Resolve fate of 1,300 death row prisoners, govt urged

Source: FMT (9 January 2023)

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2023/01/09/resolve-fate-of-1300-death-row-prisoners-govt-urged/

PUTRAJAYA: The Malaysian Bar has urged the government to work with the Pardons Board to ensure that more than 1,300 convicted persons currently on death row are also spared the death penalty.

This follows a statement by law minister Azalina Othman Said last month that Putrajaya will amend laws that carry a mandatory death sentence to allow for alternative sentencing.

Bar president Karen Cheah said these prisoners should not be allowed to linger in prison uncertain of their fate.

At present, there is a moratorium on the execution of death row inmates.

“It is an inhumane way of treating convicts on death row,” she said at a ceremony to mark the opening of the legal year here today.

Cheah said as Malaysia progressed democratically, it must shift away from killing people in the name of justice.

She said these convicts deserve some baseline protection.

“We, therefore, welcome the announcement that the mandatory death penalty will be done away with in respect of 11 offences carrying such sentences, with the discretion as to sentencing returning to the unfettered domain of the judiciary,” she said.

Azalina had said amendment to the penal laws will be tabled at the next session of Parliament.

Cheah said the death penalty is cruel and degrading, and breaches the rights to life and to live free from torture.

She said sentencing should focus on rehabilitation and restoration, adding that the death penalty achieves very little except to satisfy the need for retribution.

“The irreversible, irreparable and non-deterrent nature of the death penalty should in and of itself be sufficient (reason) to abolish the death penalty,” she said.

On another matter, Cheah said that as of November last year, the National Legal Aid Foundation, or YBGK, had assisted 222,361 Malaysians.

It was established in 2012 with the help of the government, which had provided RM5 million to kickstart the programme.

Under the scheme, lawyers assisted the poor and needy by representing them in cases involving arrests, remands, mitigation and bail, trials and appeals.

Cheah said access to justice is the hallmark of a strong presence of the rule of the law in the country.

“The Bar, therefore, seeks to continue facilitating the provision of access to justice by lending the assistance of our members to Malaysians,” she said.

Cheah said it is the duty and responsibility of the government to ensure that access to justice remains strong and present.

“We urge that sufficient resources be made available for this programme to continue to be a success,” she said.

Open letter to the President on the moratorium on executions and the abolition of the death penalty

Source: FIDH (29 December 2022)

https://www.fidh.org/en/region/asia/south-korea/open-letter-to-the-president-on-the-moratorium-on-executions-and-the

December 29, 2022

Yoon Suk-yeol
President of the Republic of Korea
22, Itaewon-ro, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04383
Republic of Korea
E-mail: president@president.go.kr

CC.
Speaker of the National Assembly Kim Jin-Pyo
National Assembly of the Republic of Korea
1 Uisadang-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07233
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82 6788 4351

President of the Constitutional Court Yoo Nam-seok
Constitutional Court of Korea
15 Bukchon-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03060
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82 2 708 3566

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo
Office for Government Policy Coordination / Prime Minister’s Secretariat
Government Complex-Sejong
261 Dasom-ro, Sejong-si 30107
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82 44 200 2144

Foreign Minister Park Jin
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
60 Sajik-ro 8-gil, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03172
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82 2 2100 7934

Justice Minister Han Dong-hoon
Ministry of Justice
47 Gwanmun-ro, Gwacheon-si, Gyeonggi-do 13809
Republic of Korea
Fax: +82 2 2110 0350

Re: Republic of Korea’s moratorium on executions and the abolition of the death penalty

Dear Mr. President,

We welcome the Republic of Korea’s vote in favor of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly’s resolution 77/222 on December 15, 2022, which called upon states that maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing capital punishment and to consider acceding to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. We take this opportunity to renew our calls on the Republic of Korea to take further steps towards the complete abolition of the death penalty for all crimes.

The global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty is clear. At the end of 1997, when the Republic of Korea carried out its last execution, there were 102 countries that had abolished the death penalty in law or practice. [1] By the end of 2007, when the Republic of Korea became an abolitionist country in practice, the number of countries that had abolished the death penalty in law or practice jumped to 134. [2] By 31 December 2021, that number further increased to 144. [3]

This global trend is reflected in the voting patterns at the UN General Assembly. In 2007, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 62/149, the first ever biennial resolution on the moratorium on the death penalty, by a 106-46 vote, with 34 abstentions. [4] In December 2020, the Republic of Korea for the first time joined the growing number of countries that supported the UN General Assembly resolution with its vote in favor of resolution 75/183, [5] adopted by a 123-38 vote, with 24 abstentions. Earlier this month, resolution 77/222 [6] was adopted by an all-time high of 125 votes in favor, with 37 votes against and 22 abstentions.

We recall that the use of the death penalty is inconsistent with the Republic of Korea’s international legal obligation to respect fundamental human rights, including the right to life. With 59 persons still on the death row, including one who has been under death sentence since November 1993, the Republic of Korea may also be in breach of its international legal obligation to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. UN human rights experts have recently reiterated that the “death row phenomenon” (the psychological effects on prisoners of being on death row for a prolonged period while awaiting an imminent execution under harsh conditions of confinement) has long been characterized as a form of inhuman treatment. [7]

We also note that lawmakers have proposed bills to abolish the death penalty in every session of the National Assembly, including the current one, since 1999. [8] The Constitutional Court twice upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment by a 7-2 vote in 1996, and by a 5-4 vote in 2010. However, it now has the opportunity to declare the death penalty unconstitutional in a case pending before it, and to pave the way for its abolition.

We respectfully call on you to immediately take the following steps to make progress towards the abolition of capital punishment, in keeping with the Republic of Korea’s support for the UN General Assembly’s biennial resolution:

Declare an official moratorium on executions.
Commute all death sentences to prison terms.
Repeal or amend all laws that prescribe the death penalty for various criminal offenses, with a view to abolishing capital punishment for all crimes.
Ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

We also urge the Republic of Korea to stop the extradition or refoulement of persons to countries that retain the death penalty - including the United States, Japan, China, [9] and North Korea [10] - as they could be in danger of being subjected to the death penalty.

We thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely yours,

Alice Mogwe
President, FIDH

Ethan Hee-Seok Shin
Legal Analyst, Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG)
Footnotes


[1] Amnesty International, The death penalty worldwide: Developments in 1997 (31 March 1998), Index Number: ACT 50/004/1998, pp. 3 and 23; https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/004/1998/en


[2] Amnesty International, The death penalty worldwide: Developments in 2007 (15 April 2008), Index Number: ACT 50/002/2008, APPENDIX 1- LIST OF ABOLITIONIST AND RETENTIONIST COUNTRIES AS OF 1 JANUARY 2008; https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/002/2008/en


[3] Amnesty International, Death sentences and executions 2021 (24 May 2022), Index Number: ACT 50/5418/2022, ANNEX II: ABOLITIONIST AND RETENTIONIST COUNTRIES AS OF 31 DECEMBER 2021; https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/5418/2022/en


[4] https://undocs.org/A/RES/62/149


[5] https://undocs.org/A/RES/75/183


[6] https://undocs.org/A/RES/77/222


[7] OHCHR, UN experts warn of associated torture and cruel punishment, 10 October 2022; https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/10/un-experts-warn-associated-torture-and-cruel-punishment


[8] ROK National Assembly, Bill for the “Special act to abolish the death penalty” (Bill no. 152463) proposed by 90 members on 7 December 1999; https://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billId=016007; Bill for the “Special act to abolish the death penalty” (Bill no. 2112795) proposed by 30 members on 7 October 2021, https://likms.assembly.go.kr/bill/billDetail.do?billId=PRC_P2K1H1I0C0B7F0V9D2D4H5N7Z1V2N6


[9] Kim Ki-Yoon, The killer of a Chinese Public Security officer from 30 years ago who had laundered his identity repatriated, Donga Ilbo, 18 May 2022; https://www.donga.com/news/Society/article/all/20220518/113468246/1


[10] HRW, South Korea Investigates Forcible Return of Two North Koreans: Inquiry Should be Credible, Impartial, Independent, 22 July 2022; https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/07/22/south-korea-investigates-forcible-return-two-north-koreans

Malaysia confirms pledge to end death penalty

Source: UCA News (16 September 2022)

https://www.ucanews.com/news/malaysia-confirms-pledge-to-end-death-penalty/98779

Malaysia will abolish the mandatory death penalty and replace it with other types of punishment for several offences, a government minister said.

