[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 8



IRAN----impending juvenile execution

Juvenile offender due to be executed within days in Iran - Amnesty


The Iranian authorities must immediately halt the implementation of a death 
sentence for juvenile offender Salar Shadizadi, Amnesty International said on 
Friday.

The execution of Salar Shadizadi, 24, who was jailed and sentenced to death for 
a crime committed when he was just 15 years old, was originally scheduled for 
August 1 and then postponed to August 10 after an international outcry.

"Carrying out the execution of Salar Shadizadi would be a deeply tragic blow to 
Iran's obligations under international human rights law, which strictly 
prohibits the use of the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 
the age of 18. To carry out an execution while a judicial review of the case is 
being sought would also be a slap in the face of justice," said Said 
Boumedouha, Acting Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at 
Amnesty International.

"The Iranian authorities are shirking their responsibilities by sentencing 
Salar Shadizadi to death and claiming afterwards that his fate is in the hands 
of the families involved. They must immediately quash his sentence and grant 
him a fair retrial without resorting to the death penalty," said Said 
Boumedouha.

"At least 72 juvenile offenders are believed to have been executed in Iran 
between 2005 and 2014 and at least 160 juvenile offenders are believed to be on 
death row. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is scheduled to review 
Iran's implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 
January 2016," Amnesty International said in a statement.

************************

U.S. "deeply concerned" by Iran death sentence again Mohammad Ali Taheri


The U.S. State Department has expressed deep concern about a death sentence 
handed down by the mullahs' regime in Iran to Mohammad Ali Taheri, an Iranian 
writer and founder of a spiritual movement.

"We are deeply concerned by reports that a Revolutionary Court in Iran has 
sentenced to death Mohammad Ali Taheri, the Iranian founder of a spiritual 
movement, on the charge of 'corruption on earth,'" Mark C. Toner, Deputy 
Department Spokesperson, said in a statement on Friday.

"We also are disturbed that a number of the movement's followers reportedly 
have been sentenced to prison terms for similarly vague so-called crimes. The 
ability of citizens to exercise their rights of freedom of religion and 
expression are fundamental principles of universally-recognized human rights 
enshrined in international law," he said.

"It is our understanding that Taheri, who has been held in Evin Prison in 
solitary confinement since his October 2011 conviction on charges of 'insulting 
Islamic sanctities,' received this sentence in response to his peaceful 
exercise of his rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. To 
sentence a citizen to death for exercising these freedoms represents an extreme 
violation of his rights."

"We call on the Iranian Government to rescind Taheri's death sentence and 
accord him full due process and to uphold freedom of expression and belief for 
its citizens," he added.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on 
Wednesday expressed alarm at the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Taheri.

Mr. Taheri was sentenced to death on Saturday by the regime's court on a charge 
of "Fesad fel Arz" (corruption on earth).

"Iran's use of the death penalty has long been problematic, with many 
executions on drug offences, several executions of people who were below the 
age of 18 when the crime was committed, as well as other cases where broad, 
ill-defined charges led to the imposition of capital punishment," Zeid said.

"Iran has reportedly executed more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last 
year, at least 753 people were executed in the country," said a statement by 
the Office of the High Commissioner.

(source for both: NCR-Iran)

*******************

Amendments to the Islamic Republic of Iran's New Code of Criminal Procedure


On June 22, 2015, a new Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) went into effect in 
the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). While the original draft of this code, 
which was passed in February 2014, was considered a relatively positive 
development, last-minute amendments before the law was about to be implemented 
have raised serious concerns of further deterioration of the state of the 
rights of defendants in Iranian courts.

The most significant change in the last-minute amendments to the Code of 
Criminal Procedure was to a note to Article 48, which stated that in cases 
involving serious charges, such as those carrying the death penalty or 
imprisonment for more than 5 years, during the pre-trial investigative phase a 
defendant may only choose attorneys that have been previously approved by the 
head of the judiciary. This change was met by strong objections from Tehran's 
Bar Association. However, Sadegh Larijani, the head of the Iranian judiciary, 
dismissed these objections and stated that the change addressed a need to 
protect confidential information, which trumped the presumption of innocence 
for defendants charged with serious offenses and their consequent right to 
choose their own counsel.

