[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 28



IRAN----executions

7 Prisoners Executed in Western Iran

According to unofficial reports, at least 7 prisoners charged with murder were 
hanged to death at Kermanshah's Dizel Abad Prison on the morning of Wednesday 
August 26. 2 of the prisoners have been identified as Behrouz Nouri, 
approximately 25 years, and Shah Bakhshihaghi. The names of the other prisoners 
are not known at this time. Iranian state media and government bodies have not 
reported on these executions.

(source: Iran Human Rights)






MALAYSIA:

Scrapping death for drugs not wise: IGP


Bukit Aman supports a review of the mandatory death sentence for drug offences, 
but wants the penalty to remain a legal option.

Inspector-General of Police, Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar, said abolishing the 
death sentence would send a wrong signal to drug dealers.

"We would support the proposed review but we'd prefer the death sentence to 
still be made available to the courts.

"The anti-drug war is ongoing as drugs continue to be a major menace 
threatening the young people of this country.

"Abolishing the death sentence would be a step backward," he said when asked to 
comment on calls to review the death sentence for drug offences.

In Malaysia, those who traffic in drugs can be sentenced to death by hanging 
upon conviction.

Former IGP Tun Hanif Omar said the death penalty for drug offences had to be 
reviewed entirely.

"There are so many cases where the mandatory death was imposed but it has not 
stopped people from risking it in order to make money," he said.

Jail sentences would also not deter drug trafficking, he added.

"We can consider putting them (drug traffickers) under a very long prison term 
but are we prepared to do what the US has done to drug traffickers?" he asked.

According to Hanif, the United States placed drug offenders in dungeons far 
away from light and company.

On the British legal framework on which Malaysia's judiciary is based, Hanif 
said the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher also had conflicting 
views on the death penalty at different points in history.

"They too experimented with and without the death penalty but the ultimate goal 
is to find a way to solve the root of the problem and deter people from 
committing the offence," he said.

Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Paul Low recently called for 
the mandatory death sentence to be reviewed for drug offences, noting that the 
rising number of convictions had raised questions as to the effectiveness of 
the death sentence as a deterrent to drug trafficking.

Meanwhile, Malaysia was in the news in Mexico recently due to 3 Mexican 
brothers due to be hanged in Johor for drug trafficking.

The Federal Court in Putrajaya upheld the Court of Appeal's guilty decision 
against 3 brothers in April, and the Mexican ambassador to Malaysia Carlos 
Felix Corona found himself inundated with interview requests from 32 media 
agencies from his country.

Luis Alfonso, 47, Simon, 40, and Jose Regino Gonzalez Villareal, 37, came to 
Johor in February 2008 to work at a factory in Senai Industrial Park but were 
caught by police 2 weeks later.

They were charged with manufacturing about 30kg of methamphetamine with intent 
to distribute, under Section 39B of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

Since their arrest, the men lost contact with home.

Mexican journalist Victor Hugo Michel broke the news in the country in 2011 and 
wrote a book, "To Die in Malaysia", based on the brothers' accounts, which were 
published in August 2013. The book, according to Michel, is now used in 
journalism schools in Mexico.

Michel said it was while chatting with a Mexican diplomat in the United States 
one day that he heard about 3 Mexicans who were close to being on death row 
halfway around the world.

"This is the 1st time in history Mexicans could be hanged to death. It's not 
like we never had Mexicans sentenced to death overseas, but to die by hanging, 
that's unheard of. On top of that, it's three brothers!" he said.

Malaysia, though one of 32 countries in the world to impose the death penalty 
for drug trafficking, is among only 6 countries to routinely execute drug 
offenders, according to an April 2015 report in The Economist.

The story instantly made headlines in Mexico, and became the focus of a heated 
debate about whether the brothers deserved their punishment.

Until then, the Gonzalez Villareal family had had no idea Luis, Simon and 
Regino were in such deep trouble.

"The family had failed to contact the brothers. All they knew was that they had 
gone to work in a country called Malaysia," said Michel, who visited the family 
after returning from Asia.

When the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision in August 2013, the 
story made the headlines again back home.

By then, the brothers' lives did change for the better when Corona was 
appointed ambassador to Malaysia.

He helped to get them transferred from the Kajang prison in Selangor to the 
Bentong facility in Pahang, which, according to Michel, was more comfortable.

Corona even wrote to Pope Francis about the brothers. Last year, the pontiff 
sent the brothers a rosary and medallion on Holy Thursday to lift their 
spirits.

