be sentenced to death in Singapore, with exemptions to those under 18 and pregnant.
Rights groups such as Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, or ADPAN, and Malaysia’s Lawyers For Liberty have condemned the Singapore government’s decision to execute Nagaenthran.
“The execution of any person with mental or intellectual disabilities is extremely unconscionable and reprehensible. The person would be unlikely to have the appropriate capacity to stand trial or even appreciate the severity of their predicaments,” ADPAN executive coordinator Dobby Chew wrote Friday.
Lawyers For Liberty advisor N Surendran said in a statement: “No civilized nation should resort to hanging the mentally disabled.”
The human rights group also urged the Malaysian authorities to save Nagaenthran from the gallows.
https://coconuts.co/kl/news/20000-plead-for-presidential-pardon-over-malaysian-man-on-death-row/
Nearly 20,000 people have signed an online petition pleading to Singapore President Halimah Yacob for clemency over an intellectually-disabled Malaysian man on death row.
Nagaenthran K Dharmalingam was 21 when he was arrested in Singapore in 2009 and subsequently convicted for trafficking 42.72g of diamorphine, a narcotic analgesic used to treat severe pain. Now 33, Nagaenthran reportedly suffers from ADHD and has a very low IQ of 69.
He faces imminent execution on Nov. 10.
His family was informed of the scheduled hanging two weeks ago, according to Singaporean activist-journalist Kirsten Han, who said that she has also been assisting the family with travel arrangements so that they can bid him farewell.
“Given that Nagaenthran is intellectually disabled; committed a non-violent crime; and was allegedly coerced by assaults and threats, we sincerely appeal for President Halimah Yacob to uphold Singapore’s commitment to the [United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] by pardoning Nagaenthran’s death sentence,” the petition set up Thursday by human rights advocate Olivia Seow said. The petition also said that the Singapore justice system had failed to protect people with disabilities.
Those who commit crimes related to more than a dozen offenses including kidnapping, murder, and drug trafficking may be sentenced to death in Singapore, with exemptions to those under 18 and pregnant.
Rights groups such as Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, or ADPAN, and Malaysia’s Lawyers For Liberty have condemned the Singapore government’s decision to execute Nagaenthran.
“The execution of any person with mental or intellectual disabilities is extremely unconscionable and reprehensible. The person would be unlikely to have the appropriate capacity to stand trial or even appreciate the severity of their predicaments,” ADPAN executive coordinator Dobby Chew wrote Friday.
Lawyers For Liberty advisor N Surendran said in a statement: “No civilized nation should resort to hanging the mentally disabled.”
The human rights group also urged the Malaysian authorities to save Nagaenthran from the gallows.
Tuesday, 17 April 2018
Pakistan operating a blanket policy of refusing all mercy petitions
Source: Daily Times (12 April 2018)
https://dailytimes.com.pk/226884/pakistan-operating-a-blanket-policy-of-refusing-all-mercy-petitions/
ISLAMABAD: Chaudhry Shafique, Commissioner from the National Commission on Human Rights stated that the clemency process in Pakistan is deficient, and recommended that improvements be made to align it with the country’s constitutional and international human rights obligations.
Speaking at the launch of JPP’s latest report No Mercy: A Report on Clemency for Death Row Prisoners in Pakistan, Mr Shafique added “The President’s power of mercy is critical for ensuring justice under Pakistan’s criminal justice system.”
He stated that at a hearing at the Senate Committee on Human Rights last month, it was recommended that the NCHR, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Human Rights, must examine the petitons before sending it to the President.
The Canadian High Commissioner to Pakistan Mr Perry Calderwood also delivered his comments on the report saying that, “Canada opposes the death penalty in all cases, everywhere and we encourage the abolition of the death penalty internationally.” He added that, “The debate on capital punishment in Pakistan occurs in a global context, but it is also local and specific to this country. It is a debate led by Pakistani citizens.”
No Mercy finds that in the three years since the moratorium on the death penalty was lifted, the Government of Pakistan has executed nearly 500 prisoners. Although the President of Pakistan possessed the constitutional authority to pardon death row defendants under Article 45 of the Constitution, in practice, such petitions have been consistently denied since Dec. 2014, therefore operating under a blanket policy even for cases with strong evidence of humanitarian abuses and violations.
According to the Ministry of Interior, the President’s office rejected 513 mercy petitions of condemned prisoners over the last five years, 444 of which were in the first fifteen months after the resumption of executions in Dec. 2014.
This is particularly alarming given that the Interior Ministry has also informally confirmed that the Government of Pakistan has a de facto policy in place to summarily reject all pleas of mercy.
83 percent of all executions and 89 percent of all death sentences handed out since Dec. 2014 have been in Punjab. Out of approximately 3,723 prisoners awaiting execution, mercy petitions of 41 (including 1 woman) have been rejected as of July 2017. 382 prisoners have been executed in Punjab since Dec. 2014.
This staggering figure could soon include paraplegic death row prisoner Abdul Basit, mentally ill Imdad Ali or even known juvenile offender Muhammad Iqbal. Pakistani citizen Zulfiqar Ali also continues to languish on death row in Indonesia. Their death sentences, direct results of a systemic flaws, may only be overturned under the right to seek Presidential pardon.
Mercy petitions of 74 prisoners remain pending with the President of Pakistan.
The cases examined in the report illustrate the systemic problems that Pakistan’s criminal justice system is mired in. Given these procedural failings, it is imperative that individuals on death row be provided with a fair chance to obtain clemency, and to introduce new and potentially exculpatory evidence.
The report can be found on http://www.jpp.org.pk/report/no-mercy-a-report-on-clemency-for-death-row-prisoners-in-pakistan/
Sarah Belal, Executive Director, JustIce Project Pakistan adds: “The right to seek pardon belongs to the people and so is reposed in the highest dignitary of the State. It is enshrined in our constitution, and that the Supreme Court has deemed this power unfettered. As citizens, death row prisoners have the unqualified right to seek pardon, and the Presidency has an obligation to consider their petitions on merit and not to summarily reject them. Pardoning the most vulnerable prisoners, whose stories we have shared today, would be a critical step to demonstrate a meaningful application of this responsibility.”
https://dailytimes.com.pk/226884/pakistan-operating-a-blanket-policy-of-refusing-all-mercy-petitions/
ISLAMABAD: Chaudhry Shafique, Commissioner from the National Commission on Human Rights stated that the clemency process in Pakistan is deficient, and recommended that improvements be made to align it with the country’s constitutional and international human rights obligations.
Speaking at the launch of JPP’s latest report No Mercy: A Report on Clemency for Death Row Prisoners in Pakistan, Mr Shafique added “The President’s power of mercy is critical for ensuring justice under Pakistan’s criminal justice system.”
He stated that at a hearing at the Senate Committee on Human Rights last month, it was recommended that the NCHR, Ministry of Law and Justice, Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Human Rights, must examine the petitons before sending it to the President.
The Canadian High Commissioner to Pakistan Mr Perry Calderwood also delivered his comments on the report saying that, “Canada opposes the death penalty in all cases, everywhere and we encourage the abolition of the death penalty internationally.” He added that, “The debate on capital punishment in Pakistan occurs in a global context, but it is also local and specific to this country. It is a debate led by Pakistani citizens.”
No Mercy finds that in the three years since the moratorium on the death penalty was lifted, the Government of Pakistan has executed nearly 500 prisoners. Although the President of Pakistan possessed the constitutional authority to pardon death row defendants under Article 45 of the Constitution, in practice, such petitions have been consistently denied since Dec. 2014, therefore operating under a blanket policy even for cases with strong evidence of humanitarian abuses and violations.
According to the Ministry of Interior, the President’s office rejected 513 mercy petitions of condemned prisoners over the last five years, 444 of which were in the first fifteen months after the resumption of executions in Dec. 2014.
This is particularly alarming given that the Interior Ministry has also informally confirmed that the Government of Pakistan has a de facto policy in place to summarily reject all pleas of mercy.
83 percent of all executions and 89 percent of all death sentences handed out since Dec. 2014 have been in Punjab. Out of approximately 3,723 prisoners awaiting execution, mercy petitions of 41 (including 1 woman) have been rejected as of July 2017. 382 prisoners have been executed in Punjab since Dec. 2014.
This staggering figure could soon include paraplegic death row prisoner Abdul Basit, mentally ill Imdad Ali or even known juvenile offender Muhammad Iqbal. Pakistani citizen Zulfiqar Ali also continues to languish on death row in Indonesia. Their death sentences, direct results of a systemic flaws, may only be overturned under the right to seek Presidential pardon.
Mercy petitions of 74 prisoners remain pending with the President of Pakistan.
The cases examined in the report illustrate the systemic problems that Pakistan’s criminal justice system is mired in. Given these procedural failings, it is imperative that individuals on death row be provided with a fair chance to obtain clemency, and to introduce new and potentially exculpatory evidence.
The report can be found on http://www.jpp.org.pk/report/no-mercy-a-report-on-clemency-for-death-row-prisoners-in-pakistan/
Sarah Belal, Executive Director, JustIce Project Pakistan adds: “The right to seek pardon belongs to the people and so is reposed in the highest dignitary of the State. It is enshrined in our constitution, and that the Supreme Court has deemed this power unfettered. As citizens, death row prisoners have the unqualified right to seek pardon, and the Presidency has an obligation to consider their petitions on merit and not to summarily reject them. Pardoning the most vulnerable prisoners, whose stories we have shared today, would be a critical step to demonstrate a meaningful application of this responsibility.”
Monday, 19 March 2018
UN Human Rights Office condemns execution for drug-related offences in Singapore
Source: The Online Citizen (16 March 2018)
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/03/16/un-human-rights-office-condemns-execution-for-drug-related-offences-in-singapore/
BANGKOK (16 March 2018) – The UN Human Rights Office for South-East Asia condemns the execution of Singaporean national Hishamrudin bin Mohd for a drug-related offence this morning, expressing concerns that he had not been able to file a clemency petition.
“Under international law, the death penalty may only be used for ‘the most serious crimes’ which has been interpreted to mean only crimes involving intentional killing,” said the Office’s Regional Representative, Cynthia Veliko. “Drug-related offences do not fall under this threshold.”
“We deeply regret that in 2017, eight individuals were executed for drug-related offences in Singapore, which is a sharp increase from previous years. We have also received information that there was another execution for drug-related offences last Friday, bringing the total known figure to two executions so far in 2018,” she said.
This week, Hishamrudin bin Mohd filed a last-minute application for judicial review by the Court of Appeal and had a closed-door hearing on 15 March 2018. However, the Court of Appeal denied his application.
On Monday, Mr. Hishamrudin’s family was informed that he would be executed on 16 March 2018. They were also informed that the petition for clemency had been rejected, although they had not yet filed a proper clemency petition on his case.
Mr. Hishamrudin, 57, was arrested and charged with two offences for possessing a total of 38.50 grams of a pure form of heroin on 7 October 2010. He has consistently maintained his innocence, and claimed to have no knowledge of the nature of the drugs, nor that he possessed them for the purposes of trafficking.