Another significant change relates to cases than can be appealed to the Supreme 
Court of the IRI. The amendments to Article 428 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure set a higher threshold for triggering Supreme Court review. For 
instance, in the original draft cases involving injuries resulting in 
compensatory payments equaling or exceeding 1/3 of the compensation for loss of 
life were eligible for Supreme Court review. But the amendments to Article 428 
state that in these cases the Supreme Court will hear appeals only if the 
compensatory payment for the injury equals or exceeds 1/2 of the amount payable 
for loss of life. Likewise, the amendments also state that crimes punishable by 
class 3 ta'zir punishments or higher are eligible for Supreme Court review. 
Class 3 ta'zir punishments include imprisonment between 10 to 15 years, while 
class 4 ta'zir punishments, which were also previously covered by the 
provision, include terms of imprisonment between 5 to 10 years. Many prison 
sentences against political prisoners and other prisoners of conscience fall 
into this category, and therefore it is likely that many political prisoners in 
the future will be deprived of the right to appeal to the Supreme Court; in 
such cases, the rulings of provincial appellate courts will be final. 
Simultaneously, an amendment to Article 426 of the new CCP lowers the 
requirements imposed on appellate courts when ruling on such cases.

Other changes include the expansion of circumstances that can be taken into 
account when deciding whether a person is fit to stand trial (Article 13), 
mentioning that non-governmental organizations may not attend court sessions 
involving crimes against decency although such organizations may have initiated 
the case by filing a complaint (Article 66), allowing the procurator to 
delegate some of his or her investigative responsibilities (Article 98), making 
the process of surveilling bank accounts easier for judiciary officials 
(Article 151), and indicating that Criminal, Revolutionary and provincial 
Appellate courts can have quorum with the presence of 2 judges (Articles 296 
and 297, and the aforementioned Article 426, respectively), whereas all judges 
had to be present in the past.

Overall, these changes represent a concerted and multi-pronged attack on the 
rights of defendants in a wide variety of cases, including those involving 
political prisoners and prisoners of conscience. Whereas the initial drafts of 
the law were publicized to suggest that they would bring a possible improvement 
to the country's theretofore-insufficient due process protections, amendments 
quietly approved only hours before the law was put into effect have done 
precisely the opposite. Consequently, the rule of law in Iran has been further 
weakened by the very institutions that purport to uphold it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal 
grandfather.

[2] Under Islamic law diyya is a compensatory payment made when a crime or an 
unintentional act has caused an injury.

[3] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal 
grandfather.

[4] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal 
grandfather.

[5] Article 302 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (available at: 
http://www.ghanoon.ir/, in Persian) establishes a new layer of criminal courts 
to deal with crimes including those with penalties of death, amputation of 
limbs, 5 years or more of imprisonment, and political or press crimes.

[6] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal 
grandfather.

[7] Under Iran's Civil Law the term parent refers to the father or the paternal 
grandfather.

[8] See footnote 5

[9] The Islamic Penal Code specifies eight classes of ta'zir punishments. 
Ta'zir punishments are punishments that are not explicitly fixed under Shari'a 
law, but are handed out at the discretion of a judge. Class 8 punishments are 
the most lenient, while class 1 punishments are the harshest. Article 428 
states when a class 4 punishment or higher (1 through 3) has been handed out, 
the Supreme Court is to directly hear the appeal. Class 4 punishments include 
imprisonment between 5 to 10 years, fines ranging from 18 to 36 million toumans 
(approximately $5,559 to $11,118 per the 2015 exchange rate), and being 
permanently banned from employment in the public sector.

[10] The head of the judicial district is the highest ranking judiciary 
official in a town or county. Often the local prosecutor serves as the head of 
the judicial district.

[11] See footnote 5.

[12] It is likely that the article in fact refers to Article 303, which deals 
with cases within the purview of the Revolutionary Courts. Article 302 
explicitly deals with cases within the purview of Criminal Courts, a separate 
court system.

[13] Class 3 punishments include imprisonment between 10 to 15 years and fines 
ranging from 36 to 55 million toumans (approximately $11,118 to $16,986 per the 
2015 exchange rate).

(source: Iran Human Rights Documentation Center)






NIGERIA:

Cross Rivers to Pass Death Penalty For Kidnappers & Cultists


Speaker of Cross River State House of Assembly, John Gaul Lebo, has said that a 
bill will soon be passed prescribing death by hanging for those convicted of 
kidnapping and cultism.

He said cultism, which is thriving in some parts of the state, has a 
relationship with kidnapping.

Lebo also said that essence of descending hard on kidnappers was to scare away 
those involved in it, adding that kidnappers were running into the state 
because of obsolete and weak laws.

Frowning at the penalty for kidnapping which presently attracts only 1 1/2 
years in prison, he said the assembly intends to review and modernise it.

Capital punishment is therefore part of the reform, review and modernisation to 
conform to their Citizen Agenda of the 8th legislature, he stated.