Minister of Law, Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar said the decision was made after a series of meetings held on Sept 6 and 13, Channel News Asia reported on Sept. 14.

The meetings of the Substitute Sentences for the Mandatory Death Penalty Task Force Technical Committee were led by Minister Jaafar and key members of government agencies who agreed in principle to a proposal to substitute the sentences for 11 offences that carry the mandatory death penalty.

The minister also announced a moratorium for 1,337 death-convict inmates in Malaysia.

He also reiterated his stand on abolishing the death penalty and bringing in punishments that match the gravity of the offence.

“I remain committed to fighting for fairer and compassionate laws on the issue of whipping and the death penalty,” the minister stated in a Facebook post.

The recommendations of the Technical Committee will be submitted to a cabinet meeting and then presented in parliament this month.

Representatives of the Malaysian Prison Department, Ministry of Home Affairs, Royal Malaysia Police, and representatives from various agencies attended the meeting

In June, the Malaysian government initiated the process to abolish the mandatory death penalty, which was a long-standing demand from activists. The move was hailed across the globe.

Amnesty International Malaysia's executive director Katrina Jorene Maliamauv hailed the move as "a welcome step in the right direction, and we urge [the government] to go further and work towards full abolition of this cruel punishment,” AFP news agency reported in June.

In Malaysia crimes punishable by death include drug trafficking, terrorism, murder, rape resulting in death, kidnapping, and the possession of firearms wherein the judge does not have the option to give any alternate or lesser punishments.

The Catholic Church in Malaysia has been vehemently opposing capital punishment and is vocal in supporting its removal from the justice system.

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET) is an abolitionist campaign supported by people from all levels of society including Christians.

In Oct. 2018, Charles Hector, a member of MADPET voiced his support for the then government's move to end capital punishment.

Hector said that they were “waiting for the day when we can celebrate the abolition of the death penalty, and death row will disappear in Malaysia,” the Vatican’s Fides news agency reported.

Malaysia carried out its last execution in 2018 and then imposed a moratorium.

In contrast to Malaysia, Singapore has drawn the ire of the international community for the recent executions of 10 prisoners for the crime of drug trafficking.

Sri Lanka: President informs the Supreme Court that he will not sign the death sentences

Source: Colombo Page (1 September 2022)

Sri Lankan President Ranil Wickremesinghe on 31 August 2022 informed the Supreme Court through the Attorney General that he will not sign the implementation of the death penalty.

This was informed by Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, who appeared for the Attorney General when several fundamental rights petitions filed requesting the annulment of a decision taken by former President Maithripala Sirisena in 2019 to execute four defendants sentenced to death for drug trafficking were called before the court.

This petition was called before a three-member Supreme Court bench comprising justices Vijith Malalgoda, L.T.B. Dehideniya and Murdu Fernando.

When the Attorney General inquired about this yesterday (30), President Ranil Wickramasinghe has informed the Attorney General that he will not use his signature to execute the death penalty and accordingly to inform the court about this when the relevant case is heard in the Supreme Court.

When the case was called yesterday, Additional Solicitor General Nerin Pulle, who represented the Attorney General, stated before the court that the government has taken a policy decision not to implement the death penalty and there is no change in that decision.

The chairman of the bench, Justice Vijith Malalgoda, informed the petitioner’s lawyers to inform the court on the next court date whether there is any need to continue this petition.

After considering the facts presented, the bench adjourned the hearing until February 23 next year.
Former President Maithripala Sirisena had made a statement on 26 June 2019 that he had decided to sign the execution of four prisoners sentenced to death for drug-related offences.

Several parties including the Sri Lanka Bar Association, the Center for Policy Alternatives, and the Organization for the Protection of Prisoners had submitted these fundamental rights petitions to the Supreme Court against the former President’s decision.

The petitions alleged that the then president’s decision was against the country’s public policy. Also, the petitioners submitted facts to the court that it is against international human rights principles, unjust and unfair.

Therefore, these petitions requested the court to issue an order invalidating the decision of former President Maithripala Sirisena.

Although Sri Lankan courts give death penalty in serious crimes such as murder, rape and drug trafficking, no executions have been carried out since 1976.

Families of 30 death row inmates hopeful Putrajaya will abolish capital punishment this year

Source: Malay Mail (21 February 2022)

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/02/21/families-of-30-death-row-inmates-hopeful-putrajaya-will-abolish-capital-pun/2042954

KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 21 — The families of more than 30 death row inmates are hopeful that this year they will get some form of cheer should the Malaysian government decide to abolish the death penalty.

This comes amid Putrajaya’s promise to study proposed alternatives to the death penalty before the end of this month, as mentioned by Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Law) Datuk Seri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who said a special committee tasked to review the death penalty had briefed him of its findings last month.

Shamala T Manickarajah is a representative of the families who is spearheading the movement along with the various NGOs in order to push for the release, retrial, reduction of sentence, and ultimately, the abolishment of the death penalty of those convicted.

Shamala said she was inspired to help the families after finding out a childhood friend’s husband had been sentenced for drug possession. He has been in jail in Perlis for 13 years.

As part of her efforts, she shared how she helps the families write letters to the various agencies and to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong yearly begging for clemency for the convicted.

She said most of the families did not know how to go about getting clemency so she guided them through the process.

“After repping my friend, I was going to Bentong jail and saw many prisoners crying, waiting for family members so I decided to help them and not just my friend’s husband. I recall in the early days I helped all the makciks and pakciks fill up their forms and wrote letters for them to the prisons and so on. Most of them are poor.

“Last year, we went as a group to see Datuk Liew Vui Keong and he promised to look into our cases but he then passed away. When we went to Putrajaya to the offices, we were told they have our letters and are considering them so we are hoping for the best,” Shamala said during a press conference organised by Amnesty International Malaysia (AIM) today.

“We heard this year the Agong nominated 27 names for pardon. We are praying it is some of us because many of the victims have been in prison for more than a decade.”

In August 2019, the Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration formed the Special Committee to Review Alternative Punishments to the Mandatory Death Penalty to examine alternatives to the mandatory death sentence.

The PH government collapsed in February 2020, however, before the Bill for the abolition of the death penalty could be tabled in the March meeting of Parliament that year.

Wan Junaidi had said that before the government decides on any amendments, it needed to determine the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime while also looking at alternative punishments.

Chiara Sangiorgio, an expert on the death penalty for Amnesty International, said the general public was always hesitant to agree to abolishing the death penalty but studies show that once the rule was in place, society eventually eased into it.

“The global trend shows most countries are abolishing it as it was eight countries in 1958, now it is 108 countries that have abolished the death penalty.