On 6 April 2016, Mr. Hishamrudin was convicted and sentenced to death under section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. On 3 July 2017, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
“We repeat our call to the Government of Singapore to immediately instate a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as part of a process toward the full abolishment of capital punishment,” said Ms. Veliko.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/03/16/un-human-rights-office-condemns-execution-for-drug-related-offences-in-singapore/
BANGKOK (16 March 2018) – The UN Human Rights Office for South-East Asia condemns the execution of Singaporean national Hishamrudin bin Mohd for a drug-related offence this morning, expressing concerns that he had not been able to file a clemency petition.
“Under international law, the death penalty may only be used for ‘the most serious crimes’ which has been interpreted to mean only crimes involving intentional killing,” said the Office’s Regional Representative, Cynthia Veliko. “Drug-related offences do not fall under this threshold.”
“We deeply regret that in 2017, eight individuals were executed for drug-related offences in Singapore, which is a sharp increase from previous years. We have also received information that there was another execution for drug-related offences last Friday, bringing the total known figure to two executions so far in 2018,” she said.
This week, Hishamrudin bin Mohd filed a last-minute application for judicial review by the Court of Appeal and had a closed-door hearing on 15 March 2018. However, the Court of Appeal denied his application.
On Monday, Mr. Hishamrudin’s family was informed that he would be executed on 16 March 2018. They were also informed that the petition for clemency had been rejected, although they had not yet filed a proper clemency petition on his case.
Mr. Hishamrudin, 57, was arrested and charged with two offences for possessing a total of 38.50 grams of a pure form of heroin on 7 October 2010. He has consistently maintained his innocence, and claimed to have no knowledge of the nature of the drugs, nor that he possessed them for the purposes of trafficking.
On 6 April 2016, Mr. Hishamrudin was convicted and sentenced to death under section 33B of the Misuse of Drugs Act. On 3 July 2017, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
“We repeat our call to the Government of Singapore to immediately instate a moratorium on the use of the death penalty as part of a process toward the full abolishment of capital punishment,” said Ms. Veliko.
Wednesday, 5 July 2017
Family claims brothers’ hanging botched, signs of strangulation
Source: Malay Mail Online (4 July 2017)
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/family-claims-brothers-hanging-botched-signs-of-strangulation
PETALING JAYA, July 4 — The family of two brothers accused the Kajang prison authorities today of botching up the hanging of two men who had been executed for murder.
The family of brothers Rames Batumalai, 45, and Suthar Batumalai, 40, alleged that Suthar’s body was found to have strangulation marks around his neck area, the neck was not broken (the neck is broken clean in a proper hanging), and his face was swelled up.
“We are not contented with the death and how they were executed. Suthar’s face was swollen. He showed signs of strangulation.
“His face was swollen, there were marks on the neck and his eyes were bulging,” sister-in-law B. Devi told a press conference this morning.
Both brothers were hanged to death on March 15 for their 2010 murder conviction despite the family filing for a clemency petition in late February. The brothers were charged with murdering a man named Krishnan Raman.
The siblings were also executed on a Wednesday instead of Friday, when hangings in Malaysia are usually conducted, which raised more questions on whether their execution was botched.
The family’s lawyer, N. Surendran, demanded that the prison authorities and Home Ministry give a detailed explanation to the family on the way the execution was conducted and also on why it was done before the clemency petition’s result was known.
“From a legal point of view, both of them were executed without exhausting all legal processes.
“A prisoner who has been convicted, has the legal right for his clemency to be considered under constituency. If you don’t allow [the] process to finish, you have breached the law,” he said.
The Padang Serai MP also demanded authorities to have an inquiry on the brothers’ execution and answers to be given immediately to the family.
“We are also asking explanation on manner hanging carried out and explanation on why the neck of Suthar was in that condition. We are entitled to these explanations as family members.
“We want an inquiry by authorities. I hope the home minister and authorities respond to this as soon as possible as it is a case of public interest,” Surendran added.
Amnesty International executive director Shamini Darshini said the brothers’ hanging raised questions on the transparency of the death penalty in Malaysia.
“Legal processes around death penalty is not completely clear. This is clear indication, it is not (transparent).
“When a person is hanged, there is a science to it. In this case, there are questions whether execution was correctly done. This seems to indicate a botched execution,” she said today.
She also urged Putrajaya to declare a moratorium to prevent such incidences from happening in other death penalty cases in the future.
“The death penalty in Malaysia needs to be abolished. We need the government to put in place a moratorium to prevent this from happening again. That’s what we calling for an immediate moratorium,” Shamini said, adding that Malaysia has over 1,068 people on death row as of March this year.
In the application of clemency previously sighted by Malay Mail Online, the family had obtained a statutory declaration from the deceased’s wife to forgive the brothers.
Rames and Suthar were sentenced to death in April 2010 under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder, after being convicted for the February 4, 2006 murder.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/family-claims-brothers-hanging-botched-signs-of-strangulation
PETALING JAYA, July 4 — The family of two brothers accused the Kajang prison authorities today of botching up the hanging of two men who had been executed for murder.
The family of brothers Rames Batumalai, 45, and Suthar Batumalai, 40, alleged that Suthar’s body was found to have strangulation marks around his neck area, the neck was not broken (the neck is broken clean in a proper hanging), and his face was swelled up.
“We are not contented with the death and how they were executed. Suthar’s face was swollen. He showed signs of strangulation.
“His face was swollen, there were marks on the neck and his eyes were bulging,” sister-in-law B. Devi told a press conference this morning.
Both brothers were hanged to death on March 15 for their 2010 murder conviction despite the family filing for a clemency petition in late February. The brothers were charged with murdering a man named Krishnan Raman.
The siblings were also executed on a Wednesday instead of Friday, when hangings in Malaysia are usually conducted, which raised more questions on whether their execution was botched.
The family’s lawyer, N. Surendran, demanded that the prison authorities and Home Ministry give a detailed explanation to the family on the way the execution was conducted and also on why it was done before the clemency petition’s result was known.
“From a legal point of view, both of them were executed without exhausting all legal processes.
“A prisoner who has been convicted, has the legal right for his clemency to be considered under constituency. If you don’t allow [the] process to finish, you have breached the law,” he said.
The Padang Serai MP also demanded authorities to have an inquiry on the brothers’ execution and answers to be given immediately to the family.
“We are also asking explanation on manner hanging carried out and explanation on why the neck of Suthar was in that condition. We are entitled to these explanations as family members.
“We want an inquiry by authorities. I hope the home minister and authorities respond to this as soon as possible as it is a case of public interest,” Surendran added.
Amnesty International executive director Shamini Darshini said the brothers’ hanging raised questions on the transparency of the death penalty in Malaysia.
“Legal processes around death penalty is not completely clear. This is clear indication, it is not (transparent).
“When a person is hanged, there is a science to it. In this case, there are questions whether execution was correctly done. This seems to indicate a botched execution,” she said today.
She also urged Putrajaya to declare a moratorium to prevent such incidences from happening in other death penalty cases in the future.
“The death penalty in Malaysia needs to be abolished. We need the government to put in place a moratorium to prevent this from happening again. That’s what we calling for an immediate moratorium,” Shamini said, adding that Malaysia has over 1,068 people on death row as of March this year.
In the application of clemency previously sighted by Malay Mail Online, the family had obtained a statutory declaration from the deceased’s wife to forgive the brothers.
Rames and Suthar were sentenced to death in April 2010 under Section 302 of the Penal Code for murder, after being convicted for the February 4, 2006 murder.
Thursday, 1 September 2016
Executions: Indonesia disregards its own laws
Source: The Jakarta Post (20 August 2016)
http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/08/20/executions-ri-disregards-its-own-laws.html
Recently, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) held another round of executions and, similar to last year’s executions, all those executed were drug offenders.
Hours after the executions, Attorney General M. Prasetyo reiterated that other countries should respect the sovereignty of Indonesian law, denying any appeals from countries concerned about the imposition of the death penalty in Indonesia.
The fact that the death penalty exists in our law is not in question, but this does not necessarily mean that the death penalty has always been implemented flawlessly.
In fact, given that the criminal justice system is human-made, it is inherently prone to human error.
In the days leading up to the execution, serious unfair trials and miscarriages of justice experienced by those to be executed were raised by lawyers, family members and human rights groups.
And now we have something more: an unlawful execution.
Outcries over the latest executions came from rights watchdogs, which identified two main errors.
First, at least two out of four of the executed — Seck Osmane and Humphrey Ejike — had pending clemency decisions.
According to the Article 13 of the Clemency Law, an execution of a prisoner who has filed a clemency petition cannot be carried out before the President has issued a presidential decree on the clemency decision.
Article 7 paragraph (2) of the same law previously regulated that one could lodge a clemency petition one year after one’s court decision was declared final and binding.
However, only last June the Constitutional Court declared that such a limitation was not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and therefore revoked the article.
At that stage, neither of the two prisoners had filed clemency petitions until a few days before the executions. It seems obvious that legally speaking, both Seck and Humphrey still had a right to clemency and could not be executed before the President had made a decision over their petitions.
Second, the AGO violated the law on execution procedures, which regulates that executions cannot be carried out until 72 hours after a prosecutor notifies the condemned prisoners. All 14 death-row prisoners received their notification on July 26 around 3 p.m.
This meant that the executions could only be conducted, at the earliest, on the afternoon of July 29. In reality, the executions took place in the early hours of that day.
Given these two violations, it seems clear this latest round of executions was unlawful.
International communities have taken up these violations and condemned them. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, for example, called on Indonesia to put a moratorium in place, defining Indonesia as the “most prolific executioner in Southeast Asia”. Is this the international image that Indonesia wants to project?
European and Australian governments have also raised concerns over allegations of unfair trials, despite no European or Australian nationals being listed for execution.
This demonstrates that their appeal to Indonesia to halt the execution is not a matter of defending their own nationals, but rather a matter of universal principle.
A distinguished Islamic philosopher from Oxford University, Professor Tariq Ramadan, has also sent an open letter to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. He enlightened the President on how sharia sees the death penalty. He argues that “rahmah [compassion] is an absolute necessity, an essential principle, an imperative duty, even if there is no doubt and all the conditions are gathered”.
Despite the serious flaws and international criticisms, the AGO appeared adamant about its position on executions. Prasetyo has repeatedly said that other countries must respect the sovereignty of Indonesia’s law.
Talking about such sovereignty, the attorney general himself has violated Indonesian law with those infringements. How can we expect foreign countries to respect our sovereignty of law if the law enforcers themselves blatantly disregard it?
That seems to be a paradoxical position and a hypocritical standing. This legal calamity can go on no longer. President Jokowi must stop any further executions.
Thorough evaluation of death penalty cases by an independent team established by the President is imperative.In the meantime, while the team is reviewing all death penalty cases, Indonesia must implement a moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty for all crimes.
This third round of executions has shown us that even where an execution is “legal”, it does not mean that it is not intrinsically problematic.
Further, it potentially kills an innocent person. How many innocent lives must we end until we stop this senseless killing?
__________________________________________
The writer is a legal fellow at Reprieve UK, based in Jakarta. Reprieve UK advocates for worldwide abolition of the death penalty
http://www.thejakartapost.com/academia/2016/08/20/executions-ri-disregards-its-own-laws.html
Recently, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) held another round of executions and, similar to last year’s executions, all those executed were drug offenders.