(source: Nigerian Bulletin)






INDIA:

Face to face with the gallows


The death penalty enjoys strong public support in India. There is a broad 
public perception that the death penalty deters crime and is needed to curb 
serious acts of violence. In Bachan Singh's case (1980) the Supreme Court, 
after surveying considerable literature on the subject, concluded that the 
death penalty has some deterrent impact. But this viewpoint is being challenged 
by many criminologists in different parts of the world. In a consultation on 
capital punishment recently organized by the Law Commission, many jurists and 
academics pointed out how public opinion on this issue is based on 
misconceptions about the alleged deterrent impact of the death penalty. In 
1945, Travancore was an independent state in India and did not have the death 
penalty. 962 murders were committed during the years 1945 to 1950. When 
Travancore became a part of India and the death penalty became applicable in 
the state, there was an upswing in the rate of murder. Similarly, the homicide 
rate in Canada was 542 in 2000, which was 159 less than the homicide figures of 
1975, the year prior to the abolition of death penalty in Canada. In the United 
States of America too, where some states have the death penalty, rates of 
homicide are higher than in the states without it.

Criminological studies have also shown that the death penalty does not alter 
criminal behaviour and only prevents rehabilitation. More than the severity of 
punishment, it is the certainty of punishment that acts as a deterrent. In 
Bachan Singh's case, the apex court further observed that "real and abiding 
concern for the dignity of human life postulates resistance to taking a life 
through law's instrumentality". It held that death penalty can be imposed only 
in the "rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably 
foreclosed".

Notwithstanding the ruling of the Supreme Court, the death penalty in India 
extends to a variety of offences. Under the Indian Penal Code, it can be 
applied to a variety of offences like murder, robbery with murder, abetting the 
suicide of a child, waging war against the government. The death sentence also 
can be imposed for a number of offences committed by members of the armed 
forces under the Army Act (1950), Air Force Act (1950), Navy Act (1957). The 
law against sati (1987) makes the death penalty applicable to those convicted 
of abetting a successful sati.

The correct statistics on execution within India are not available. The number 
of people executed in India since 1947 remains a matter of dispute. Official 
statements claim that only 52 people have been executed since Independence, but 
the People's Union for Civil Liberties quoted information from Appendix 34 of 
the 1967 Law Commission Report that 1422 executions took place in 16 Indian 
states from 1953 to 1965. The government, instead of responding to the PUCL's 
discovery, has maintained silence. India, however, had been observing a de 
facto moratorium on execution since 2004. But in 2012, Ajmal Kasab was executed 
for his involvement in Mumbai carnage (26/11). In 2013, Afzal Guru was hanged 
for an attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001.

The possibility of an error in judgment is a powerful argument in favour of the 
abolition of the death penalty. Like all other forms of punishment, the error 
in judgment cannot be ruled out in case of the death penalty. Until a decade 
ago, the prevalent view was that such errors of judgment are historical 
oddities and could not be repeated in modern times. In the US, several studies 
have documented the problem of erroneous conclusions, even in homicide cases. 
The report of Death Penalty Information Centre in 1999 documents that, since 
1970, there have been nearly 80 people released from death rows as they were 
found innocent. The execution of an innocent man is an unpardonable crime 
against society and such gruesome possibilities cannot be ruled out in case of 
the imposition of death penalties.

A landmark study titled, Lethal Lottery - The Death Penalty in India, carried 
out by Amnesty International and the PUCL, highlights the weaknesses in the 
award of death penalties in India since 1950 and observed that in India it has 
been "arbitrary, imprecise and abusive means of dealing with crimes and 
criminals". This report has been referred to by the Supreme Court in a number 
of cases.

Even the Supreme Court noted in the case of Swami Shraddhananda versus the 
State of Karnataka (2008) that awarding the sentence of death depends a good 
deal on personal predilections of the judges comprising the bench. This indeed 
is a serious admission on the part of the apex court. It is well-known in legal 
circles that all over the world each court has some "hanging judges" and the 
life and death of a person can become a matter of chance, depending upon which 
bench hears a particular case. In the case of Sangeet versus State of 
Maharashtra (2013), the apex court admitted that the death penalty was wrongly 
imposed in 5 other cases and added that uncertainties in India's "death penalty 
jurisprudence" makes it difficult to decide whether the case was fit for the 
imposition of the death penalty.

During the apartheid regime, South Africa was one of the world's greatest 
executioners of the world. South Africa's constitutional court in a landmark 
judgment declared death penalty unconstitutional mainly on grounds of 
arbitrariness. The court further concluded that "poverty, race and chance play 
roles... in the final decision as to who should live and who should die".