“When it is abolished, public opinion changes despite the initial hesitancy; hence, we need to continue to talk about death penalty and challenge its effectiveness as there is no evidence to show it prevents further crime,” said Chiara.

In addition Chiara said from 2015 to 2020, 10 countries conducted executions and in 2020 Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq made up close to 90 per cent of total reported executions worldwide.

There are eight countries including Malaysia that execute people for drug offences.

“While the direction is clear, Malaysia is at a crossroads but they have the opportunity to make the change. There’s been some progress with the moratorium but what we have learnt when it comes to the use of the death penalty in Malaysia see lot of arbitrariness a lot of unfairness and discrimination.

“The key learning from this is that piecemeal reforms will not work and fixing the unfixable will not work. That’s why we call for a bold stance to be taken by the government of Malaysia and get rid of it once and for all,” she said.

Malaysia has had a moratorium on all executions since 2018 while awaiting recommendations from the committee.

Shamala said the families of the incarcerated understand that some of their actions are wrong, while others claim they were wrongly convicted; either way, she is hopeful there will be progress this year.

“I feel the Malaysian government will definitely abolish the death penalty. From the families’ side, they are hoping the sentences of their loved ones can be reduced or they are released for time served,” she said.

'Thou shall not kill': Death penalty to be abolished in Papua New Guinea

Source: SBS News (12 January 2022)

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/thou-shall-not-kill-death-penalty-to-be-abolished-in-papua-new-guinea/0efdc0db-6d4f-4a73-8cde-fe242591bbab?s=03

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape says his government is doing away with the death penalty and those now on death row will instead serve life sentences without parole.

Mr Marape told members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church holding their 33rd synod in Port Moresby that PNG was a Christian nation and the death penalty was out of place.

"The Bible says thou shall not kill and the government has removed, by policy, the clause on the death penalty," PNG newspaper The National on Wednesday quoted him as saying.

"We are working on giving the maximum penalty to those who commit an offence and are sentenced to death.

"They will now receive life sentences without the possibility of parole," Mr Marape said.

Justice Minister Bryan Kramer last year said the death penalty would be reviewed.

Correctional Services Commissioner Stephen Pokanis told The National that 14 inmates in Bomana Prison in Port Moresby were on death row, while other prisons around the country also have death row inmates.

No executions have been carried out in PNG since 1954.

The death penalty was abolished in 1970 when PNG was under Australian administration ahead of independence in 1975 but it was reintroduced by the PNG government in 1991 for the crime of wilful murder.

Since then there has been a de facto moratorium on capital punishment.

Kazakhstan abolishes capital punishment

Source: Euractiv (4 January 2021)

https://www.euractiv.com/section/central-asia/news/kazakhstan-abolishes-capital-punishment/

President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev has signed a decree abolishing the death penalty in Kazakhstan, according to a statement released by his office on Saturday (2 January).

The new law makes permanent the existing moratorium on state executions, introduced in 2003 by the first president of the country, Nursultan Nazarbayev.

The move was largely expected. Tokayev, a former high-ranking UN official who was elected in June 2019, announced that his country would join the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolishing the death penalty. The announcement was made in his speech at the 74th session of the UN General Assembly in December 2019.

Russia, Tajikistan and Belarus are now the only three countries in Europe and Central Asia which haven’t yet signed or ratified the Second Optional Protocol. Belarus is the only country in Europe to carry out executions.

Capital punishment in Kazakhstan has been abolished but was still permitted for war crimes or terrorism, as the UN Convention allows. In 2008 and 2016, Kazakhstan voted in favour of the UN Moratorium on the Death Penalty.

While the former Soviet republic has not carried out an execution in almost two decades, death sentences have continued to be handed down to those convicted of serious crimes.

Tokayev has spared convicts sentenced to death. One of the last pronounced death sentences in Kazakhstan was reportedly that of mass murderer Ruslan Kulekbayev who shot and killed eight police officers and two civilians during a rampage in the country’s largest city, Almaty, in 2016. He will now serve a life sentence instead.

The last state-sanctioned executions carried out in the country were in May 2003, when 12 people were put to death by firing squad.

Lame Duck Executioners

When historians look back and evaluate the Trump presidency, one focus will be the instigation of the federal death penalty. Until the execution of Daniel Lee Lewis on Jan 14, 2020, no federal prisoner had been executed in 17 years. The execution of Lisa Montgomery was even more extreme - no woman had been put to death by the federal government in 67 years, the last one being in 1953.

 A Political Punishment

Apart from restarting federal executions, another quagmire was Trump's insistence on carrying out executions even after election defeat. Whether one supports or opposes the death penalty, both sides can likely agree that it is a political issue. And political issues can bring political rewards. In the United States, prosecutors gain accolades when a sentence of death is pronounced. And then a second time - in the not so usual instance - if the accused is put to death.

Politicians often have much to gain. Preaching that law and order is necessary, and that the death penalty keeps our communities safe, brings donations and votes. Judges who oppose the death penalty draw the wrath of police organizations, and can end up as grass by the wayside.

 The Jilted and the Defeated

Jilted lovers and defeated politicians share similar mindsets. Like Monday morning quarterbacks, 'what did I do wrong, what could I have done better', are questions which dog the mind. Those who lose in love and politics often indulge in drastic actions. And this phenomenon is hardly indigenous to the United States.

In September 2009, The Democratic Party of Japan, an opposition party, took control of the Japanese parliament. It was only the second time in postwar history that the stalwart conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) was sidelined. Human rights activists and progressives celebrated the victory. In particular, they welcomed the appointment of (Ms) Keiko Chiba, a practicing attorney, as Justice Minister. Chiba had a firm record of supporting human rights, actively opposed the death penalty, and was a member of a non-partisan abolitionist caucus within the parliament.

Death penalty abolitionists in Japan breathed a sigh of relief. From December 2006 until January 2009 - a period of 25 months - Japan had hung 32 prisoners. The country disposed of nearly one third of its death row. By comparison, the US as a whole would have had to carry out more than 700 executions to keep pace.

On July 11, 2010, ten months after assuming office, Chiba, who had served in parliament off and on since 1996, lost her bid for re-election. It is extremely rare for a sitting minister to lose a race for office in Japan. However, in a somewhat unusual move, she was allowed to remain on as minister of justice until the end of her parliamentary term.

A Shocking Reversal

Some two weeks after defeat, Chiba turned face. She ordered two executions. And to add fuel to the fire, she did something no other justice minister had even contemplated: opening the Tokyo gallows, which had never been photographed, to the press (albeit without the noose).

Executions in Japan are shrouded in secrecy. Prisoners need not be informed of when they will hang, and we surmise that most do not know until the morning of the execution. Until about 10 years ago, the Ministry of Justice did not even make public announcements of executions. The public and relatives of the deceased heard the news after the ministry informed prisoner's attorneys, who then alerted concerned family and human rights organizations.

Say it ain't so Keiko

Chiba's title, Minister of Justice, was a bit of a misnomer. A proper translation of the title 'Ministry of Justice' (Houmusho) is better rendered as the 'Ministry of Laws' (as it is called in the Philippines and in Singapore). The ministry is charged with maintaining the dominant social narrative: citizens should work hard, not complain, avoid litigation, and listen to authority. 'Justice' is hardly part of the agenda.

Quite often, ordering an execution is a rite of passage for new justice ministers. Many authorize them soon after appointment. Executions assuage upper-level bureaucrats, fellow ruling party politicians, as well as the public which supports capital punishment.