After the Federal Court judgement, Corona said: "We respect the Malaysian 
judiciary and we will file a judicial review before resorting to the clemency 
of the Sultan of Johor."

The Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry has said it will appeal to local and 
international bodies that are against the death penalty.

(source: Daily Express)






INDIA:

Law Commission to recommend death penalty only for terror convicts


The Law Commission of India will soon recommend abolition of death penalty in 
the country, said a report on Friday.

The Law Commission has prepared a 272-page draft report that has been 
circulated among its members and will likely be submitted to the government 
next week.

As per The Indian Express, the report recommends speedy abolition of the death 
penalty.

It, however, makes exception for those convicted of involvement in terror 
cases.

India is among 60-odd countries in the world where courts still award capital 
punishment.

Just recently, 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon was hanged till 
death on July 30.

As per the daily, the draft report expresses hope that the "movement towards 
absolute abolition will be swift and irreversible".

In its draft report, the Commission observed that "the death penalty has no 
demonstrated utility in deterring crime or incapacitating offenders, any more 
than its alternative - imprisonment for life. The quest for retribution as a 
penal justification cannot descend into cries for vengeance."

In its 35th report submitted way back in 1962, the Law Commission had 
recommended retention of death penalty.

The Supreme Court had last year asked the Commission to study the issue of 
death penalty.

(source: Zee News)

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

Eminently fallible, yet irrevocably final': Majority in Law Commission oppose 
death penalty


A Law Commission consultation process on a report on whether to retain the 
death penalty in India saw a majority opposing capital punishment.

However, at least 1 member and an ex-officio member of the Law Commission are 
learnt to have expressed their reservations on the report.

The Indian Express has reported that a draft report calls for the speedy 
abolition of the death penalty, with an exception for cases where the accused 
is convicted in a case related to terrorism. The Commission in the draft report 
has said that the death penalty is "eminently fallible, yet irrevocably final", 
according to The Indian Express.

Sources privy to the development said at least 1 member and 1 of the 2 ex 
officio members have expressed their reservations. But a final view is likely 
to emerge when the final draft report is adopted in the next couple of days.

The Commission, chaired by Justice (retd) AP Shah is likely to submit its 
report to the Supreme Court this week. It is working overtime to complete the 
report as its 3-year term is coming to an end on 31 August.

Justice (retd) SN Kapoor, Justice (retd) Usha Mehra and Mool Chand Sharma are 
the members of the panel. Law Secretary PK Malhotra and Legislative Secretary 
Sanjay Singh - both from the Law Ministry - are the ex officio members.

The Law panel will submit its report to the Supreme Court "sometime" next week 
on whether India should continue with death penalty or abolish it. A copy will 
also be handed over to the Law Minister as any call on changes in penal 
provisions will be taken by Parliament.

The report assumes significance as it comes days after a debate was generated 
over the hanging of 1993 Mumbai serial blasts convict Yakub Memon.

The Supreme Court, in the cases 'Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs 
Maharashtra' and 'Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs Maharashtra', had suggested that 
the Law Commission should study the death penalty in India to "allow for an 
up-to-date and informed discussion and debate on the subject".

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

Death penalty only for terror? Why Law Commission's proposal is no lasting 
solution

Officially the Law Commission is recommending keeping the death penalty only 
for terror.

But in reality what it's doing is moving the conversation towards the abolition 
of the death penalty in India.

According to the Indian Express the commission in its 272-page report is quite 
clear about what it thinks about the death penalty.

"The death penalty has no demonstrated utility in deterring crime or 
incapacitating offenders, any more than its alternative - imprisonment for 
life. The quest for retribution as a penal justification cannot descend into 
cries for vengeance."

The Supreme Court had already decreed that capital punishment should be 
reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases. What the Law Commission is basically 
saying is that is too fuzzy a definition and too many cases are ending up in 
the "rarest of rare" bucket even though higher courts eventually quashed many 
of those sentences. In fact the number of death sentences being quashed shows 
they are being imposed too arbitrarily.

The terror exception is tantamount to the commission drawing its line in the 
sand. But it is also a transit lounge in a longer journey towards abolition 
itself.

The reasons why the commission thinks abolition make sense are a different 
matter as are the arguments of the likes of Ram Jethamalani to retain the death 
penalty. This is not an issue on which there will ever be quick consensus.

What the Law Commission seems to be doing is easing India into truly getting 
into the "rarest of rare" mindset. Whether a country keeps capital punishment 
after all is not so much about the law as it is about a societal mindset. 
Changing that will take time. And it seemed clear that terror was one issue 
where civil society activists, lawyers and parliamentarians divided most on the 
issue.