In its dissenting judgment on Bachan Singh's case the judge observed that the 
death penalty has a class complexion and caste bias. Now a study conducted by 
National Law University students with the help of Law Commission analyzed data 
from interviews of 373 death row convicts over a 15 year period and found that 
3/4 of those given the death penalty belonged to backward classes and religious 
minorities. Very often poor people get a rougher treatment from the courts 
because of their inability to find a competent lawyer to contest their 
conviction.

Today there is an international tide in favour of the abolition of the death 
penalty. The number of abolitionist nations has risen to 104 of 196 United 
Nations member states and a vast majority have abolished the death penalty for 
all crimes in all circumstances including terrorist offences and crimes 
committed in time of war.

In India, many death row prisoners have had to wait for a considerable period 
in prisons under sentence of death. Indeed, death sentences have no penological 
value and execution serves only a symbolic purpose. India has signed the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but not the Second 
Optional Protocol aiming at the abolition of the death penalty that was adopted 
by the UN general assembly in 1988. In 2007, India voted against the United 
Nations general assembly resolution for a moratorium on death penalties.

There is an imperative need for a strong civil society movement against the 
death penalty in India. The point must be stressed that those who favour the 
death penalty do not conform to the opinion held by a majority of people in the 
world which is veering towards its abolition. The question of death penalty is 
a basic human rights issue and a litmus test for all states proclaiming human 
rights norms and values. Gallows stand for cruelty and irreverence for life.

(source: Opinion, Sankar Sen; The (Calcutta) Telegraph)

**********************

Capital punishment


Capital punishment is indeed an inhuman way of justice while life imprisonment 
is justifiable as there is always scope for change in a person ("The rope and a 
chance to reform", Aug.7). Though intellectuals campaigning against the death 
penalty have spent much time arguing for life imprisonment, no one appears to 
have shed light on the conditions of prisons in India. A recent media report 
showed how Tihar jail has twice the number of inmates it can hold. Besides 
this, the environment in almost all prisons does not help in reform. The key 
issue we should be looking at is whether the existing prison environment in 
India can bring about reform.

Rohit Kumar,

New Delhi

The moral argument against the death penalty is strong. It may be legally right 
in certain societies but is morally wrong at all times and at all places. You 
cannot right a wrong by carrying out another wrong. Society may have enacted 
laws but these are laws created by men. It is a pity that a deeply spiritual 
society such as ours rejoices in a hanging. I strongly believe that a harsh 
life sentence will act as a deterrent.

Sridhar Sampath,

Chennai

It is fine to be quoting examples from popular culture, but events in the past 
decade show that nothing deters terrorists from carrrying out their abominable 
acts. We are all cognisant of the fact that the Indian government had to spend 
Rs. 30 crore to ensure a fair trial for Ajmal Kasab. Why should taxpayers' 
money be spent to provide facilities for such elements? Such an amount can be 
used to further education, sanitation and health care. Instead, there should be 
provision for fast-track courts that dispense justice quickly. The writer's 
idea that Yakub's execution has not been able to provide a sense of closure is 
unpalatable. Let us consider how keeping a terrorist alive engendered a hostage 
crisis, an example being the hijacking of 1999. The terrorists who were freed 
never showed any sign of remorse but went on to become involved in other 
heinous acts like the 2001 Parliament attack, training of militants in PoK and 
much worse. Do we need to face a similar crisis in order for the 'champions of 
life imprisonment' to open their eyes?

Chirag Sharma,

Vellore, Tamil Nadu

I can only think of the hostage crisis in 1999, where airline passengers from 
India faced grave risk to their lives. Keeping terrorists alive might result in 
a similar situation. Can we forget the damage caused when terrorists had to be 
released from Indian prisons? In a way, punishment will avert any such 
situation in future.

Kishore Kaushik,

Mysuru

First, there is a drain on resources while providing 'food, shelter and safety' 
to terrorists. Can India really afford to keep them alive in the hope that such 
persons will reform themselves? Every crime is different. Perhaps we should 
focus on the fact that this was a government which did not play politics by 
keeping a man alive until the eve of elections. In Yakub Memon's case, the 
country waited 23 years for justice. Can it not wait a few years to see Maya 
Kodnani and others brought to justice? From a sociological point of view, it is 
easy to empathise with a perpetrator as he/she is a single individual and not 
an abstract entity like his/her victims. Yakub was heard, given a voice and, in 
the end, held guilty. It is important for us to understand the closure for many 
people who could not come forward and express themselves in one voice.

Sweety Gupta,

New Delhi

(source: Letters to the Editor, The Hindu)