From the outset, Chiba refused to execute. Why did she renege? The most likely guess is that the apparatchiks teased, "See what your abolitionist tendencies have wrought? We told you to execute and you ignored us. You should have listened. The Japanese public believe in the death penalty. Now you are a lame duck minister."

Penal Populism

Long before running for office, Donald Trump firmly supported the death penalty. In 1989, he paid for several full-page articles, including in The New York Times, screaming for the reinstitution of the death penalty in New York state. This was revenge against five black men who were then alleged to have attacked a white woman and became known as the Central Park Five.

The Central Park Five were falsely accused. All were later exonerated. One would expect a normal mind to bear remorse for advocating what would have constituted wrongful executions. Or at the very least, to avoid making the same mistake twice.

Donald J. Trump was not of a normal mind. And one wonders if former justice minister Chiba also became temporarily deluded. Be it the US, or Japan, support for the death penalty brings political rewards, and from opposition can foster political reprisals. The US and Japan are the only large, advanced democracies that conduct executions. And until complete abolition is reached in both countries, penal populism - political actors teasing voters with executions and other severe criminal justice policies - will likely continue to woo the public.

Michael H. Fox is associate professor at Hyogo University and director of the Japan Innocence and Death Penalty Information Center (www.jiadep.org)

Asian Nations Reject UN Vote Against Death Penalty

Source: Human Rights Watch (24 November 2020)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/25/asian-nations-reject-un-vote-against-death-penalty

(Bangkok) – Eleven countries from the Asia-Pacific region were among the small minority that voted against a United Nations resolution opposing the death penalty, Human Rights Watch said today. On November 17, 120 UN member states voted in favor of a resolution in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly reiterating a call for a moratorium on the use of capital punishment. In December, the General Assembly plenary is expected to adopt the resolution, which shows the world’s rejection of this inherently cruel and irrevocable form of punishment.

Only 39 countries voted against the resolution. The 11 from the Asia-Pacific region were: Afghanistan, Brunei Darussalam, China, India, Japan, the Maldives, North Korea, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, and Tonga.

“It’s no surprise the governments that voted against a death penalty moratorium include some of the most serious rights violators in the world,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The fact that 11 Asian and Pacific governments voted against the UN resolution, including many that still carry out executions, shows how far the region needs to go to develop justice systems that respect human rights.”

The countries voting in favor of the moratorium should urgently take necessary steps towards abolition of the death penalty, and should press the 39 countries that voted against the measure to place a moratorium on executions. Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of its inherent cruelty.

The UN member states’ call for a moratorium effectively neutralizes an amendment to the resolution that Singapore introduced on behalf of 33 countries – including many in Asia – that asserts the “sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties.”

The resolution went further than previous versions. For the first time, women were acknowledged as a group who are subject to the discriminatory application of the death penalty. Disadvantaged and minority groups were again recognized as disproportionately represented among death row inmates. The resolution raised concerns about the use of the death penalty against children, in particular the need to restrict the death penalty’s use when an individuals’ age cannot be determined.

Previous resolutions called for governments to be transparent about the death penalty by publishing information about the age, race, sex, and nationality of people on death row, including the numbers of people sentenced, awaiting executions, and those whose sentences were commuted on appeal. Asian governments that still use capital punishment have shown little transparency regarding death penalty statistics, Human Rights Watch said.

The seven General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions adopted since 2007 demonstrate a growing global consensus against the death penalty. However, many people in Asia are still being put to death. At the end of 2019, at least 26,604 people were languishing on death row around the world. By the end of 2019, Pakistan had one of the world’s largest known death row populations. Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka also have swelling numbers of inmates on death row, while in Singapore there are reportedly 50 people on death row who have exhausted all appeals. In many of these countries, the death penalty is mandatory for a range of offenses, including non-violent drug offenses, despite calls from the UN special rapporteurs on summary executions and on torture that “executions for drug crimes amount to a violation of international law and are unlawful killings.”

It is largely accepted that China is the world’s largest executioner followed by Iran. Dui Hua, a nongovernmental organization that tracks China’s death penalty statistics, estimates that 84,000 executions occurred in China between 2002 to 2018, though the numbers appear to be declining significantly since a 2007 decision allowing the Supreme People’s Court to review all death sentences. The exact numbers of death sentences carried out in China are unknown and remain a state secret. It has not been possible to get accurate figures from North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos. Human Rights Watch has documented public executions in North Korea, especially in political prison camps (kwanliso). Despite executions being considered a state secret in Vietnam, the Ministry of Public Security reported in early 2017 that authorities executed 429 persons between 2013 and 2016.

Malaysia, which voted in favor of the moratorium, holds approximately 1,324 people on death row. In October 2018, the Malaysian government imposed a moratorium on executions and announced its intention to abolish the death penalty. In March 2019, however, it backtracked, announcing that it would maintain the death penalty but would merely end the mandatory application of the punishment. While the moratorium on executions appears to remain in place, the Malaysian government has yet to take steps to end the use of the mandatory death penalty.

Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam were among the 24 countries that abstained from voting. Indonesia, which has not executed anyone since 2016, has approximately 274 people awaiting execution, including 60 people who have been on death row for 10 years. At least 80 death sentences were handed down in 2019, a significant increase from the 48 handed down in 2018.

More than 15 Asia-Pacific countries voted in favor of the resolution. These included Sri Lanka and the Philippines, despite their moving in the opposite direction. Last year, the Sri Lankan government threatened to end its 43-year de facto moratorium, which the courts rejected. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly threatened to reinstate the death penalty.

In its December 2007 resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, the UN General Assembly stated that “there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable.”

“The shocking number of people sitting on death row in Asia make the region an aberration in the global move towards abolition of the death penalty,” Robertson said. “UN member states that supported the moratorium should band together to put concerted pressure on countries to get rid of the death penalty and commute all death sentences.”

Western boycotts soften Brunei’s sharia law

Source: Asia Times (7 May 2019)

https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/05/article/western-boycotts-soften-bruneis-sharia-law/

Amid a global outcry against Brunei’s implementation of Islamic sharia law measures that allow for death by stoning for sex between men and extramarital affairs, the sultanate’s ruler has apparently climbed down from the harshest measures in what some have interpreted as a bid to shield his nation’s besieged overseas commercial interests.

The United Nations, United States and other Western governments had all lodged their concerns over the strict new measures. Hollywood celebrities, meanwhile, had called for a boycott of luxury hotels in Europe and the US owned by the country’s sovereign wealth fund, exclusive properties known collectively as the Dorchester Collection.

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, the small oil-rich sultanate’s absolute ruler, had previously defended his nation’s right to implement the code, part of his move towards what some see as the most extreme interpretation of sharia law. Apart from death by stoning for sexual offenses, the law also allows for amputation of limbs for theft and whipping for other violations.

In a televised May 5 speech, the 72-year-old monarch appeared to step back from those measures, declaring first that Brunei would ratify the United Nations Convention Against Torture and that it would not enforce the death penalty on those convicted under new religious laws. He also claimed the “privacy of individuals” would be respected.

Addressing the controversial legislation for the first time since its introduction on April 3, the sultan cited “many questions and misperceptions” over the implementation of Islamic law and said he would extend a moratorium on capital punishment under the new laws that already applies to the regular criminal code. 

Though offenses such as murder and drug trafficking are punishable by the death penalty under Brunei’s criminal code, executions have not been carried out in the country since 1957. Hassanal did not elaborate on whether this was a new decision, nor did he address other punishments such as whipping and amputation.

“Allah, the provider of blessings, will never bestow upon us laws meant to inflict cruelty on others,” he said in the address marking the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. “We are conscious of the fact that misperceptions may cause apprehension. However, we believe that once these have been cleared, the merit of the law will be evident.”