Hours after the executions, Attorney General M. Prasetyo reiterated that other countries should respect the sovereignty of Indonesian law, denying any appeals from countries concerned about the imposition of the death penalty in Indonesia.
The fact that the death penalty exists in our law is not in question, but this does not necessarily mean that the death penalty has always been implemented flawlessly.
In fact, given that the criminal justice system is human-made, it is inherently prone to human error.
In the days leading up to the execution, serious unfair trials and miscarriages of justice experienced by those to be executed were raised by lawyers, family members and human rights groups.
And now we have something more: an unlawful execution.
Outcries over the latest executions came from rights watchdogs, which identified two main errors.
First, at least two out of four of the executed — Seck Osmane and Humphrey Ejike — had pending clemency decisions.
According to the Article 13 of the Clemency Law, an execution of a prisoner who has filed a clemency petition cannot be carried out before the President has issued a presidential decree on the clemency decision.
Article 7 paragraph (2) of the same law previously regulated that one could lodge a clemency petition one year after one’s court decision was declared final and binding.
However, only last June the Constitutional Court declared that such a limitation was not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and therefore revoked the article.
At that stage, neither of the two prisoners had filed clemency petitions until a few days before the executions. It seems obvious that legally speaking, both Seck and Humphrey still had a right to clemency and could not be executed before the President had made a decision over their petitions.
Second, the AGO violated the law on execution procedures, which regulates that executions cannot be carried out until 72 hours after a prosecutor notifies the condemned prisoners. All 14 death-row prisoners received their notification on July 26 around 3 p.m.
This meant that the executions could only be conducted, at the earliest, on the afternoon of July 29. In reality, the executions took place in the early hours of that day.
Given these two violations, it seems clear this latest round of executions was unlawful.
International communities have taken up these violations and condemned them. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, for example, called on Indonesia to put a moratorium in place, defining Indonesia as the “most prolific executioner in Southeast Asia”. Is this the international image that Indonesia wants to project?
European and Australian governments have also raised concerns over allegations of unfair trials, despite no European or Australian nationals being listed for execution.
This demonstrates that their appeal to Indonesia to halt the execution is not a matter of defending their own nationals, but rather a matter of universal principle.
A distinguished Islamic philosopher from Oxford University, Professor Tariq Ramadan, has also sent an open letter to President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. He enlightened the President on how sharia sees the death penalty. He argues that “rahmah [compassion] is an absolute necessity, an essential principle, an imperative duty, even if there is no doubt and all the conditions are gathered”.
Despite the serious flaws and international criticisms, the AGO appeared adamant about its position on executions. Prasetyo has repeatedly said that other countries must respect the sovereignty of Indonesia’s law.
Talking about such sovereignty, the attorney general himself has violated Indonesian law with those infringements. How can we expect foreign countries to respect our sovereignty of law if the law enforcers themselves blatantly disregard it?
That seems to be a paradoxical position and a hypocritical standing. This legal calamity can go on no longer. President Jokowi must stop any further executions.
Thorough evaluation of death penalty cases by an independent team established by the President is imperative.In the meantime, while the team is reviewing all death penalty cases, Indonesia must implement a moratorium with a view to abolishing the death penalty for all crimes.
This third round of executions has shown us that even where an execution is “legal”, it does not mean that it is not intrinsically problematic.
Further, it potentially kills an innocent person. How many innocent lives must we end until we stop this senseless killing?
__________________________________________
The writer is a legal fellow at Reprieve UK, based in Jakarta. Reprieve UK advocates for worldwide abolition of the death penalty
Nathan grants zero presidential pardon during his 2 terms
Source: The Independent (27 August 2016)
http://theindependent.sg/nathan-grants-zero-presidential-pardon-during-his-2-terms/
S R Nathan, the longest serving president from 1999 to 2011 did not grant clemency to any death row inmates during his 2 terms as President.
This is according to the Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty (SWGDP) in its statement issued on the 13th World Day Against the Death Penalty last October.
SWGDP stated, “Since Singapore’s independence, only seven clemencies have been granted (as at Oct 2015), with the last being exercised by the late President Ong Teng Cheong.”
It went on to reveal that of the 7 clemencies, two were granted in the term of President Benjamin Sheares, one under President Devan Nair, three under President Wee Kim Wee, and one under President Ong Teng Cheong.
Presidential clemencies granted by past Presidents:
• Benjamin Sheares (1971-1981): 2 in 10 years
• Devan Nair (1981-1985): 1 in 4 years
• Wee Kim Wee (1985 -1993): 3 in 8 years
• Ong Teng Cheong (1993-1999): 1 in 6 years
• S R Nathan (1999 – 2011): 0 in 12 years
The SWGDP is an advocacy group in Singapore which believes in giving convicted people a second chance to live. It advocates for the abolishment of the death penalty in Singapore as well as commits to raising awareness on issues surrounding the death penalty.
On its website, it said:
ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OR HER MISTAKES AND THAT NO CRIME SHOULD GO UNPUNISHED, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT UNJUST AND PROBLEMATIC LAWS AND PROCEDURES NEED TO BE DEBATED AND REVISED.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS AN IRREVERSIBLE PUNISHMENT AT THE END OF A PROCESS THAT IS PRONE TO HUMAN ERROR, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS ALL TOO POSSIBLE THAT INNOCENT LIVES WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
As at Oct 2015, the last clemency was granted by the late president Ong Teng Cheong in May 1998. He commuted Mr Mathavakannan Kalimuthu’s death sentence to life imprisonment. He was 19 when he and two other men killed a gangster in 1996.
‘I have to ask the man up there to forgive me’
After Nathan stepped down as President in 2011, he gave an interview to the media. During the interview, he was asked about granting presidential pardons during his 12-year term in office. He was asked if he found it difficult.
“The constitution clearly lays it down that I have to act on the advice of the cabinet, and the cabinet acts on the advice of the Attorney-General,” he said.
“You have a right to question it… through the process, you determine whether all the facts have been taken into account, whether there’s anything that needs special consideration.”
Upon further probing by a reporter from Yahoo, Nathan finally said, “Of course it’s a difficult thing when it comes to the death penalty. It’s a matter of conscience. That’s the law… and you do your best to see that there is justice done.”
“You are in no position to contradict the submission when you have not heard the case,” he continued. “You can’t purely go on human emotions.”
“I have to ask the man up there to forgive me for what is done for the good of society.”
http://theindependent.sg/nathan-grants-zero-presidential-pardon-during-his-2-terms/
S R Nathan, the longest serving president from 1999 to 2011 did not grant clemency to any death row inmates during his 2 terms as President.
This is according to the Singapore Working Group on the Death Penalty (SWGDP) in its statement issued on the 13th World Day Against the Death Penalty last October.
SWGDP stated, “Since Singapore’s independence, only seven clemencies have been granted (as at Oct 2015), with the last being exercised by the late President Ong Teng Cheong.”
It went on to reveal that of the 7 clemencies, two were granted in the term of President Benjamin Sheares, one under President Devan Nair, three under President Wee Kim Wee, and one under President Ong Teng Cheong.
Presidential clemencies granted by past Presidents:
• Benjamin Sheares (1971-1981): 2 in 10 years
• Devan Nair (1981-1985): 1 in 4 years
• Wee Kim Wee (1985 -1993): 3 in 8 years
• Ong Teng Cheong (1993-1999): 1 in 6 years
• S R Nathan (1999 – 2011): 0 in 12 years
The SWGDP is an advocacy group in Singapore which believes in giving convicted people a second chance to live. It advocates for the abolishment of the death penalty in Singapore as well as commits to raising awareness on issues surrounding the death penalty.
On its website, it said:
ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OR HER MISTAKES AND THAT NO CRIME SHOULD GO UNPUNISHED, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT UNJUST AND PROBLEMATIC LAWS AND PROCEDURES NEED TO BE DEBATED AND REVISED.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS AN IRREVERSIBLE PUNISHMENT AT THE END OF A PROCESS THAT IS PRONE TO HUMAN ERROR, WHICH MEANS THAT IT IS ALL TOO POSSIBLE THAT INNOCENT LIVES WILL BE TAKEN AWAY. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.
As at Oct 2015, the last clemency was granted by the late president Ong Teng Cheong in May 1998. He commuted Mr Mathavakannan Kalimuthu’s death sentence to life imprisonment. He was 19 when he and two other men killed a gangster in 1996.
‘I have to ask the man up there to forgive me’
After Nathan stepped down as President in 2011, he gave an interview to the media. During the interview, he was asked about granting presidential pardons during his 12-year term in office. He was asked if he found it difficult.
“The constitution clearly lays it down that I have to act on the advice of the cabinet, and the cabinet acts on the advice of the Attorney-General,” he said.
“You have a right to question it… through the process, you determine whether all the facts have been taken into account, whether there’s anything that needs special consideration.”
Upon further probing by a reporter from Yahoo, Nathan finally said, “Of course it’s a difficult thing when it comes to the death penalty. It’s a matter of conscience. That’s the law… and you do your best to see that there is justice done.”
“You are in no position to contradict the submission when you have not heard the case,” he continued. “You can’t purely go on human emotions.”
“I have to ask the man up there to forgive me for what is done for the good of society.”
Tuesday, 26 July 2016
Indonesia executions loom as convict Merri Utami is sent to prison island
Source: The Guardian (25 July 2016)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/25/indonesia-executions--convict-merry-utami-sent-nusa-kambangan
The next round of executions in Indonesia appear imminent following the transfer of an Indonesian woman on death row, Merri Utami, to the execution island of Nusa Kambangan.
Ordinarily female prisoners are not held at Nusa Kambangan, the prison site in central Java where Australian nationals Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed alongside six others in April last year.
Utami was transferred in the early hours of Sunday under high security from Tangerang prison where she has been detained since 2004.
Merri has been placed in an isolation cell and is reportedly the only female inmate being held alongside more than 1,000 people there.
According to Amnesty International, at least 165 people are on death row in Indonesia, and more than 40% of those convicted of drug-related crimes.
Merri’s transfer echoes previous patterns and could indicate the next round is less than a week away, Ricky Gunawan, the director of the Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH) in Jakarta, told the Guardian.
“It’s the same like Mary Jane Veloso, she was transferred just days before the notice of the executions was given,” said Gunawan of the Filipina woman who was granted a temporary, last-minute reprieve last year.
In January last year another Indonesian woman on death row, Rani Andriani, was also moved to Nusa Kambangan just days before she was executed.
Prison officials at both Nusa Kambangan and Tangerang prisons have denied Utami’s transfer was linked to executions, but the move does not appear to be routine.
“It could be routine. But with only one transfer, of one prisoner, it doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of routine transfers,” noted Gunawan.
Advertisement
Utami was sentenced to death for carrying 1.1 kilograms of heroin through Soekarno Hatta airport in 2003.
One inconsistency is that Utami claims she is yet to seek clemency for her charges. Under Indonesian law all legal avenues must be exhausted before an inmate can be executed.
But moving prisoners could be one strategy the Attorney General’s Office is employing to speed up clemency claims and clear any legal roadblocks, explained LBH’s Gunawan.
As well as the transfer of Utami, there are other indications Indonesia is once again readying its firing squads, after 14 prisoners were executed in two separate rounds last year.
The embassies of Nigeria and Pakistan have in recent days received letters from the Indonesian foreign ministry informing them their nationals will be “executed in the very near future”, sources close to the Guardian confirmed.
