[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 13


KAZAKHSTAN:

Advocacy group urges Kazakhstan to abolish death penalty


According to Amnesty International, more than 2 in 3 countries of the world 
have abolished the death penalty either in law or in practice. Kazakhstan 
prohibited death penalty for ordinary crimes in 2007.

In accordance with the Constitution and the new Criminal Code, the death 
penalty still remains in Kazakhstan for crimes of terrorism involving loss of 
life, as well as for serious wartimecrimes committed in wartime. The death 
penalty is also provided for such crimes as: mercenary activity, attempt on the 
life of the First President, attempt on the life of the president and coup de 
main.

536 executions were carried out in Kazakhstan between 1990 and 2003. The last 
execution was carried out in 2003. In December that year a time-unlimited 
moratorium on capital punishment was introduced, after which not a single death 
penalty sentence was carried out.

Still, there are those in Kazakhstan who believe that it is not enough and the 
death penalty should be altogether abolished.

One of them is Saule Mektepbayeva, Regional Director of Penal Reform 
International (PRI) in Central Asia, who spoke to Tengrinews on the sidelines 
of the panel discussion in the Kazakh State University in the framework of the 
World Day against the Death Penalty.

Mektepbayeva acknowledged that Kazakhstan had been consistently and 
progressively moving towards abolition of the death penalty, but insisted that 
the system still needed serious reform.

"The death penalty is still provided for in the Constitution and in the 
criminal law as punishment. Many human rights activists had hoped that with the 
adoption of the new code, this problem would be completely resolved. But 
unfortunately, it remained as a form of punishment in the Criminal Code, and 
only the number of crimes for which it can be used was reduced from 18 to 17. 
This is the only change that was made," Mektepbayeva said.

"By and large, the question of the death penalty is essential for the whole 
system of human rights, so it is always in sight. That is, regardless of 
whether it is applied or not applied, the fact that it is in the Constitution 
is a very serious situation, which requires special attention," Mektepbayeva 
continued.

She said she was hopeful that in the end the death penalty would be abolished 
leading to the humanization of the whole justice system of Kazakhstan, because 
the gradation of punishment starts from the maximum down to the minimum.

In addition, the expert believes that availability of capital punishment does 
not reduce the number of crimes.

"As most studies have shown, the death penalty, unfortunately or fortunately, 
has no deterrent effect on the crime rate. And Kazakhstan is a proof to that: 
the death penalty has not been carried out in Kazakhstan for more than 10 years 
but this has not affected the crime situation in the country," Maktepbayeva 
said.

The activist also does not agree with the view that the Arab countries are able 
to preserve strong public order thanks to the death penalty.

"It is believed that the Arab countries have the death penalty, which is why 
they have a fairly strong rule of law. Although in reality, the main reason for 
their success lies in the clan system of their society. I have just recently 
visited the Arab countries and the local community there is very watchful over 
individual behaviour. It is not about the death penalty there. A person who 
commits as a crime is criticised by the local society. Even a petty theft makes 
the offender feel very uncomfortable," the Central Asian PRI representative 
shared.

There are clan societies in all five Central Asian countries, but that 
obviously has not become the main reason for success in achieving a fairly 
strong rule of law in the area. But the PRI rep did not specify why.

She also commented on the popular view in Kazakhstani society that the death 
penalty should be applied in high-profile cases involving crimes committed 
against children.

"I believe that life imprisonment is a very severe punishment, and many studies 
suggest that it is much more severe than the death penalty. Therefore, I 
believe that life imprisonment for serious crimes committed against children is 
an adequate measure," Saule Mektepbayeva said and reminded that prisons for 
those sentenced to life imprisonment were "the harshest".

Earlier, Saule Mektepbayeva asked First Deputy Prosecutor General of Kazakhstan 
Iogan Merkel as to what was preventing Kazakhstan from completely abandoning 
the death penalty.

"What's stopping? Constitution prevents us from removing the death penalty. 
Whilst the Constitution does not change, it will remain," Merkel said.

Incidentally, Merkel himself opposes abandoning of the death penalty.

"For some reason we forget about the rights of victims. Why, aren't they 
people? By no means is it acceptable. If we talk about the number of such 
convictions handed down, there are only 5 [that were handed after the 
moratorium on the death penalty, but never carried out]. What does this mean? 
That the courts are very discreet with this kind of punishment and practically 
do not hand it out [opting for life imprisonment], despite the fact that some 
crimes make hair stand on end," he said in January this year.