Atypically, the sultan’s office released an official English translation of the speech, indicating a desire to temper the international backlash that has flared over fears that the strict penal code would lead to the persecution or death of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.

There are signs that the boycott against properties owned by the Brunei Investment Agency (BIA), a government arm, championed by actor George Clooney, musician Elton John and others has gained traction. Multinational banks such as JPMorgan, Deutsche Bank, CitiGroup, and Goldman Sachs all banned their employees from staying at Dorchester Collection-operated luxury hotels.

Brunei’s commercial interests are being affected elsewhere, too. According to Bloomberg, real estate firms in the United Kingdom have either shunned invitations from the sovereign fund to consult on its redevelopment of Lansdowne House, a prestigious office building in London’s West End acquired by BIA in the 1990s, or sought first clarification on the new laws.

Royal Brunei Airlines, the sultanate’s flagship carrier, is also feeling the pinch with reports of public relations firms in the UK declining offers to help sell Brunei as a travel and tourism destination. STA Travel, an international travel agency, went as far as severing ties with the airline, which accounts for 80% of the seats flown to and from the country.

Brunei’s ruler “clearly underestimated the damage this law would cause to the Brunei brand,” Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, told Asia Times. “It’s not just Brunei’s overseas hotels that are taking the hit but partners in the petroleum industry are asking tough questions about the likely fate of LGBT persons under this law.”

Royal Dutch Shell, the joint owner of Brunei’s biggest oil and gas venture responsible for some 90% of the country’s energy sector revenues, recently came under pressure when Eumedion, a Dutch corporate governance group comprised of top Shell shareholders, called on it to press for the improvement of LGBT rights in Brunei.

“This moratorium on the death penalty doesn’t go nearly far enough, it’s clear the sultan is only addressing the most horrific part of the law in the hope of blunting international criticism and anger,” Robertson said, adding that remarks by Brunei’s ruler showed that “the international campaign on Brunei is working, and now more pressure is needed.”

However, not all are convinced that international pressure forced the sultan’s hand.

“Although at first glance it seems that the sultan has backtracked due to international criticism and perhaps even because his bottom-line is being adversely impacted, on closer inspection, this was a domestic masterstroke,” said Mustafa Izzuddin, a political analyst at the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Institute of South Asian Studies.

The academic said the announcement’s timing, coming just before the Islamic holy month, would resonate with Brunei’s Muslim majority. “The sultan’s seemingly conciliatory stance shows that he is capable of compassion, reflection and introspection, values that are internalized and promulgated in Ramadan.”

“[His] mileage has increased, not decreased because of the announcement,” Mustafa told Asia Times, describing the move as a “strategic halt” and “temporary reprieve” meant to “buy time for the kingdom to calm the turbulence and concurrently better explain and educate on the nuts and bolts of sharia law as is being implemented in Brunei.”

“I don’t believe that his Ramadan speech reflected his ‘bowing down’ to international pressure,” Azfar Anwar, an Islamic studies and history student at the University of Oxford, told Asia Times. “[The sultan’s] speech demonstrates his belief that the [sharia criminal code] simply needs to be explained better to the global audience.”

“He is de-escalating the situation by providing international audiences what they wanted to hear, [but also] upon scrutiny, he is showing the conservative Muslims, whether in Brunei or around the world, particularly those in the Middle East where he is trying to court investment, that he is unyielding on the sharia.”

If the sultan sincerely sought to strengthen Islamic teachings, however, Azfar claims he would have “sanctioned a serious discourse about this set of premodern Islamic penal codes, and how it can be implemented now according to the principles of justice and equality. All we have seen so far is the instrumentalization of the sharia as a political accessory,” he said.

While the Islamic penal code has support among Bruneians who see its implementation as an expression of religious and national identity, one local expert believes the sultan’s clarified stance appeals to those unhappy with the global media’s coverage of the strict new measures, which are widely seen in Brunei as misunderstood and lacking local context.

“The sultan choosing to respond in this way is unusual, but perhaps necessary since the backlash has taken on a more serious tenor than it did when sharia was first announced back in 2013,” a former Bruneian journalist told Asia Times. “To an extent, the external pressure has forced the governments to appease its critics somewhat. Will it reverse the law entirely? No.”

Bruneians are “probably hoping that with this clarification from the Sultan, the global opprobrium will dissipate and life will return to normal,” said the former journalist, who asked not to be named. “The Hollywood-led boycott is deeply unpopular here, most locals feel it smacks of Western hypocrisy and that Brunei is being unfairly targeted.”

Dominik Müller, a social anthropologist at Germany’s Max Planck Institute, told Asia Times that the sultan’s remarks represented a “clarification” rather than a “U-turn”, as reported widely by international media and made explicit “what many government people have long unofficially said and what most Bruneians have assumed.”

“Bruneian government sources have, albeit only behind the scenes, consistently stressed for years that the new law’s harshest punishments would never be applied and having them on paper would be merely of ‘educational’ character, though other problematic sections, not death-penalty or LGBT-related, remain valid,” he said.

“That said, it is truly remarkable that the sultan said it explicitly in a royal decree. Content-wise this was not surprising, but that he publicly said it, and unambiguously, definitely was and is clearly linked to international reactions,” said the academic, who is also a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School’s Program of Law and Society in the Muslim World.

“And although it is not the rupture international media claim it to be, it changes the situation insofar as it reduces the likelihood of the law developing a life of its own in the hands of potentially zealous enforcers.”

Malaysia urged to abolish death penalty by inmates’ families

Source: Arab News (30 March 2019)

http://www.arabnews.com/node/1474736/world

KUALA LUMPUR: Families and friends of death row inmates petitioned the Malaysian government to repeal its mandatory death penalty on Friday. Earlier this month, the government backtracked on its decision to scrap capital punishment in the country.

Friends and kin of more than 20 death row inmates gathered in Putrajaya and sent a memorandum to the Malaysian Home Ministry, calling on the government to repeal mandatory capital punishment, and to pardon the inmates, some of whom have been in jail for decades.

“They are feeling very sad,” one friend of a death row inmate told Arab News. “Every family member was expressing their feelings about living without a child or a husband (to the government).”

The man, who asked to remain anonymous, is a friend of Mainthan, a death row inmate convicted of murder who has served 14 years in jail. Mainthan has maintained his innocence throughout his sentence and exhausted multiple avenues of appeal. “I’ve known him for the past two years,” his friend said. “I was really heartbroken — nobody should live like that. We are in 2019, not the 1990s.”

“The family is getting worse day by day,” he continued.

“It’s a family without a father. Even though the father is alive, he is not there to guide the family. It’s like there’s food in front of you, but you are not allowed to taste it. The kids are there (at the prison), but they are not able to hug … their father.”

In October last year, the Malaysian government announced it would abolish the mandatory death penalty for 33 offenses. However, in early March, Mohamed Hanipa Maidin, deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, told Parliament that the government would instead push for the abolishment of the mandatory death penalty for 11 offenses.

Those offenses include nine that fall under the Penal Code involving terrorism and serious crimes, including murder, hostage-taking, organized crime, offenses against the constitutional monarch, and the use of firearms.

Hanipa Maidin said that courts would be authorized to decide whether a person who had committed a serious crime should face capital punishment.

The March announcement met with criticism from human rights groups. The Malaysian Coalition Against the Death Penalty released a statement acknowledging the progress made by the government in abolishing the death penalty for 11 offenses, but expressing its concern over Malaysia’s justice system.