The one Pakistani national on death row here is Zulfiqar Ali. Ali was violently beaten by Indonesian police, later requiring kidney and stomach surgery, until he confessed, said Amnesty International in a 2015 report titled “Flawed Justice”.
The international rights body claimed that half of all prisoners facing capital punishment in Indonesia were subject to police brutality and torture, while foreign prisoners were often denied an interpreter or access to consular services.
President Joko Widodo has reiterated his commitment to his war on drugs and in recent months the Attorney General’s Office has confirmed more executions will take place this year.
Attorney General General HM Prasetyo has stated that executions would take place after Idul Fitri, which happened earlier in July.
The next round of executions in Indonesia appear imminent following the transfer of an Indonesian woman on death row, Merri Utami, to the execution island of Nusa Kambangan.
Ordinarily female prisoners are not held at Nusa Kambangan, the prison site in central Java where Australian nationals Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed alongside six others in April last year.
Utami was transferred in the early hours of Sunday under high security from Tangerang prison where she has been detained since 2004.
Merri has been placed in an isolation cell and is reportedly the only female inmate being held alongside more than 1,000 people there.
According to Amnesty International, at least 165 people are on death row in Indonesia, and more than 40% of those convicted of drug-related crimes.
Merri’s transfer echoes previous patterns and could indicate the next round is less than a week away, Ricky Gunawan, the director of the Community Legal Aid Institute (LBH) in Jakarta, told the Guardian.
“It’s the same like Mary Jane Veloso, she was transferred just days before the notice of the executions was given,” said Gunawan of the Filipina woman who was granted a temporary, last-minute reprieve last year.
In January last year another Indonesian woman on death row, Rani Andriani, was also moved to Nusa Kambangan just days before she was executed.
Prison officials at both Nusa Kambangan and Tangerang prisons have denied Utami’s transfer was linked to executions, but the move does not appear to be routine.
“It could be routine. But with only one transfer, of one prisoner, it doesn’t seem to fit the pattern of routine transfers,” noted Gunawan.
Advertisement
Utami was sentenced to death for carrying 1.1 kilograms of heroin through Soekarno Hatta airport in 2003.
One inconsistency is that Utami claims she is yet to seek clemency for her charges. Under Indonesian law all legal avenues must be exhausted before an inmate can be executed.
But moving prisoners could be one strategy the Attorney General’s Office is employing to speed up clemency claims and clear any legal roadblocks, explained LBH’s Gunawan.
As well as the transfer of Utami, there are other indications Indonesia is once again readying its firing squads, after 14 prisoners were executed in two separate rounds last year.
The embassies of Nigeria and Pakistan have in recent days received letters from the Indonesian foreign ministry informing them their nationals will be “executed in the very near future”, sources close to the Guardian confirmed.
The one Pakistani national on death row here is Zulfiqar Ali. Ali was violently beaten by Indonesian police, later requiring kidney and stomach surgery, until he confessed, said Amnesty International in a 2015 report titled “Flawed Justice”.
The international rights body claimed that half of all prisoners facing capital punishment in Indonesia were subject to police brutality and torture, while foreign prisoners were often denied an interpreter or access to consular services.
President Joko Widodo has reiterated his commitment to his war on drugs and in recent months the Attorney General’s Office has confirmed more executions will take place this year.
Attorney General General HM Prasetyo has stated that executions would take place after Idul Fitri, which happened earlier in July.
Friday, 12 February 2016
End death penalty, keep it only for terror: Law panel tells government
Source: The Indian Express (1 September 2015)
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/law-commission-recommends-abolition-of-death-penalty/
Over 53 years after it favoured retention of the death penalty in statute books, the Law Commission of India recommended Monday that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war against the country. This was first reported by The Indian Express last Friday.
In its report, submitted to the government by commission chairman and former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah, the 10-member panel concluded that while death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment, concern is often raised that abolition of capital punishment for terror-related offences and waging war will affect national security.
However, three members of the commission including two representing the Ministry of Law and Justice — Law Secretary P K Malhotra and Legislative Secretary Sanjay Singh — submitted dissent notes against the recommendation to abolish death penalty. The third dissent note was given by Law Commission member and former Delhi High Court judge Usha Mehra who referred to the rights of “innocent victims”.
Questioning the “rarest of rare” doctraine, the panel said that administration of death penalty, even within the “restrictive environment of rarest of rare doctraine”, was constitutionally unsustainable.“After many lengthy and detailed deliberations, it is the view of the Law Commission that the administration of death penalty, even within the restrictive environment of ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, is constitutionally unsustainable. Continued administration of death penalty asks very difficult constitutional questions… these questions relate to the miscarriage of justice, errors, as well as the plight of the poor and disenfranchised in the criminal justice system,” the report stated.
Pointing out that in the last decade, the Supreme Court had on “numerous occasions expressed concern about arbitrary sentencing” in death penalty cases, the panel said, “There exists no principled method to remove such arbitrariness from capital sentencing. A rigid, standardisation or categorisation of offences which does not take into account the difference between cases is arbitrary in that it treats different cases on the same footing. Anything less categorical, like the Bachan Singh framework itself, has demonstrably and admittedly failed.”
The commission also questioned the mercy petition system, provided for under the Constitution, saying, “The exercise of mercy powers under Articles 72 and 161 have failed in acting as the final safeguard against miscarriage of justice in the imposition of the death sentence.”
The report stated that from January 26, 1950 till date, successive Presidents have accepted 306 mercy petitions and rejected 131.
Referring to victims of crimes, the panel said in focusing on death penalty “as the ultimate measure of justice to victims”, the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of.
It said reliance on the death penalty diverts attention from other problems ailing the criminal justice system such as poor investigation, crime prevention and rights of victims of crime. It is essential that the state establish effective compensation schemes to rehabilitate victims of crime.
At the same time, it is also essential, the panel said, that courts use the power granted to them under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant appropriate compensation to victims in suitable cases.
“The voices of victims and witnesses are often silenced by threats and other coercive techniques employed by powerful accused persons. Hence, it is essential that a witness protection scheme also be established. The need for police reforms for better and more effective investigation and prosecution has also been universally felt for some time now and measures regarding the same need to be taken on a priority basis,” the report stated.
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/law-commission-recommends-abolition-of-death-penalty/
Over 53 years after it favoured retention of the death penalty in statute books, the Law Commission of India recommended Monday that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than terrorism-related offences and waging war against the country. This was first reported by The Indian Express last Friday.
In its report, submitted to the government by commission chairman and former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah, the 10-member panel concluded that while death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment, concern is often raised that abolition of capital punishment for terror-related offences and waging war will affect national security.
However, three members of the commission including two representing the Ministry of Law and Justice — Law Secretary P K Malhotra and Legislative Secretary Sanjay Singh — submitted dissent notes against the recommendation to abolish death penalty. The third dissent note was given by Law Commission member and former Delhi High Court judge Usha Mehra who referred to the rights of “innocent victims”.
Questioning the “rarest of rare” doctraine, the panel said that administration of death penalty, even within the “restrictive environment of rarest of rare doctraine”, was constitutionally unsustainable.“After many lengthy and detailed deliberations, it is the view of the Law Commission that the administration of death penalty, even within the restrictive environment of ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, is constitutionally unsustainable. Continued administration of death penalty asks very difficult constitutional questions… these questions relate to the miscarriage of justice, errors, as well as the plight of the poor and disenfranchised in the criminal justice system,” the report stated.
Pointing out that in the last decade, the Supreme Court had on “numerous occasions expressed concern about arbitrary sentencing” in death penalty cases, the panel said, “There exists no principled method to remove such arbitrariness from capital sentencing. A rigid, standardisation or categorisation of offences which does not take into account the difference between cases is arbitrary in that it treats different cases on the same footing. Anything less categorical, like the Bachan Singh framework itself, has demonstrably and admittedly failed.”
The commission also questioned the mercy petition system, provided for under the Constitution, saying, “The exercise of mercy powers under Articles 72 and 161 have failed in acting as the final safeguard against miscarriage of justice in the imposition of the death sentence.”
The report stated that from January 26, 1950 till date, successive Presidents have accepted 306 mercy petitions and rejected 131.
Referring to victims of crimes, the panel said in focusing on death penalty “as the ultimate measure of justice to victims”, the restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of.
It said reliance on the death penalty diverts attention from other problems ailing the criminal justice system such as poor investigation, crime prevention and rights of victims of crime. It is essential that the state establish effective compensation schemes to rehabilitate victims of crime.
At the same time, it is also essential, the panel said, that courts use the power granted to them under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant appropriate compensation to victims in suitable cases.
“The voices of victims and witnesses are often silenced by threats and other coercive techniques employed by powerful accused persons. Hence, it is essential that a witness protection scheme also be established. The need for police reforms for better and more effective investigation and prosecution has also been universally felt for some time now and measures regarding the same need to be taken on a priority basis,” the report stated.
Sunday, 24 May 2015
Comparative Executive Clemency The Prerogative of Mercy in the Commonwealth (New Book)
Author: Andrew Novak
Publisher: Routledge
Publication date: September 15th 2015
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/search/author/andrew_novak/
Abstract:
This book provides a comparative constitutional analysis of executive clemency, with a focus on death penalty cases.
In the Commonwealth today, legal frameworks and clemency proceedings differ markedly. In some countries, the decision is one for the executive alone, while others have delegated this power to an advisory committee. The role of legislatures varies as well: in some countries, legislative assemblies can appoint or approve members of a clemency or pardon board. Today, international tribunals recognize a human right to seek clemency, reprieve, or pardon, and forbid such executions while such a request is pending. In general, the trend is toward rationalization of the clemency process, involving more actors in decision-making and diluting the unchecked discretion of a single individual.
Focusing specifically on death penalty cases, as these are the most urgent, this book argues that improving the rationality and transparency of the clemency process will not only benefit executive decision-making, but will contribute to death penalty abolition in the long-term by increasing the structural costs of executions, a process well underway in India and the Caribbean. Comparative executive clemency has never been the subject of a full-length comparative constitutional analysis, and the breadth of jurisdictions contained in this book— encompassing the entire English-speaking world—provides a full range of cultural and political variations in the level of deference given to executive decision-making.
This book will be of great interest to scholars of international and comparative criminal justice and international human rights law.
Publisher: Routledge
Publication date: September 15th 2015
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/books/search/author/andrew_novak/
Abstract:
This book provides a comparative constitutional analysis of executive clemency, with a focus on death penalty cases.
In the Commonwealth today, legal frameworks and clemency proceedings differ markedly. In some countries, the decision is one for the executive alone, while others have delegated this power to an advisory committee. The role of legislatures varies as well: in some countries, legislative assemblies can appoint or approve members of a clemency or pardon board. Today, international tribunals recognize a human right to seek clemency, reprieve, or pardon, and forbid such executions while such a request is pending. In general, the trend is toward rationalization of the clemency process, involving more actors in decision-making and diluting the unchecked discretion of a single individual.
Focusing specifically on death penalty cases, as these are the most urgent, this book argues that improving the rationality and transparency of the clemency process will not only benefit executive decision-making, but will contribute to death penalty abolition in the long-term by increasing the structural costs of executions, a process well underway in India and the Caribbean. Comparative executive clemency has never been the subject of a full-length comparative constitutional analysis, and the breadth of jurisdictions contained in this book— encompassing the entire English-speaking world—provides a full range of cultural and political variations in the level of deference given to executive decision-making.