(source: Tengrinews)






IRAN:

Iran UPR: Recommendations on the Death Penalty Might Have Higher Impact This 
Time


On October 8, 2014, Iran Human Rights (IHR) presented a statement on behalf of 
the World Coalition against the Death Penalty (WCADP) at the UPR pre-session 
organized by UPR Info in Geneva. IHR was 1 of the 6 NGOs selected to present at 
the UPR pre-session. The other NGOs were International Federations for the 
Human Rights (FIDH), Justice for Iran (JFI), Baha'i International Community 
(BIC), International Campaign for the Human Rights in Iran (ICHRI) and Iran 
Human Rights Documentation Center (IHRDC). Representatives for several 
countries and NGOs were present at the pre-session.

The pre-session was held about 3 weeks ahead of Iran's 2nd Universal Periodic 
Review (UPR) scheduled to take place on October 31. The UPR is a mechanism of 
the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC) that periodically examines 
the human rights performance of all 193 UN Member States. It is intended to 
complement, not duplicate, the work of other human rights mechanisms, including 
the UN human rights treaty bodies. This is the 1st international human rights 
mechanism to address all countries and all human rights.

At its last Universal Periodic Review by the UN Human Rights Council in 2010, 
Iran received 29 recommendations on the death penalty from 23 different states; 
it accepted only 3. Moreover, the recommendations on the death penalty 
represented 23 % of those made to Iran - a number only surpassed by 
recommendations made regarding cooperation with international instruments and 
the elimination of torture and other forms of ill treatment.

In the statement the IHR spokesperson Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam emphasized that 
due to establishment of abolitionist campaigns and increasing discourse on the 
death penalty within the Iranian society, recommendations this time might have 
a greater impact. The statement included recommendations on all aspects of the 
death penalty, in particular several specific recommendations about public 
executions, death sentence for drug-related charges and death penalty to the 
juvenile offenders.

(source: Iran Human Rights)






NIGERIA:

Mutiny: Convicted Soldiers Appeal


3 soldiers out of the 12 sentenced to death by the military General Court 
Martial on September 15 have dragged the Nigerian Army before the Court of 
Appeal in Abuja, seeking to set aside the death sentences passed on them.

THISDAY had exclusively reported that the condemned soldiers would appeal their 
conviction.

The soldiers, Igomu Emmanuel, Stephen Clement and Andrew Ngbede with service 
numbers 09NA/62/1648/LCPL, 03NA/53/1816/CPL and 09NA/64/4214/PTE respectively, 
filed their appeal before the appellate court last Thursday through their 
lawyer, Chief Godwin Obla (SAN).

In the appeal, which contained 11 grounds, they argued that the General Court 
Martial erred in law and came to a perverse decision by convicting them in 
respect of the offence of conspiracy and failed to consider the defence of 
alibi which they raised timeously but which was never investigated by the court 
martial.

Specifically, ground one of the appeal states, "The General Court Martial erred 
in law and thus occasioned a miscarriage of justice when it disregarded the 
objection of the defence counsel raised before and at the arraignment of the 
appellant on the defective nature of the charge brought against the 
appellants."

On the particulars of the error in ground one of their appeal, the soldiers 
said they were charged and convicted at large under section 114 of the Armed 
Forces Act as the charge did not tie the offence they allegedly committed to 
any of the subsections of section 114 of the Armed Forces Act and that the 
section did not define the offence of criminal conspiracy as an offence known 
to law.

They averred that count 1 under which they were charged and convicted was 
ambiguous, uncertain and defective as they were charged under section 114 of 
the Armed Forces Act and punished under section 97 (1) of the Penal Code Law.

They also contended that count three under was equally uncertain and defective 
as they were charged under section 95 of the Armed Forces Act which provides a 
punishment of life imprisonment if convicted but were punished and sentenced to 
death under section 106 of the Armed Forces Act.

The soldiers maintained that the entire charge upon which they were tried and 
convicted was vague, disjointed, imprecise and so incoherent that they did not 
understand the charge, neither were their individual names stated on the charge 
and thus, argued that it was in breach of the provisions of section 36 (6) of 
the 1999 Constitution which entitles them to be informed of the details and 
nature of the offence for which they were charged.

They insisted that this incoherent and disjointed nature of the charge upon 
which they were tried and convicted infringed on their fundamental rights.

On the second ground of the appeal, the soldiers averred that the General Court 
Martial erred in law and thus came to a perverse decision when it based its 
decision solely on an equivocal, indirect, negative, uncorroborated and 
suspicious circumstantial evidence in convicting them for attempt to commit 
murder.

They claimed that the GOC of 7 Division, Major General Ahmadu Mohammed 
(N/7915), whom they allegedly attempted to murder by firing shots at his 
official vehicle which hit the right rear door where he sat, was never led by 
the prosecution to give evidence on the alleged attempt on his life at their 
trial and that no ballistic evidence was led at their trial to show that it was 
their shot that hit the rear of the car in issue.