“We are concerned that, at the moment, there is still no developed jurisprudence, protection for the vulnerable, and no sentencing guidelines for the court to consider in exercising its discretion over whether to hand down a death sentence,” the group said.

Kasthuri Patto, a politician from the Democratic Action Party who attended last month’s World Congress Against the Death Penalty in Brussels is an advocate for the abolition of the death penalty, but emphasized the need for awareness and education on the matter.

“It is important to remember that … the death penalty cannot simply be (phrased) as a yes or no question,” Patto told Arab News. “There must be a series of questions that empower the person answering them with knowledge about the death penalty.”

She added: “We need to away from a retributive approach and move toward forgiveness and providing a second chance to death row convicts.”

The government has told Patto, she said, that the moratorium on executions would remain indefinitely, but that the final decision over prisoners’ fates lies with the Pardons Board.

“While no government should discount the emotional argument, as a government, we must also do what is right as per Article 5 of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, that the right to life must reign paramount to the act of extinguishing lives,” she said.

Mainthan’s anonymous friend told Arab News that he wants justice for his friend and for other long-suffering family members awaiting the fate of their loved ones on death row.

“Abolishing the mandatory death penalty is a secondary thing,” he said.

“What they are going to do with death row inmates should be the priority.”

He added that the Malaysian government must give hope to the people.

“For the past 60 years, the ruling party was Barisan Nasional, and nothing was changed. Now Pakatan Harapan (is in power). ‘Harapan’ means hope. For me, they should give families hope that they will be reunited with their loved ones on death row,” he said.

8 Years Since Last Thai Execution, Future of Death Penalty Uncertain

Source: Khaosod English (12 October 2017)

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/politics/2017/10/12/8-years-last-execution-abolition-still-not-guaranteed/

BANGKOK — Those campaigning for the abolition of the death penalty may take solace in the fact that no one has been executed for eight years. There have been no actual executions, but a senior government official said it’s simply impossible to predict when capital punishment will be abolished in Thailand.

Pitikan Sitthidej, Director General of the Department of Rights and Liberties said it’s impossible to pin down when Thailand will do away with death penalty despite having observed a de facto moratorium since 2009.

“I can’t say when it will end but in practice it will soon be 10 years since no execution has taken place,” Pitikan said. “We don’t know when death penalty will be abolished.”

Pitikan was vague on whether it would be.

At present there are 63 crimes that merit death sentence under Thai law, ranging from people found guilty of the rape and murder of girls under 15 or their parents to big time drug dealers and extremists. Pitikan pointed out that under the Thai penal code, any criminal sentenced to death will automatically be required to apply for a royal pardon to the king in hope of having the sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

According to a document of the justice ministry, there were 444 inmates sentenced to death at various stages of the judiciary system as of April 2017. The document also states that during the 65th UN General Assembly in 2010, Thailand no longer voted to oppose a move to end the death penalty but had decided to abstain from voting.

However, according to the same paper, the ministry conducted a survey on the possible abolition of the death penalty on 1,073 people in all the four regions of the country as well as in Bangkok and discovered that 73 percent of respondents still supported death penalty.

Campaign groups such as Amnesty International Thailand took the opportunity on the World Day Against the Death Penalty on Tuesday to renew its call for the abolition of capital punishment in Thailand.

Knowing that it is still far from being realized, the organization’s director Piyanut Kotsan said she wanted to see the Thai government announce a formal moratorium on capital punishment and decrease the number of crimes punishable by death.

“We’re quietly lobbying and maintain the trend for the end of death penalty,” said Piyanut on Tuesday.

Pitikan said there will be no formal announcement of moratorium as in reality Thailand is also a de facto moratorium state on the matter.

“What announcement? I am confused. How do we make such announcement?” said Pitakan, adding that the Third National Human Rights Plan, covering 2014 to 2018, clearly stated that the state shall conduct studies on the possible abolition of the death penalty. When asked about a campaign to educate the public about the negative repercussion of death penalty such as the violation of the right to life, Pitikan said the department lacks funding to engage in such campaign as it has only 300 million baht budget per annum.

In the end, said the director general, whether Thailand will abolish capital punishment or not depends not on international organizations such as Amnesty International or the government but on the society’s consensus itself.

“We must consider the direction of our society as well,” Pitikan said.

While it’s still common for some Thais on social media to keep calling for some criminals – particularly those who have committed rape and murder – to be executed, the anti-death penalty argument is slowly becoming known.

Pitikan for example stressed that a wrongful death penalty means those executed can no longer be brought back to life.

“It’s against the basic human rights principle of the right to life. Most of those [sentenced] tend to be poor and underprivileged.”

Chamnan Chanruang, a prominent campaigner for the end of death penalty said ending the death penalty is not about not punishing the wrongdoers while death penalty is vindictive and about revenge.

“What should be done is not to eliminate these people but to find out the root cause and eliminate it. If we hate what they did we shouldn’t commit the same things which is to become criminals by allowing acting as executioners on our behalf,” said Chamnan.

Indonesian Death Penalty Moratorium Needs Presidential Push

Source: Human Rights Watch (29 March 2017)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/29/indonesian-death-penalty-moratorium-needs-presidential-push

Indonesia’s President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo dropped fresh hints this week that he supports reinstatement of the official moratorium on the death penalty, but only if the Indonesian public supports the move. “Why not? But I must ask my people. If my people say OK, they say yes, I will start to prepare [to reinstate a moratorium].”

We’ve been here before. In November 2016, Jokowi suggested the Indonesian government might emulate European governments by moving toward abolishing the death penalty. At that time, Jokowi said his government was “very open to options” on death penalty alternatives, without elaborating. But since then, neither he nor his government have taken any serious steps to change Indonesia’s policy. On the contrary, in recent weeks Indonesia seems poised to execute up to six convicted drug traffickers from foreign countries on the prison island of Nusa Kambangan.

The gap between Jokowi’s rights-respecting rhetoric and the absence of policy measures to back it up is unsurprising. Jokowi has a well-earned reputation for talking the talk on human rights policies, but consistently failing to deliver. He’s stalled on accountability plans for past gross human rights violations, such as the massacres of 1965-66; failed to abolish discriminatory laws fostering religious intolerance; and lacked follow-through on promises of accountability for abuses in Papua.

Indonesia ended a four-year unofficial moratorium on the death penalty in March 2013, and Jokowi has made the execution of convicted drug traffickers a signature issue of his presidency. Jokowi has justified using the death penalty by saying drug traffickers on death row have “destroyed the future of the nation.” In December 2014, he told students that the death penalty for convicted drug traffickers was an “important shock therapy” for anyone who violates Indonesia’s drug laws. Since taking office in 2014, his government has executed 18 convicted drug traffickers, though no executions have taken place this year. The majority of those executed have been citizens of other countries, and Jokowi rejected their government’s calls for clemency, citing national sovereignty.

Jokowi should not hinge his action on so fundamental an issue as capital punishment on the vagaries of popular support. Instead, he should take this opportunity to demonstrate leadership and bolster his rhetorical support for a death penalty moratorium with real action. Indecision is no reason to impose an inherently cruel punishment.

Kuwait: First Executions in 4 Years

Source: Human Rights Watch (26 January 2017)

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/26/kuwait-first-executions-4-years

(Beirut) – Kuwait carried out seven executions by hanging on January 25, 2017, the first time the Gulf state carried out the death penalty in four years, Human Rights Watch said today. Kuwait’s decision reflects a growing trend in the region to increase the use of, or lift moratoriums on, the death penalty.