The problem with the terror exception however is that it's unlikely to work 
that well as a point of temporary consensus, something that most people can 
agree on.

Who we call terrorist can sometimes be very much in the eye of the beholder. 
One person's terrorist can be another person's freedom fighter. As far as 
deterrence goes an ideologically brainwashed terrorist probably will see glory 
in death anyway. Capital punishment will not be any deterrent to the terror 
cause.

In opposing capital punishment Varun Gandhi says it creates "martyrs". The 
chances of someone who committed an act of terror or political assassination in 
service of an ideology becoming regarded as a martyr are always high. We only 
have to look at the assassins of Indira Gandhi for example, on1 of whom died on 
the spot while the other was hanged. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh were 
declared "martyrs of Sikhism" by the Akal Takht in 2008 and Beant Singh's 
family went into electoral politics successfully. And a state's chief minister 
is going out of her way to show deep empathy for those convicted in the Rajiv 
Gandhi assassination. The huge crowds at Yakub Memon's funeral proved that many 
were not convinced that his role in the Mumbai blasts deserved death by hanging 
and regarded him as hanging for the crimes of his absconding brother.

It's unlikely any halo of belated martyrdom will ever encircle the Nirbhaya 
rapists.

In fact, if there is consensus around death penalty it is far more likely to be 
around brutal cases like Nirbhaya rather than the Yakub Memens and Afzal Gurus 
of the world. The death penalty is an emotional issue and governments are 
forced respond to that emotion. That is why the Nirbhaya case was fast-tracked 
and capital punishment made part of the amendments to the rape law. There was 
little resistance to it even among death penalty abolitionists who opposed it 
on principle but did little beyond that. On the other hand, many of those who 
opposed the death penalty in the Yaqub Memon case on various grounds found 
themselves pilloried for their stance. The Shiv Sena said those who demanded 
leniency for Yakub Memon should be "tried for being enemies of the country."

The Law Commission no doubt hopes that its stop-gap measure will offer some 
respite in the heated rhetoric around the issue and enable us to catch our 
collective breath. But it's unlikely it will do much in that regard. Instead it 
will pose the immediate and obvious riposte - what about the likes of the 
Nirbhaya rapists? Why should they not deserve the death penalty if it has to 
stay on the books? Why do they not deserve the rarest of rare punishments?

And no government will want to answer that question.

(source for both: firstpost.com)

*********

Judicial Backing of the Noose Reflects Public Mood


Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in brief provides that whoever 
kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such 
kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, 
to compel the person to pay a ransom 'shall be punishable with death, or 
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine'. A Bench of the 
Supreme Court comprising Justices T S Thakur, R K Agrawal and Adarsh Goel 
upheld the constitutionality of this section.

Justice Thakur, speaking for the Bench, observed that "the gradual growth of 
the challenges posed by kidnapping and abductions for ransom, not only by 
ordinary criminals for monetary gain or as an organised activity for economic 
gains, but by terrorist organisations is what necessitated the incorporation of 
Section 364A in the IPC and a stringent punishment for those indulging in such 
activities". The court ruled that in view of the "concern shown by Parliament 
for the safety and security of the citizens and the unity, sovereignty and 
integrity of the country, the punishment prescribed for kidnapping for ransom 
cannot be dubbed as so outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the 
offence as to call for the same being declared unconstitutional". No doubt the 
Bench was not concerned with the question of the wisdom or morality of 
imposition of death sentences. The Supreme Court judgment, however, in a way 
reflects the present public mood in our country which is not in favour of total 
abolition of the death penalty in all cases and in all circumstances.

Crime and Proportionate Punishment: The issue of the gravity of the crime and 
the concept of proportionality as regards the punishment recently came up 
before a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Dipak Misra and 
Prafulla C Pant. Justice Misra, speaking for the court, succinctly observed 
that "the prime objective of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just 
and proportionate punishment which is commensurate with the gravity, nature of 
the crime and manner in which the offence is committed keeping in mind the 
social interest and the conscience of the society". He referred to an earlier 
judgment of the Supreme Court in 2006 wherein the court ruled that "undue 
sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice 
system, to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law ..."

In the case before the Supreme Court, the accused were convicted of the offence 
of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The High Court took the 
view that "ends of justice would be amply met if their substantive sentences of 
imprisonment are reduced to the one already undergone by them". The convicts 
had remained in custody only for a period of four months and 20 days. The Bench 
came down heavily on the High Court. In the felicitous language of Justice 
Misra, the judge's discretion regarding sentencing "cannot be allowed to yield 
to fancy. ... A judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law 
and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of 
proportionality. ... One cannot brush aside the agony of the victim or the 
survivors of the victim". The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered that 
the convicts be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining part of 
their sentences.