Furthermore, the appellants contended that none of the witnesses at their trial 
clearly and unequivocally identified any of them as the person who shot at the 
vehicle of Mohammed and that the General Court Martial merely relied on 
circumstantial evidence which did not lead conclusively and indisputably that 
any of their shots was one, if any, that hit the rear right door of his 
vehicle.

They urged the court to allow their appeal, set aside the decision of the 
General Court Martial and to discharge and acquit them.

They also wanted the court to order the payment of dues and outstanding 
peculiarly benefits or otherwise accruing to them.

No date however, has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

Sometime in May, some soldiers, angered by the death of their colleagues in a 
Boko Haram ambush had allegedly opened fire on the vehicle of the GOC, 7 
Division of the Nigerian Army, Mohammed in Maiduguri.

However, stakeholders and international organisations have raised their voices 
against the death sentences slammed on the 12 soldiers convicted for the act.

The European Union, EU, condemned the death sentence in a statement it released 
last Thursday as part of its activities marking the occasion of the World Day 
against Death Penalty.

The regional body condemned all death sentences, especially after mass trial as 
was the case with the Nigerian soldiers.

The soldiers sentenced to death are: Jasper Braidolor, David Musa, Friday Onuh, 
Yusuf Shuaibu, Igonmu Emmanuel, Andrew Ugbede, Nurudeen Ahmed, Ifeanyi 
Alukagba, Alao Samuel, Amadi Chukwuma, Alan Linus, and Stephen Clement while 
Jeremiah Echocho was sentenced to 28 days with hard labour.

(source: THISDAY)






INDIA:

UK refuse to share proof in terror case


The United Kingdom has refused to provide evidence in a matter of 
terror-funding before it is given an undertaking that India will refrain from 
giving capital punishment to the accused in the case.

India has refused to accede to the UK's demand, stalling the probe in the case 
for over a year, sources told HT.

"How can we agree to such a condition that binds the hands of our investigators 
and the criminal justice system even before a chargesheet is filed in the case? 
Besides, once we agree to such a condition from the UK, other countries which 
have also repealed the provision of capital punishment, can seek similar 
undertaking before they cooperate with Indian investigators jeopardising probes 
in many other cases," said a Union home ministry official requesting anonymity.

Indian federal anti-terror agency, the NIA, in August, 2012, registered a case 
against against operatives of banned terror outfit Babbar Khalsa International 
(BKI) for funding sleeper cells of terrorists, their jailed associates and 
family members in Punjab to revive militancy in the state.

The NIA alleged that Punjab-based BKI operatives were receiving money from 
their UK-based associates - Balbir Singh Bains and Joga Singh and some front 
outfits like Sikh Organisation for Prisoner Welfare and Khalsa Aid to commit 
terrorist acts in India. Further, they were also being provided active support 
by Pakistan-based BKI operatives like Wadhawa Singh and Jagtar Singh Tara.

"Under the mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) with the UK, the NIA requested 
evidence against the BKI operatives there and their fund-raising activities but 
so far the UK has not acted upon it seeking an undertaking that India will not 
give death penalty to any of the accused in the case on the basis of evidence 
provided by it. But India has refused to accept the demand," added the 
official.

The NIA has informed the home ministry about its stand and the ministry is yet 
to take a call on it.

Earlier, in cases of extradition only, India was asked to give an undertaking 
that it will not give death penalty once the accused person was sent here to 
face trial.

"But now, even for sharing evidence, countries are asking for waiver of death 
penalty. Now in the case against the BKI, 4 of the accused are Indian 
nationals, therefore it may tantamount to a 3rd country telling us how we 
should conduct trial against our accused," argued the official.

(source: Hindustan Times)






SRI LANKA:

Britain Hopes Lanka Backs Moratorium


The British Government says it hopes Sri Lanka will back a moratorium on the 
use of the death penalty.

The British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka John Rankin said that in January 
last year, Sri Lanka was shocked and saddened by the execution of Sri Lankan 
housemaid Rizana Nafeek in Saudia Arabia.

With others, the UK had called for clemency, not least because Rizana was a 
minor at the time of the alleged murder. Around the world, many wept that she 
had not been shown compassion.

Later this year, the UN General Assembly will vote on the 5th resolution on a 
moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The trend is clear: 2012 saw the 
biggest vote yet in favour of a worldwide moratorium on executions, by 111 
states.

Although Sri Lanka still has legislative provision for imposing the death 
penalty, judicial executions have not been carried out since 1976.

John Rankin said he hopes that the memory of Rizana's death will help persuade 
the Sri Lankan government to vote in favour of a moratorium and, eventually, 
join the increasing ranks of countries that have abolished it altogether.

His comments were issued to mark the World Day Against the Death Penalty. The 
UK - along with fellow EU Member States - is a strong advocate for the 
abolition of the death penalty.

(source: The Sunday Leader)