This book will be of great interest to scholars of international and comparative criminal justice and international human rights law.
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
Executed away from home: Africans on drugs crimes find little mercy from Asia, its new trade partner
Source: Mail Guardian Africa (30 April 2015)
http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-04-29-dying-away-from-home-africans-on-drugs-charges-finding-little-mercy/
FOUR African men were among eight drug offenders executed by firing squad in Indonesia on Wednesday in a case that attracted huge international attention.
Nigerians Raheem Agbaje Salami (also known as Jamiu Owolabi Abashin), Silvester Obiekwe Nwolise, Martin Anderson and Okwuduli Oyatanze were killed at 12:30am, local time, on the Indonesian prison island of Nusa Kambangan.
"The executions have been successfully implemented, perfectly," Attorney General Muhammad Prasetyo said of the controversial deaths. "All worked, no misses."
Nigeria only responded late Wednesday, expressing "deep disappointment" at the execution by firing squad of four of its citizens.
Abuja said President Goodluck Jonathan and Foreign Minister Aminu Wali had made "spirited appeals for clemency", most recently at an Asian-African summit in the Indonesian capital Jakarta last week.
Brazil and Australia both recalled their ambassadors to Jakarta for "consultation"—diplomatic speak for expressing great displeasure. Australia had made more than 50 appeals for clemency.
Indonesian president Joko Widodo who has announced his intention to clear the country's death row of drug traffickers, insisted that narcotics are "a national emergency" that require an unforgiving response. Analysts say he is looking to convey the image of a decisive leader to Indonesians.
The country, which has some of the toughest drug laws in the world, in December said it would put to death 64 convicts, including foreigners. It is also reportedly working hard to save over 200 Indonesians on death row in foreign countries, largely on drug and murder charges.
The deaths of the four Nigerians would add to a trend where Africans have been jailed or killed for drug related offences in foreign countries, many in Asian countries which have the death sentence.
When president Widodo reactivated the death penalty for drug crimes after a five-year pause, the first victim was Adami Wilson, a 48-year-old Malawian sentenced to death in 2005. He was executed also by firing squad in 2013.
Two other Nigerians were executed in January in the same country.
In the same month, 28-year-old South African Deon Cornelius was sentenced to death in Malaysia for smuggling an illegal drug, having been arrested in 2013.
1,500 South Africans in prisons abroad
According to data from Locked Up, a South African organisation that assists nationals arrested abroad, some 1,300 South African citizens are serving prison sentences in foreign countries, mostly on drug related charges. The majority are held in Brazil and Asia.
China, Africa's biggest trading partner, regularly executes drug smugglers, though it does not make available statistics, adding to the problem of undocumented travel that makes it difficult to accurately map the magnitude of the problem for Africa.
Last year two Ugandans were executed in China for drug trafficking, despite the appeals of the Ugandan embassy. In a statement, the East African country said that 23 other Ugandans were on death row in China, 24 on life sentences and 28 on trial.
China had refused to compromise on the matter, Uganda's foreign ministry added, Beijing insisting it could not overturn a court verdict. Kampala said its investigations showed most of those arrested were job seekers recruited as mules (carriers), a common defence in many drug arrests.
In one five-week period between April and May 2010, China executed a Nigerian and sentenced a Zambian and five Kenyans to death for drug trafficking. It is unclear if they were carried out or commuted to life terms.
Hong Kong, which does not have the capital punishment sentence for drug-related crimes, has increasingly reported drug-related arrests involving Africans.
Tougher line on drugs
China's fight against drugs has received strong support from the top, with president Xi Jinping last year calling for "forceful measures to wipe drugs out." Drug-related arrests have since gone up by up to a third on the year before, many leading to death sentences.
In June, while the vast cases involved locals, Chinese officials said they had handled 1,491 drug-related crimes involving foreigners, a 15% increase on 2013, with 1,963 foreign drug suspects arrested. Most were Africans, Liu Yuejin, director of the ministry's narcotics control bureau said.
Meanwhile in November last year a Kenyan court ordered police to extradite four suspected drug traffickers—two Kenyans, an Indian and a Pakistani, to the United States, highlighting differing treatments.
Pakistan earlier this year ended a freeze on executions, and drug crimes are expected to be among those punished, according to human rights groups.
This came months after British and Australian navies seized the largest ever haul of heroin at sea, weighing 1,032 kilogrammes and valued at $235 million, off its coast.
The continued arrest and execution of Africans in foreign countries cast a spotlight on their governments' inability, or unwillingness, to extract prisoners' concessions from Asian countries, when those countries often successfully save their own in Africa.
More than 20 of the 32 countries that prescribe capital punishment for drug trafficking are in Asia, with just three in sub-Saharan Africa.
Earlier this month African governments attended the Asia-Africa conference in Bandung, Indonesia which commemorates the 1955 conference that laid the foundations for the Cold War-era Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
It was meant to strengthen South-South cooperation, organisers said, but analysts argue the conference is more about big countries seeking to unilaterally extend their influence with other participants, often at the expense of African countries.
Lack of African clout
The lack of African countries in rescuing their citizens from foreign jurisdictions by legal means essentially is a result of their failure to use such leverage along with burgeoning trade links to their advantage.
Another major hurdle for African countries is the lack of interest in prisoner exchange agreements. International law has generally pushed for foreign sentenced offenders to serve out their terms in their home countries, largely for rehabilitation and humanitarian reasons, but also for law enforcement purposes.
For long, the objection towards this centred on the infringing of sovereignty and exclusive territoriality, but this has since been weakened in the face of the benefit to international relations between the involved countries that such deals give.
Few African countries have even simple bilateral deals, which are perceived as time and resource consuming, or are members of the multilateral agreements that would govern offender exchanges, despite giving the nod to the UN's Model Agreement on transfers.
The European Convention is one of the more prominent ones, but Mauritius is the only African country that is a member, despite 18 of the 64 member states being non-European.
Of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth, just 15 have enacted the club's rules for transferring prisoners, including Malawi and Nigeria, but not countries such as South Africa, which prides itself on its human rights laws.
No African country has signed on to the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad either.
Unless the continent takes up the issue and uses its links with Asia, Africans will continue to be pawns and makeweights in regional geopolitical battles.
http://mgafrica.com/article/2015-04-29-dying-away-from-home-africans-on-drugs-charges-finding-little-mercy/
FOUR African men were among eight drug offenders executed by firing squad in Indonesia on Wednesday in a case that attracted huge international attention.
Nigerians Raheem Agbaje Salami (also known as Jamiu Owolabi Abashin), Silvester Obiekwe Nwolise, Martin Anderson and Okwuduli Oyatanze were killed at 12:30am, local time, on the Indonesian prison island of Nusa Kambangan.
"The executions have been successfully implemented, perfectly," Attorney General Muhammad Prasetyo said of the controversial deaths. "All worked, no misses."
Nigeria only responded late Wednesday, expressing "deep disappointment" at the execution by firing squad of four of its citizens.
Abuja said President Goodluck Jonathan and Foreign Minister Aminu Wali had made "spirited appeals for clemency", most recently at an Asian-African summit in the Indonesian capital Jakarta last week.
Brazil and Australia both recalled their ambassadors to Jakarta for "consultation"—diplomatic speak for expressing great displeasure. Australia had made more than 50 appeals for clemency.
Indonesian president Joko Widodo who has announced his intention to clear the country's death row of drug traffickers, insisted that narcotics are "a national emergency" that require an unforgiving response. Analysts say he is looking to convey the image of a decisive leader to Indonesians.
The country, which has some of the toughest drug laws in the world, in December said it would put to death 64 convicts, including foreigners. It is also reportedly working hard to save over 200 Indonesians on death row in foreign countries, largely on drug and murder charges.
The deaths of the four Nigerians would add to a trend where Africans have been jailed or killed for drug related offences in foreign countries, many in Asian countries which have the death sentence.
When president Widodo reactivated the death penalty for drug crimes after a five-year pause, the first victim was Adami Wilson, a 48-year-old Malawian sentenced to death in 2005. He was executed also by firing squad in 2013.
Two other Nigerians were executed in January in the same country.
In the same month, 28-year-old South African Deon Cornelius was sentenced to death in Malaysia for smuggling an illegal drug, having been arrested in 2013.
1,500 South Africans in prisons abroad
According to data from Locked Up, a South African organisation that assists nationals arrested abroad, some 1,300 South African citizens are serving prison sentences in foreign countries, mostly on drug related charges. The majority are held in Brazil and Asia.
China, Africa's biggest trading partner, regularly executes drug smugglers, though it does not make available statistics, adding to the problem of undocumented travel that makes it difficult to accurately map the magnitude of the problem for Africa.
Last year two Ugandans were executed in China for drug trafficking, despite the appeals of the Ugandan embassy. In a statement, the East African country said that 23 other Ugandans were on death row in China, 24 on life sentences and 28 on trial.
China had refused to compromise on the matter, Uganda's foreign ministry added, Beijing insisting it could not overturn a court verdict. Kampala said its investigations showed most of those arrested were job seekers recruited as mules (carriers), a common defence in many drug arrests.
In one five-week period between April and May 2010, China executed a Nigerian and sentenced a Zambian and five Kenyans to death for drug trafficking. It is unclear if they were carried out or commuted to life terms.
Hong Kong, which does not have the capital punishment sentence for drug-related crimes, has increasingly reported drug-related arrests involving Africans.
Tougher line on drugs
China's fight against drugs has received strong support from the top, with president Xi Jinping last year calling for "forceful measures to wipe drugs out." Drug-related arrests have since gone up by up to a third on the year before, many leading to death sentences.
In June, while the vast cases involved locals, Chinese officials said they had handled 1,491 drug-related crimes involving foreigners, a 15% increase on 2013, with 1,963 foreign drug suspects arrested. Most were Africans, Liu Yuejin, director of the ministry's narcotics control bureau said.
Meanwhile in November last year a Kenyan court ordered police to extradite four suspected drug traffickers—two Kenyans, an Indian and a Pakistani, to the United States, highlighting differing treatments.
Pakistan earlier this year ended a freeze on executions, and drug crimes are expected to be among those punished, according to human rights groups.
This came months after British and Australian navies seized the largest ever haul of heroin at sea, weighing 1,032 kilogrammes and valued at $235 million, off its coast.
The continued arrest and execution of Africans in foreign countries cast a spotlight on their governments' inability, or unwillingness, to extract prisoners' concessions from Asian countries, when those countries often successfully save their own in Africa.
More than 20 of the 32 countries that prescribe capital punishment for drug trafficking are in Asia, with just three in sub-Saharan Africa.
Earlier this month African governments attended the Asia-Africa conference in Bandung, Indonesia which commemorates the 1955 conference that laid the foundations for the Cold War-era Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).
It was meant to strengthen South-South cooperation, organisers said, but analysts argue the conference is more about big countries seeking to unilaterally extend their influence with other participants, often at the expense of African countries.
Lack of African clout
The lack of African countries in rescuing their citizens from foreign jurisdictions by legal means essentially is a result of their failure to use such leverage along with burgeoning trade links to their advantage.