Kuwait executed two nationals, including a member of the royal family, an Ethiopian woman, a Filipina woman, two Egyptian men, and a Bangladeshi man in Kuwait’s central prison, according to KUNA, Kuwait’s state news agency. The executions were the first in Kuwait since 2013, when Kuwait executed five people. The 2013 executions ended a de facto death penalty moratorium that had been in place since 2007.

“Executing seven people in one day shows Kuwait is moving in exactly the wrong direction on the death penalty,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The Kuwait government should be reinstating the moratorium on the death penalty instead of hanging seven people.”

Kuwaiti courts convicted all seven of those executed of violent offenses between 2007 and 2011, including six for murder and one for kidnapping and rape. The Filipina and Ethiopian women, migrant domestic workers, were convicted of murdering members of their employers’ families, according to Al Jazeera, and the member of the royal family who was executed, Sheikh Al-Sabah, was found guilty of killing his nephew, also a royal, in 2010.

Courts sentenced the Kuwaiti woman to death for having set fire to a wedding tent in 2009, killing almost 60 people. The two Egyptian men were also convicted of murder, and the Bangladeshi man of kidnapping and rape, according to KUNA.

Human Rights Watch has documented due process violations in Kuwait’s criminal justice system that have made it difficult for defendants to get a fair trial, including in capital cases. Kuwait maintains the death penalty for non-violent offenses, including drug smuggling.

In the regional trend to increasing use of the death penalty, in January, 2017, Bahrain ended a six-year de facto moratorium on the death penalty, executing three people. In December 2014, Jordan ended its eight-year moratorium on the death penalty, executing 11 people. Saudi Arabia and Iran consistently have some of the world’s highest execution rates. Saudi Arabia has executed more than 400 people since the beginning of 2014, and human rights groups in Iran report the country may have executed as many as 437 in 2016 alone.

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is unique in its cruelty and finality, and it is inevitably and universally plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error. A majority of countries in the world have abolished the practice. In 2012, following similar resolutions in 2007, 2008, and 2010, the United Nations General Assembly called on countries to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, progressively restrict the practice, and reduce the offenses for which it might be imposed, all with the view toward its eventual abolition. Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also called on countries to abolish the death penalty.

“Kuwait’s killing of seven people on January 25 highlights the alarming trend in the region for countries to return to or increasingly use the death penalty,” Whitson said. “The death penalty is inherently cruel and should never be used, regardless of the crime.”

UNGA 2016 Resolution – How Countries Voted

Source: Anti Death Penalty Asia Network (19 December 2016)

https://adpan.org/2017/01/10/unga-2016-resolution-how-countries-voted/

UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY(UNGA) MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY RESOLUTION..19/12/2016

[117 of the UN’s 193 member states voted in favour of the proposal. Only 40 states voted against it and 31 abstained at the vote]

Below the Draft Test of the Resolution (for the final text, visit UN Website)

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations,

Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,

Recalling the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and in this regard welcoming the increasing number of accessions to and ratifications of the Second Optional Protocol,

Reaffirming its resolutions 62/149 of 18 December 2007, 63/168 of 18 December 2008, 65/206 of 21 December 2010, 67/176 of 20 December 2012 and 69/186 of 18 December 2014 on the question of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which the General Assembly called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing it,

Welcoming all relevant decisions and resolutions of the Human Rights Council,

Mindful that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable,

Convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty,

Noting ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty, as well as the readiness of an increasing number of Member States to make available to the public information on the use of the death penalty, and also, in this regard, the decision by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 26/2 of 26 June 20145 to convene biennial high-level panel discussions in order to further exchange views on the question of the death penalty,

Recognizing the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty,

Welcoming the considerable movement towards the abolition of the death penalty globally and the fact that many States are applying a moratorium, including long-standing moratoriums, either in law or in practice, on the use of the death penalty,

Emphasizing the need to ensure that persons facing the death penalty are treated with humanity and with respect for their inherent dignity and in compliance with their rights under international human rights law,

Noting the technical cooperation among Member States, as well as the role of relevant United Nations entities and human rights mechanisms, in supporting State efforts to establish moratoriums on the death penalty,

Bearing in mind the work of special procedures mandate holders who have addressed human rights issues related to the death penalty within the framework of their respective mandates,

Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;

Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;

Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of resolution 69/186 and the recommendations contained therein;

Also welcomes the steps taken by some States to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, as well as steps taken to limit its application;

Further welcomes initiatives and political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic decision-making;

Welcomes the decisions made by an increasing number of States from all regions, at all levels of government, to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty;

Calls upon all States:

(a) To respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984, as well as to provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;

(b) To comply with their obligations under article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, particularly the right to receive information on consular assistance;

(c) To make available relevant information, disaggregated by sex, age, and race, as applicable, and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the number of executions carried out, the number of death sentences reversed or commuted on appeal and information on any scheduled execution, which can contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States pertaining to the use of the death penalty;

(d) To progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and not to impose capital punishment for offences committed by persons below 18 years of age, on pregnant women or on persons with mental or intellectual disabilities;

(e) To reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed;

(f) To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;

(g) To establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;

Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it, and encourages them to share their experience in this regard;

Encourages States which have a moratorium to maintain it and to share their experience in this regard;

Calls upon States that have not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;

Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;

Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its seventy-third session under the item entitled “Promotion and protection of human rights”.

Some observations of a friend as follows:-

The plenary session of the UN General Assembly adopted yesterday its sixth resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with 117 votes in favour, 40 against and 31 abstentions.

The text of the resolution includes some positive new additions compared to 2014, including:

-a reference to the role of national human rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional initiatives on the death penalty;

-a request to make available relevant information on any scheduled execution, in addition to other information already listed in previous resolutions;

-a call on states that still retain the death penalty “To ensure that those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;”

Unfortunately the opponents of the resolution managed this year to include in the resolution a new paragraph that recalls their sovereign right to determine their legal systems, as follows:

“1. Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;”

While the number of the votes in favour remained the same as in 2014, there have been some interesting changes in the voting, both positively and negatively:

Positive changes:

-Guinea, Malawi, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka moved from abstention to vote in favour;

-Zimbabwe moved from vote against to abstention;

– Swaziland also moved from not present to vote in favour (but voted against the resolution in previous years).

-Lesotho moved from not present to abstention (but abstained in previous resolutions, so did not mention this in our AI statement); Nauru moved from not present to vote in favour (but supported the resolutions in previous years, so we did not mention this in our statement).

Negative changes:

-Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Philippines, Seychelles moved from vote in favour to abstention;

-Maldives moved from abstention to vote against;

-Burundi and South Sudan moved from vote in favour to vote against.

Several states also did not vote yesterday, for whatever reason, contributing to the final results:

-DRC, Gambia, Senegal went from abstention to not present;

-Rwanda went from vote in favour to not present.

This leaves us with a somewhat bittersweet result: on one hand, the number of votes in favour has not become higher compared to 2014; on the other hand, some of the positive changes might signal the beginning of new journeys towards abolition.

2016 has been a very challenging year all around, including for the death penalty-some of the negative vote changes were somewhat expected, some perhaps speak to greater human rights challenges.

Thank you nonetheless for your continued work to get us all here-look forward to more work together in the new year.

Amnesty International’s public statement on yesterday’s vote can be found below and at this link: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/5389/2016/en/

UN asks Maldives to retain death penalty moratorium

Source: Time of India (10 August 2016)

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/UN-asks-Maldives-to-retain-death-penalty-moratorium/articleshow/53630372.cms

UNITED NATIONS: Voicing concern over recent developments pertaining to capital punishment in Maldives, the UN Human Rights chief has exhorted the government to refrain from carrying out planned executions and uphold the de facto moratorium that has been in place in the country for over six decades.