Another major hurdle for African countries is the lack of interest in prisoner exchange agreements. International law has generally pushed for foreign sentenced offenders to serve out their terms in their home countries, largely for rehabilitation and humanitarian reasons, but also for law enforcement purposes.
For long, the objection towards this centred on the infringing of sovereignty and exclusive territoriality, but this has since been weakened in the face of the benefit to international relations between the involved countries that such deals give.
Few African countries have even simple bilateral deals, which are perceived as time and resource consuming, or are members of the multilateral agreements that would govern offender exchanges, despite giving the nod to the UN's Model Agreement on transfers.
The European Convention is one of the more prominent ones, but Mauritius is the only African country that is a member, despite 18 of the 64 member states being non-European.
Of the 53 member states in the Commonwealth, just 15 have enacted the club's rules for transferring prisoners, including Malawi and Nigeria, but not countries such as South Africa, which prides itself on its human rights laws.
No African country has signed on to the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad either.
Unless the continent takes up the issue and uses its links with Asia, Africans will continue to be pawns and makeweights in regional geopolitical battles.
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
ASIA/MYANMAR - Farewell to death penalty: all those condemned to death sentence are commuted to life imprisonment
Source: Agenzia Fides (4 January 2012)
Yangon (Agenzia Fides) - It is a further turning point, announced by the government of Myanmar, in the field of the new measure of amnesty which concerns hundreds of prisoners: in addition to significant reductions in punishment for many prisoners, all those sentenced to death has been commuted to life imprisonment, in what observers call "the abolition of capital punishment". If one thinks that what happens in a country where violent repression has been a tool used in a fierce manner for decades, the measure adopted by President Thein Sein is really significant, "it represents a real breakthrough for the full respect of the right to life and human rights, " comments Stephen Argentino to Fides, Coordinator of the Campaign for the abolition of the death penalty, for the European and Asian area, in the Community of St. Egidio. "This is a very important measure, unexpected and surprising. Only until a few months ago - said Argentino - it was thought that capital punishment was untouchable in Myanmar. This is a hopeful sign that confirms the launch of a new course, which affirms the full respect of human dignity".
The World Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, which the Community of St. Egidio is part of, has welcomed with favor and joy the announcement of the measure, which goes "in the right direction for the respect of all fundamental human rights". (PA) (Agenzia Fides 04/01/2012)
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Glimpse of Chan family pain
Chan family appeal for Indonesian clemency
19 June 2011
AAP on The Sydney Morning Herald
The brother of Bali Nine ringleader Andrew Chan has appealed to the Indonesian president to give him "a second chance at life".
In an emotional appeal in Sydney on Sunday, Michael Chan said his parents were devastated at the news their son had lost his final appeal against his death sentence for his role in the plot to smuggle heroin from Bali to Australia.
"Mum and dad are finding it very hard and are struggling to come to terms with this
decision," Mr Chan said through his tears.
"Each day is harder to see the pain and anguish they suffer knowing their son is facing execution."
The Indonesian Supreme Court on Friday said it had rejected Chan's final appeal against a death sentence for his involvement in the 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.
A clemency appeal to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is the 27-year-old's last hope of escaping the firing squad.
When asked what message he had for the president, Mr Chan said his brother didn't deserve to be shot.
"If he's listening, (please) give him a second chance at life," he said.
Mr Chan said his parents, who live at Enfield in Sydney, had not been given the news officially, but they were assuming it was true.
He said he had spoken to his younger brother since the final decision and Chan was staying positive.
"He's really clear on one thing - he's just going to keep on doing his best to be a better person, lead a good life, whether he's got a short time or a long time to go."
Chan had made great efforts to turn his life around, and was studying theology, participating in church and teaching other inmates English and computer skills, Mr Chan said.
"When he made his mistake he was a kid, he's grown into an adult in the last couple of years ...
"Hopefully the president can see that change in him."
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd have both said the Australian government would support Chan's likely bid for clemency, but his brother said the family had had no contact with the government in the past few days.
19 June 2011
AAP on The Sydney Morning Herald
The brother of Bali Nine ringleader Andrew Chan has appealed to the Indonesian president to give him "a second chance at life".
In an emotional appeal in Sydney on Sunday, Michael Chan said his parents were devastated at the news their son had lost his final appeal against his death sentence for his role in the plot to smuggle heroin from Bali to Australia.
"Mum and dad are finding it very hard and are struggling to come to terms with this
decision," Mr Chan said through his tears.
"Each day is harder to see the pain and anguish they suffer knowing their son is facing execution."
The Indonesian Supreme Court on Friday said it had rejected Chan's final appeal against a death sentence for his involvement in the 2005 attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin out of Bali.
A clemency appeal to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is the 27-year-old's last hope of escaping the firing squad.
When asked what message he had for the president, Mr Chan said his brother didn't deserve to be shot.
"If he's listening, (please) give him a second chance at life," he said.
Mr Chan said his parents, who live at Enfield in Sydney, had not been given the news officially, but they were assuming it was true.
He said he had spoken to his younger brother since the final decision and Chan was staying positive.
"He's really clear on one thing - he's just going to keep on doing his best to be a better person, lead a good life, whether he's got a short time or a long time to go."
Chan had made great efforts to turn his life around, and was studying theology, participating in church and teaching other inmates English and computer skills, Mr Chan said.
"When he made his mistake he was a kid, he's grown into an adult in the last couple of years ...
"Hopefully the president can see that change in him."
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd have both said the Australian government would support Chan's likely bid for clemency, but his brother said the family had had no contact with the government in the past few days.
Saturday, 13 February 2010
China: Guidelines for executions and "mercy"
China issues guidelines to limit death penalty use
From: Xinhua, 9 February 2010
BEIJING, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) -- China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) said Tuesday it had issued guidelines for courts nationwide to handle criminal cases with a policy of "justice tempered with mercy," stressing that death penalty use be limited.
The guidelines say the death penalty should be "resolutely" handed down to those who have committed "extremely serious" crimes, but that the punishment should be reserved for the tiny minority of criminals against which there is valid and ample evidence.
The guidelines also say that capital punishment reprieves should be granted for as long as they are allowed by law.
The guidelines are an interpretation of the "justice tempered with mercy" policy and details on the judicial principles used when handling criminal cases, SPC spokesman Sun Jungong said.
The "justice tempered with mercy" policy was first enacted in a document approved in 2006 by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The policy required courts to issue both severe and lenient sentences, depending on the seriousness of each crime.
According to the guidelines, crimes involving officials taking advantage of their position and mafia-style gangs should be handled "with severity."
Severity should also be applied to repeat offenders.
On the other hand, the document says minors and senior citizens who commit crimes should be punished with leniency.
Commutation and paroles for ex-officials who took advantage of their public position, especially those at county-level or above, are required to be heard at court.
Commutations for criminals convicted of major crimes like murder and robbery are to be strictly limited, the guidlines say.
From: Xinhua, 9 February 2010
BEIJING, Feb. 9 (Xinhua) -- China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) said Tuesday it had issued guidelines for courts nationwide to handle criminal cases with a policy of "justice tempered with mercy," stressing that death penalty use be limited.
The guidelines say the death penalty should be "resolutely" handed down to those who have committed "extremely serious" crimes, but that the punishment should be reserved for the tiny minority of criminals against which there is valid and ample evidence.
The guidelines also say that capital punishment reprieves should be granted for as long as they are allowed by law.
The guidelines are an interpretation of the "justice tempered with mercy" policy and details on the judicial principles used when handling criminal cases, SPC spokesman Sun Jungong said.
The "justice tempered with mercy" policy was first enacted in a document approved in 2006 by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
The policy required courts to issue both severe and lenient sentences, depending on the seriousness of each crime.
According to the guidelines, crimes involving officials taking advantage of their position and mafia-style gangs should be handled "with severity."
Severity should also be applied to repeat offenders.
On the other hand, the document says minors and senior citizens who commit crimes should be punished with leniency.
Commutation and paroles for ex-officials who took advantage of their public position, especially those at county-level or above, are required to be heard at court.
Commutations for criminals convicted of major crimes like murder and robbery are to be strictly limited, the guidlines say.
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Mongolia: Death row inmate pardoned
On 30 July 2009 Amnesty International (AI) issued an urgent appeal on behalf of Mongolian man facing execution for murder. It is extremely rare for details of capital cases in Mongolia to be made public, which greatly limits the ability of independent media to report on the death penalty in that country and of human rights activists to place pressure on the government.
Information about the death penalty in Mongolia is considered a state secret, even to the extent that the government does not confirm how executions are carried out.
On 14 October, AI issued the following update.
Urgent Action
Mongolian death row inmate pardoned
Buuveibaatar, a 33-year old Mongolian man sentenced to death for murder, has been granted a pardon by the Mongolian President.
Buuveibaatar was sentenced to death for the murder of his former girlfriend’s new boyfriend in January 2008. He had exhausted all his appeals. His father wrote to Amnesty International, thanking everyone for their support.
No further action is requested from the Urgent Action network. Many thanks to all who sent appeals.
This is the first update of UA 206/09 (ASA 30/002/2009).
Issue Date: 14 October 2009
Related story:
Mongolia: Appeal for death row pardon -- 3 August 2009
Information about the death penalty in Mongolia is considered a state secret, even to the extent that the government does not confirm how executions are carried out.
On 14 October, AI issued the following update.
Urgent Action
Mongolian death row inmate pardoned
Buuveibaatar, a 33-year old Mongolian man sentenced to death for murder, has been granted a pardon by the Mongolian President.
Buuveibaatar was sentenced to death for the murder of his former girlfriend’s new boyfriend in January 2008. He had exhausted all his appeals. His father wrote to Amnesty International, thanking everyone for their support.
No further action is requested from the Urgent Action network. Many thanks to all who sent appeals.
This is the first update of UA 206/09 (ASA 30/002/2009).
Issue Date: 14 October 2009
Related story:
Mongolia: Appeal for death row pardon -- 3 August 2009
Friday, 30 January 2009
Abolition proposal to Pakistan's president
Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari has received a proposal to convert death sentences to life imprisonment, according to a television report quoted by the Daily Times.
The newspaper reported today that the Interior Ministry sent a summary proposal to the president for approval.
According to the Pakistani newspaper, the television report said the federal government sent the proposal to the Law Ministry six months ago, which then forwarded a revised draft to the Interior Ministry.
It said if the law was approved, it would not apply to "people sentenced to death for terrorist attacks harming national integrity".
In June 2008, prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the government would propose to the president that all death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
If it was applied to Pakistan's current death row population, up to 7,000 death row prisoners could be spared execution by hanging.
Despite the review, president Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence, and human rights organisations have reported that prisoners were still being executed.
Related stories:
Pakistan's mixed signals on death penalty -- 2 December 2008
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
The newspaper reported today that the Interior Ministry sent a summary proposal to the president for approval.
According to the Pakistani newspaper, the television report said the federal government sent the proposal to the Law Ministry six months ago, which then forwarded a revised draft to the Interior Ministry.
It said if the law was approved, it would not apply to "people sentenced to death for terrorist attacks harming national integrity".
In June 2008, prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani announced the government would propose to the president that all death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
If it was applied to Pakistan's current death row population, up to 7,000 death row prisoners could be spared execution by hanging.