"The Maldives has long provided important leadership on global efforts to bring an end to the use of death penalty, so it is deeply regrettable that a series of steps have been taken to resume executions in the country," UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said in a press release.

Last November, the High Court decided that the President may no longer exercise the power of commuting death sentences to life imprisonment.

In June this year, capital punishment regulations were further amended to allow for hanging in addition to lethal injections as methods of execution.

Further, in July, the Supreme Court issued an order, cancelling the stay order issued by the High Court and reiterated that its decisions on death sentences are final.

"The death penalty is not effective in deterring crime," Zeid said, adding "a judiciary that is unable to consistently apply fair trial standards and is marred by politicisation, must not be allowed to have the final say in matters of life and death."

"There are currently 17 individuals on death row in Maldives. Some cases raise serious due process concerns, with three of them at imminent risk of execution," he said.

"Maldives has upheld the right to life for more than 60 years," the High Commissioner said, urging the leaders and the people of the Maldives "to continue to uphold the moratorium on the death penalty and work towards prohibiting the practice altogether."

Maldives Foreign Minister Quits Citing Row on Death Penalty

Source: The New York Times (5 July 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/07/05/world/asia/ap-as-maldives-foreign-minister.html?_r=0

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — The Maldives' foreign minister resigned Tuesday saying she has irreconcilable disagreements with the government's decision to implement the death penalty.

Dunya Maumoon said in a statement that her decision to step down was inevitable "because of the profound differences of opinion on the government's policy on implementing the death penalty at a time when serious questions are being asked and concerns being expressed about the delivery of justice in the Maldives."

But local media said the resignation is also a result of differences between President Yameen Abdul Gayoom, who is Dunya's uncle, and her father Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who previously ruled the country for 30 years.

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom is now the leader of the ruling Progressive Party of the Maldives.

The rift surfaced last week when Maumoon Abdul Gayoom openly opposed a law to lease out islands and lagoons for tourism projects without competitive bidding.

Last month, the Supreme Court last month confirmed the death penalty for a 22-year-old man convicted of killing a lawmaker in 2012. Just days before the court's ruling, the government had amended rules to allow execution by lethal injection or hanging, indicating that the country's decades-long moratorium on executions will soon end.

The latest dispute could exacerbate the country's already fragile politics, with Maumoon Abdul Gayoom moving to strengthen his hold on the party.

The Maldives became a multiparty democracy in 2008 after Maumoon had held power for nearly 30 years. But the democratic gains have receded in recent years.

Yameen Abdul Gayoom is accused of using the courts, government bureaucracy and police to suppress the opposition and the media.

Since he was elected to office in 2013, four senior politicians have been jailed after trials that were widely criticized as lacking due process.

Maumoon Abdul Gayoom's successor, Mohamed Nasheed, the country's first democratically elected president, resigned under heavy criticism for having ordered the military to detain one of the country's top judges. He then lost a presidential election to Yameen Abdul Gayoom.

Nasheed was sentenced to 13 years in jail last year after a court ruled that the jailing of the judge was akin to terrorism.

Yameen's former vice president, Ahmed Adeeb, was sentenced to 33 years in prison on corruption and terrorism charges, including an alleged plot to assassinate the president.

Yameen's former defense minister, Mohamed Nazim, and opposition party leader Sheik Imran Abdulla are also serving lengthy prison terms.

HRW urges Pak to restore death penalty moratorium

Source: The Siasat Daily (17 December 2015)

http://www.siasat.com/news/hrw-urges-pak-restore-death-penalty-moratorium-887119/

New York: Pakistan's government should immediately halt executions, reinstate the moratorium on the death penalty, and move toward abolition, Human Rights Watch said today in a joint letter with Amnesty International to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

In the year since the country's six-year moratorium on executions was lifted, Pakistan has carried out more than 300 executions. Those executed include child offenders, defendants who received blatantly unfair trials, and, most recently, individuals tried in secret by military courts with no civilian oversight.

"Over the past year with the moratorium lifted, the Pakistani government has sent hundreds to the gallows with cruel disregard for the rights of those put to death," said Brad Adams, Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

"The government urgently needs to find a better way to address militancy and common crime since the death penalty has long shown to be ineffective in tackling these challenges," he added.

On December 17, 2014, Sharif rescinded an unofficial moratorium on capital punishment following a militant attack on a school in Peshawar the previous day that killed at least 149 people, including 132 children. The authorities should bring the perpetrators of this horrific attack to justice in fair trials, but without resorting to the death penalty.

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances as an inherently cruel punishment. (ANI)

Jakarta won't execute convicts - for now

Source: The Strait Times (21 Nov 2015)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/jakarta-wont-execute-convicts-for-now

The Indonesian government has suspended the executions of convicts on death row to focus on improving economic growth, a senior government aide said.

Growth was 4.73 per cent in the third quarter of this year, far below the level that President Joko Widodo says is needed to boost job growth and investment.

"The priority is on economic development. Executions are not a priority," said Mr Atmadji Sumarkidjo, an aide and spokesman for top security minister Luhut Pandjaitan.

"The brouhaha from death executions would distract the government, which wants to focus on the economy," he told The Straits Times on Thursday.

"Although it is the right of every nation to carry out death penalties, responding to the brouhaha would be tiring."

Separately, Mr Luhut said the death penalty issue was raised when he met Australian government representatives in Sydney earlier this week, The Jakarta Post reported on Thursday.

Australia had promised not to interfere in Indonesia's stance on the death penalty, he added.

"I have told them that we are concentrating on the economy. We will have further discussions if something comes up," he said.

Foreign countries and human rights groups have criticised Indonesia for carrying out the death penalty. The Indonesian administration executed two groups of death row convicts, totalling 14 people, in January and April.

Australian drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Su-kumaran were executed in April, causing tension between the two countries.

The Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, a Jakarta-based human rights group, said it appreciated the decision to suspend executions and urged the government to grant clemency for people on death row.

A little light administrative duty for Sri Lanka's new hangmen

Source: Straits Times (14 October 2015)

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/a-little-light-administrative-duty-for-sri-lankas-new-hangmen

COLOMBO (Reuters) - Sri Lanka said on Wednesday (Oct 14) it has hired two new executioners to replace the previous hangman, who quit soon after seeing the gallows for the first time, even though capital punishment has not been carried out there for almost 40 years.

No one has been executed in the tropical South Asian nation since 1976 and the role of executioner is described as "light administrative work only", even though there are 1,116 convicts on death row.

"It doesn't matter whether the government wants to execute or not," said Prisons Commissioner General Rohana Pushpakumara. "In the event the government wants to carry out executions, we should be prepared," he told Reuters.

Death sentences have been routinely commuted to life in jail since 1976, even though Sri Lanka only officially acknowledged last month it was no longer carrying out capital punishment.

More than half of those who are on death row have lodged appeals against their sentences, Pushpakumara said.

The predominantly Buddhist Indian Ocean nation has witnessed a sharp rise in child abuse, rape, murder and drug trafficking since the end of a 26-year civil war with Tamil Tiger separatists in 2009, political analysts have said.

That has prompted some lawyers and politicians to call for the reinstatement of the death penalty.

The position of executioner fell vacant in March 2014 when the previous hangman quit weeks after he was hired, citing stress, soon after he saw the gallows in the capital, Colombo, for the first time.

Two other hangmen hired in 2013 failed to show up for work.