Despite the review, president Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence, and human rights organisations have reported that prisoners were still being executed.
Related stories:
Pakistan's mixed signals on death penalty -- 2 December 2008
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Tuesday, 2 December 2008
Pakistan's mixed signals on death penalty
Two human rights organisations have urged the government of Pakistan to suspend executions while it considers a proposal to commute all death sentences.
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) asked the government to ensure no-one was executed while the constitutionality of the proposal was considered by the Supreme Court.
In an open letter to the prime minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, they "welcomed this initiative as a historical breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty" but expressed concern that prisoners could still be hanged while it was being examined.
On 21 June, the prime minister announced the government would recommend to president Pervez Musharraf that all current death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government tabled a written statement in the national assembly on 21 November confirming the Law Ministry was considering the proposal.
The government was also reportedly reviewing laws relating to various capital offences, including laws for anti-terrorism, rape and gang rape, to examine any amendments that could be made consistent with Islamic principles.
Amnesty International reported on 31 October that 15 people had been executed since the prime minister's June announcement.
Review, but expansion
Despite the June announcement and the review, the government of Pakistan has given mixed signals on the death penalty recently with the announcement that the scope of the death penalty would be expanded to include 'cyber-terrorism' offences.
President Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence.
According to an AFP report, the ordinance would provide that: "Whoever commits the offence of cyber-terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
The report said the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, which had yet to be approved by parliament, covered crimes that used computers or other electronic devices to threaten national security.
It would apply to Pakistanis and foreigners living in the country and abroad.
The HRCP criticised the proposal, noting that "under customary international human rights law, the death penalty is accepted only in very rare circumstances -- including the most extreme nature of crime carried out with the use of lethal weapons".
It said the law would be seen as "an oppressive law unless the punishments are proportionate to the crime and do not involve the death penalty".
"The present legal system in Pakistan does not guarantee due process and therefore the imposition of the death would only add to the miscarriage of justice suffered by thousands of people executed by the State," the organisation said in a statement.
State of justice
The open letter, by HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir and FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen said the Supreme Court had intervened to review the constitutionality of the proposal in light of the in light of the country's Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
The organisations argued that the law relating to Qisas and Diyat in effect withdrew the state -- and therefore the rule of law -- from deciding the punishment for crimes such as manslaughter and murder.
Instead the victim’s heirs determined the punishment, including the consideration of any pardon or compensation.
"FIDH and HRCP have repeatedly asked for a profound reform of the Qisas and Diyat Law because it de facto amounts to a privatisation of justice, as the offences of physical injury, manslaughter and murder are no longer offences to the state, but are considered a dealing between two private parties," the letter said.
"The State withdraws from one of its main responsibilities, as it no longer is the guardian of the rule of law through the exercise of justice.
"In addition, under this law, pardoning a condemned prisoner in case of murder rests solely with the heirs of the victim, rather than with the President, contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
"Indeed, under this ordinance, passed as a law in 1997, the aggrieved party is given precedence to choose the penalty for the culprit. Under Islamic law, the punishment can either be in the form of qisas (equal or similar punishment for the crime committed) or diyat (compensation payable to the victim's legal heirs)."
Pakistan has one of the largest death row populations in the world, with about 7,000 people believed to be living under sentence of death.
World Day appeal
The HRCP issued a statement on the World Day Against Death Penalty (10 October) noting "that the systematic and generalized application of death penalty had not led to an improvement of the law and order in the country".
"It is ironic that while Pakistan has one of the highest rates of conviction to capital punishment in the world with around 7,000 convicts on the death row in Pakistan today, yet its law and order is alarmingly dismal," the organisation said.
On the contrary, "[t]he massive application of death penalty has not strengthened the situation of law and order in the country".
"The HRCP argued that the death penalty was discriminatory, unfair and utterly inefficient and must be abandoned in accordance with the international human rights law."
Related stories:
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system -- 12 October 2006
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) asked the government to ensure no-one was executed while the constitutionality of the proposal was considered by the Supreme Court.
In an open letter to the prime minister of Pakistan, Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, they "welcomed this initiative as a historical breakthrough in the fight against the death penalty" but expressed concern that prisoners could still be hanged while it was being examined.
On 21 June, the prime minister announced the government would recommend to president Pervez Musharraf that all current death sentences be commuted to life imprisonment.
The government tabled a written statement in the national assembly on 21 November confirming the Law Ministry was considering the proposal.
The government was also reportedly reviewing laws relating to various capital offences, including laws for anti-terrorism, rape and gang rape, to examine any amendments that could be made consistent with Islamic principles.
Amnesty International reported on 31 October that 15 people had been executed since the prime minister's June announcement.
Review, but expansion
Despite the June announcement and the review, the government of Pakistan has given mixed signals on the death penalty recently with the announcement that the scope of the death penalty would be expanded to include 'cyber-terrorism' offences.
President Asif Ali Zardari released a new ordinance on electronic crime in early November making 'cyber-terrorism' a capital offence.
According to an AFP report, the ordinance would provide that: "Whoever commits the offence of cyber-terrorism and causes death of any person shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life."
The report said the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, which had yet to be approved by parliament, covered crimes that used computers or other electronic devices to threaten national security.
It would apply to Pakistanis and foreigners living in the country and abroad.
The HRCP criticised the proposal, noting that "under customary international human rights law, the death penalty is accepted only in very rare circumstances -- including the most extreme nature of crime carried out with the use of lethal weapons".
It said the law would be seen as "an oppressive law unless the punishments are proportionate to the crime and do not involve the death penalty".
"The present legal system in Pakistan does not guarantee due process and therefore the imposition of the death would only add to the miscarriage of justice suffered by thousands of people executed by the State," the organisation said in a statement.
State of justice
The open letter, by HRCP chairperson Asma Jahangir and FIDH president Souhayr Belhassen said the Supreme Court had intervened to review the constitutionality of the proposal in light of the in light of the country's Qisas and Diyat Ordinance.
The organisations argued that the law relating to Qisas and Diyat in effect withdrew the state -- and therefore the rule of law -- from deciding the punishment for crimes such as manslaughter and murder.
Instead the victim’s heirs determined the punishment, including the consideration of any pardon or compensation.
"FIDH and HRCP have repeatedly asked for a profound reform of the Qisas and Diyat Law because it de facto amounts to a privatisation of justice, as the offences of physical injury, manslaughter and murder are no longer offences to the state, but are considered a dealing between two private parties," the letter said.
"The State withdraws from one of its main responsibilities, as it no longer is the guardian of the rule of law through the exercise of justice.
"In addition, under this law, pardoning a condemned prisoner in case of murder rests solely with the heirs of the victim, rather than with the President, contrary to Article 45 of the Constitution.
"Indeed, under this ordinance, passed as a law in 1997, the aggrieved party is given precedence to choose the penalty for the culprit. Under Islamic law, the punishment can either be in the form of qisas (equal or similar punishment for the crime committed) or diyat (compensation payable to the victim's legal heirs)."
Pakistan has one of the largest death row populations in the world, with about 7,000 people believed to be living under sentence of death.
World Day appeal
The HRCP issued a statement on the World Day Against Death Penalty (10 October) noting "that the systematic and generalized application of death penalty had not led to an improvement of the law and order in the country".
"It is ironic that while Pakistan has one of the highest rates of conviction to capital punishment in the world with around 7,000 convicts on the death row in Pakistan today, yet its law and order is alarmingly dismal," the organisation said.
On the contrary, "[t]he massive application of death penalty has not strengthened the situation of law and order in the country".
"The HRCP argued that the death penalty was discriminatory, unfair and utterly inefficient and must be abandoned in accordance with the international human rights law."
Related stories:
Will Pakistan's death row be emptied? -- 24 June 2008
Call for abolition: Pakistan columnist -- 17 October 2006
Pakistan: Thousands in "brutal" system -- 12 October 2006
Saturday, 25 October 2008
Two Australians spared in Viet Nam
Viet Nam has granted clemency to two Australian citizens who were sentenced to death for drug offences.
The announcement brings to seven the number of Vietnamese-Australians spared execution since 2003.
Vietnamese prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung announced the decision at a joint media conference with his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd at Parliament House in Canberra on 13 October.
"[B]uilding upon the excellent friendship between our two countries and on humanitarian grounds, I've informed the Prime Minister, the Vietnamese President has decided to grant clemency to two Vietnamese Australians charged with drug trafficking," he said.
The decision spares the lives of Jasmine Luong and Tony Manh, who now face the prospect of life in Viet Nam's notoriously harsh prison system.
Tony Manh applied for clemency after an appeal court confirmed his death sentence in November 2007 for heroin trafficking.
Jasmine Luong was given a death sentence in March 2008 when prosecutors appealed the original life sentence imposed in December last year.
Luong claimed she only agreed to carry the nearly 1.5 kilograms of heroin that was found hidden in her luggage and shoes in order to pay her estranged husband's gambling debts.
Five other Australian citizens in Viet Nam have had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment since 2003, all for drug-related offences.
In each case the Australian government has supported applications for clemency and made representations appealing for the sentences to be commuted.
'Close ties'
During the media conference, both leaders paid tribute to the ties between the two countries, saying bilateral trade was now worth about $7 billion per year.
Dung said through an interpreter that the two countries had developed "good cooperation in such areas as politics, diplomacy, economics, trade, investment, tourism, education and training, culture, defence, security and many others".
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Life, and death, sentences for drugs -- 30 April 2008
Drug penalty violates international law -- 6 May, 2007
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November, 2006
Another Australian spared in Viet Nam – 19 November 2006
To begin, good news in Viet Nam -- 18 February 2006
The announcement brings to seven the number of Vietnamese-Australians spared execution since 2003.
Vietnamese prime minister Nguyen Tan Dung announced the decision at a joint media conference with his Australian counterpart Kevin Rudd at Parliament House in Canberra on 13 October.
"[B]uilding upon the excellent friendship between our two countries and on humanitarian grounds, I've informed the Prime Minister, the Vietnamese President has decided to grant clemency to two Vietnamese Australians charged with drug trafficking," he said.
The decision spares the lives of Jasmine Luong and Tony Manh, who now face the prospect of life in Viet Nam's notoriously harsh prison system.
Tony Manh applied for clemency after an appeal court confirmed his death sentence in November 2007 for heroin trafficking.
Jasmine Luong was given a death sentence in March 2008 when prosecutors appealed the original life sentence imposed in December last year.
Luong claimed she only agreed to carry the nearly 1.5 kilograms of heroin that was found hidden in her luggage and shoes in order to pay her estranged husband's gambling debts.
Five other Australian citizens in Viet Nam have had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment since 2003, all for drug-related offences.
In each case the Australian government has supported applications for clemency and made representations appealing for the sentences to be commuted.
'Close ties'
During the media conference, both leaders paid tribute to the ties between the two countries, saying bilateral trade was now worth about $7 billion per year.
Dung said through an interpreter that the two countries had developed "good cooperation in such areas as politics, diplomacy, economics, trade, investment, tourism, education and training, culture, defence, security and many others".
Related stories:
Viet Nam: Life, and death, sentences for drugs -- 30 April 2008
Drug penalty violates international law -- 6 May, 2007
Viet Nam death penalty "not deterring drugs" -- 25 November, 2006
Another Australian spared in Viet Nam – 19 November 2006
To begin, good news in Viet Nam -- 18 February 2006
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
The wrong signal for Asia’s firing squads
Comment by Tim Goodwin
When he was opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was derided by the government for his 'me too' strategy in the 2007 election campaign, after he promised to implement several Coalition initiatives.
The strategy successfully neutralised areas of government advantage, clearing the air for Labor to focus on key areas of difference such as climate change.
While human rights barely figured in the campaign, it was expected a Labor government under Rudd would strike a more progressive path, albeit within the limits of his socially conservative outlook. And in the main it has done so, making changes from abolishing temporary protection visas to legislation removing commonwealth discrimination against same sex-couples.
As Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his prepared speech for a conference at the Melbourne Law School last Friday: "I think it is fair to say that Australia is 'back in business' when it comes to human rights."
In one critical area of human rights policy, Kevin Rudd has been pursuing business of his own. His takeover of coalition policy on the death penalty was slower than the earlier acquisitions, but no less successful.
Last week he took full control of John Howard's position and committed to the double standards that will dog him as they dogged his predecessor. This hypocrisy will undermine the Rudd government’s efforts to save the lives of Australians facing cruel execution overseas.
"Deserving" to die
On Perth radio last Thursday, the prime minister reacted to the latest reprehensible claims of the three Bali bombers that they were "holy warriors" who had no regrets about the October 2002 bombing which killed 202 people.
He condemned the men, who currently await execution, and said they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them". The following day he said the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesians and their justice system.
He claimed the government's policy was still one of "general opposition" to the death penalty, but the damage was done. No amount of "general opposition" will be meaningful in the face of specific support for particular people to be shot dead.
The Prime Minister's comments on the issue over two days were vintage Howard. Signal your support for an execution, say you don't support the death penalty in Australia and will only intervene in the case of Australians under sentence of death, and claim in general terms to be opposed to the death penalty.
Me too, business as usual.
Rudd has even adopted his predecessor's tactic that the penalty is a matter for the Indonesians. Obviously that is true, but it clearly signals Australia has no objection if that penalty is death.
Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country's legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.
A gradual retreat
In Howard's case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd's case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in opposition.
In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, as shadow minister for foreign affairs he addressed parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held "one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life".
"For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally," he said. "We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore."
The day after Van Nguyen's execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent".
Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.
This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the Government would only declare a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.
Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what's coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.
Agreement and hypocrisy?
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.
The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.
Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.
If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.
Simply taking, and defending, a principled position would be a step forward, and would give Australia the moral credibility to argue for the lives of its own citizens.
Both Howard and Rudd have been trying to walk both sides of the issue, courting the part of the electorate that supports the death penalty, while arguing they haven't abandoned a long-standing and bipartisan human rights policy.
My message to the prime minister is this: it isn't possible. This sort of populism at home will backfire in the region.
If the government's highest priority is saving Australian citizens from the noose and firing squad in Asia, which it should be, its hypocrisy will only undermine these efforts. As it has in the past, this inconsistency will put Australian lives at risk.
Is it too much to expect the Australian government to have a view that no execution is acceptable, and to say it out loud when asked?
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions -- 02 October 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
When he was opposition leader, Kevin Rudd was derided by the government for his 'me too' strategy in the 2007 election campaign, after he promised to implement several Coalition initiatives.
The strategy successfully neutralised areas of government advantage, clearing the air for Labor to focus on key areas of difference such as climate change.
While human rights barely figured in the campaign, it was expected a Labor government under Rudd would strike a more progressive path, albeit within the limits of his socially conservative outlook. And in the main it has done so, making changes from abolishing temporary protection visas to legislation removing commonwealth discrimination against same sex-couples.
As Attorney-General Robert McClelland said in his prepared speech for a conference at the Melbourne Law School last Friday: "I think it is fair to say that Australia is 'back in business' when it comes to human rights."
In one critical area of human rights policy, Kevin Rudd has been pursuing business of his own. His takeover of coalition policy on the death penalty was slower than the earlier acquisitions, but no less successful.
Last week he took full control of John Howard's position and committed to the double standards that will dog him as they dogged his predecessor. This hypocrisy will undermine the Rudd government’s efforts to save the lives of Australians facing cruel execution overseas.
"Deserving" to die
On Perth radio last Thursday, the prime minister reacted to the latest reprehensible claims of the three Bali bombers that they were "holy warriors" who had no regrets about the October 2002 bombing which killed 202 people.
He condemned the men, who currently await execution, and said they "deserve the justice that we delivered to them". The following day he said the nature of that justice was a matter for the Indonesians and their justice system.
He claimed the government's policy was still one of "general opposition" to the death penalty, but the damage was done. No amount of "general opposition" will be meaningful in the face of specific support for particular people to be shot dead.
The Prime Minister's comments on the issue over two days were vintage Howard. Signal your support for an execution, say you don't support the death penalty in Australia and will only intervene in the case of Australians under sentence of death, and claim in general terms to be opposed to the death penalty.
Me too, business as usual.
Rudd has even adopted his predecessor's tactic that the penalty is a matter for the Indonesians. Obviously that is true, but it clearly signals Australia has no objection if that penalty is death.
Howard used this line many times to support executions in Indonesia, the United States and Iraq. The idea we would agree with a penalty simply because it was part of another country's legal system showed a soft spot for post-modern cultural relativism that he never betrayed in his speeches on education and history.
A gradual retreat
In Howard's case, his comments on the death penalty were more a matter of clarifying his position, inconsistent as it was. In Rudd's case, it has been a slow retreat from his rhetoric in opposition.
In October 2005, in the wrenching lead-up to the hanging of Australian citizen Nguyen Tuong Van in Singapore, as shadow minister for foreign affairs he addressed parliament in ringing tones. Rudd told members they were speaking to a clemency motion because they held "one fundamental human value to be true, and that is the intrinsic dignity of all human life".
"For our policy to be credible, we must apply it universally," he said. "We must be credible in our opposition to capital punishment as a matter of policy wherever it occurs, whether in the United States, China or Singapore."
The day after Van Nguyen's execution, Rudd again stressed it was important our policy on the death penalty was consistent. He said "whether we are talking about individuals in Iraq or Indonesia or elsewhere, our policy has to be consistent".
Rudd, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Minister for Foreign Affairs Stephen Smith have repeatedly said the Government would only intervene in cases involving Australian citizens.
This would be fine, if it was only a comment about when Australia makes diplomatic or political representations. But in practice it seemed to mean the Government would only declare a death sentence was inappropriate if an Australian was involved.
Now that Rudd has indicated his satisfaction the Bali bombers will get what's coming to them, he has effectively said there are times when the death penalty is justified. He is giving a nod and wink to Indonesia to execute the bombers, while arguing only Australian citizens should be spared that punishment.
Agreement and hypocrisy?
But he is taking us down one of two dead-ends. One is the argument that Australia and many Asian countries actually agree on the fundamental position that some people, and some crimes, deserve execution. All that is left is to politely disagree on where to draw the line.
The other is the more dangerous road of hypocrisy, where all representations from the Australian government are dismissed as double standards and special pleading.
Asian countries are sensitive to being lectured by western governments, but they are just as sensitive to the taint of hypocrisy in the positions taken by those same governments.
If Australia took a consistent position on the death penalty, it would not be committing itself to intervening in every case, including sending in diplomats to argue for the lives of terrorists who killed our people. And it is not megaphone diplomacy to state what Australia believes, as a matter of official policy.
Simply taking, and defending, a principled position would be a step forward, and would give Australia the moral credibility to argue for the lives of its own citizens.
Both Howard and Rudd have been trying to walk both sides of the issue, courting the part of the electorate that supports the death penalty, while arguing they haven't abandoned a long-standing and bipartisan human rights policy.
My message to the prime minister is this: it isn't possible. This sort of populism at home will backfire in the region.
If the government's highest priority is saving Australian citizens from the noose and firing squad in Asia, which it should be, its hypocrisy will only undermine these efforts. As it has in the past, this inconsistency will put Australian lives at risk.
Is it too much to expect the Australian government to have a view that no execution is acceptable, and to say it out loud when asked?
Related stories:
Australia: Rudd supports Bali executions -- 02 October 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition -- 23 September 2008
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Australian government reminded of death penalty opposition
The Australian government has been reminded of the stance it took on the death penalty before it won office, after a member of parliament introduced a resolution yesterday calling for clemency for three young Australians under sentence of death in Indonesia.
New South Wales MP Chris Hayes introduced the private member's bill yesterday, which noted three members of the so-called 'Bali 9' faced execution for drug trafficking, and called on the Australian government to advocate clemency.
A shorter version of the same resolution was introduced on 29 May 2007, by Robert McClelland, who is now attorney-general in the Rudd Labor government.
The two resolutions differ in three significant respects, with the latest resolution:
* expressing "opposition to the imposition of the death penalty", whereas the earlier version explicitly opposed only "the imposition of the death penalty on any Australian citizen"
* calling on the Australian government to "advocate clemency for these three Australian citizens [on death row in Bali], as and whenever appropriate", and
* encouraging law reform to implement the Indonesian Constitutional Court's October 2007 recommendation that alternatives be provided to a mandatory death penalty.
Robert McClelland was publicly rebuked by his leader Kevin Rudd during the 2007 election campaign, after he made public remarks encouraging consistent opposition to the use of the death penalty and "shrewd diplomatic activism" for abolition within the region.
(Thanks to Cynthia Banham for the tip about the Hayes resolution, in her article in today's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Related stories:
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
Three of 'Bali 9' off death row: Indonesia -- 6 March 2008
Indonesia: Right to life and execution -- 30 October 2007
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
New South Wales MP Chris Hayes introduced the private member's bill yesterday, which noted three members of the so-called 'Bali 9' faced execution for drug trafficking, and called on the Australian government to advocate clemency.
A shorter version of the same resolution was introduced on 29 May 2007, by Robert McClelland, who is now attorney-general in the Rudd Labor government.
The two resolutions differ in three significant respects, with the latest resolution:
* expressing "opposition to the imposition of the death penalty", whereas the earlier version explicitly opposed only "the imposition of the death penalty on any Australian citizen"
* calling on the Australian government to "advocate clemency for these three Australian citizens [on death row in Bali], as and whenever appropriate", and
* encouraging law reform to implement the Indonesian Constitutional Court's October 2007 recommendation that alternatives be provided to a mandatory death penalty.
Robert McClelland was publicly rebuked by his leader Kevin Rudd during the 2007 election campaign, after he made public remarks encouraging consistent opposition to the use of the death penalty and "shrewd diplomatic activism" for abolition within the region.
(Thanks to Cynthia Banham for the tip about the Hayes resolution, in her article in today's Sydney Morning Herald.)
Related stories:
Australia defends selective appeals for life -- 16 August 2008
'Only Australians' should be spared execution -- 06 January 2008
Three of 'Bali 9' off death row: Indonesia -- 6 March 2008
Indonesia: Right to life and execution -- 30 October 2007
No Australian government will oppose terrorist executions -- 10 October 2007
Australia: Rudd would oppose death penalty -- 24 June 2007
Australia 'should act against death penalty' -- 03 August 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