Adding Insult to Injury: BJP President Amit Shah was recently trapped in a lift 
in a state guest house in Patna for nearly 20 minutes. It appears that nobody 
was present in the guest house to deal with such emergencies. Shah was rescued 
by CRPF personnel who ripped apart the lift's steel doors. State BJP President 
Mangal Pandey smelt a conspiracy, but the state government has attributed the 
mishap to overloading in the lift. RJD leader Lalu Prasad quipped that "a man 
as fat as Amit Shah shouldn't have entered the Patna lift as Bihar lifts are 
not made to carry such fat people". Now, that is adding insult to injury. And 
that is typical Lalu Prasad, especially in view of the upcoming Bihar 
elections.

(source: Soli Sorabjee; The author is a former Attorney General of India----New 
Indian Express)

*******

Dec 16 convicts found guilty in dacoity, kidnapping case----On July 15, 2013, 
the court had framed charges against the 4 accused after they pleaded not 
guilty to charges in the robbery case.


A Delhi court on Thursday found the 4 convicts - who are facing the death 
penalty over the heinous December 16 gangrape and murder case - guilty in a 
separate case of kidnapping and dacoity.

Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh Singh convicted Akshay Kumar Singh, Mukesh, 
Pawan Gupta and Vinay Sharma for the offences under sections 395 (dacoity) and 
365 (kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a 
person) of the Indian Penal Code, including others sections in the 2012 robbery 
case.

"Vide separate order pronounced today, the accused persons are convicted in all 
the sections for which charges were framed against them. Put up the matter for 
arguments on sentence on September 2," said Additional Sessions Judge Reetesh 
Singh.

The court had also framed charges against them for offences punishable under 
sections 342 (wrongfully confining any person), 394 (person voluntarily causing 
hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery), 412 (dishonestly receiving 
stolen property knowing that it was obtained by dacoity) and 34 (common 
intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, driver Ram Singh, his brother Mukesh, Vinay, 
Pawan and Akshay, along with a juvenile, had snatched a mobile phone and Rs 
1,500 from Ram Adhar, a 35-year-old carpenter, after luring him onto the bus 
being driven by Singh.

On July 15, 2013, the court had framed charges against the four accused after 
they pleaded not guilty to charges in the robbery case.

"It is alleged that on December 16, 2012, at about 8.45 pm at Munirka bus stand 
or road leading towards IIT flyover, you all (Akshay, Mukesh, Pawan and Vinay) 
in furtherance of your common intention along with one Ram Singh (since 
deceased) and one (juvenile) ... kidnapped or abducted Ram Adhar (carpenter) 
with intent to cause Ram Adhar to be secretly and wrongfully confined and you 
all thereby committed an offence punishable under section 365/34 Indian Penal 
Code and within the cognisance of this court," the court had said while framing 
charges.

The appeals of Mukesh, Vinay, Pawan and Akshay - who were sentenced to death in 
2013 for raping and killing a 23-year-old in December 2012 - are pending before 
the Supreme Court.

(source: Indian Express)






ALGERIA:

Proautonomy Algerian activists detained, could face death penalty


Algerian authorities should release or try within a reasonable time in a fair 
and open trial a pro-Amazigh activist, Kameleddine Fekhar, and his 24 
co-defendants, Human Rights Watch said today. Fekhar has since 2013 called for 
autonomy of the Mzab, a northern Sahara region, and has condemned the 
government for what he called complicity in crimes against humanity by Sunni 
Arabs against the Amazigh, or Berber, ethnic minority in the region.

All have been in pretrial detention since July 9, 2015. They face the same 
charges, which include participating in a terrorist act and inciting hatred, 
for their alleged role in violent confrontations between the Amazigh and the 
Arab communities on July 7 in the Mzab. The accused, all from the region, could 
face the death penalty.

"If the government has evidence that Fekhar played a real role in the 
tragically violent events and is not being held merely for his strong views, it 
should produce the evidence in open court," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle 
East and North Africa director of Human Rights Watch. "If not, it should 
release him."

Fekhar headed the Algerian League for Human Rights chapter in the town of 
Ghardaia from 2004 to 2014. In late 2013, he founded the Movement for the 
Autonomy of the Mzab. Most or all of his co-defendants are believed to be 
supporters of this cause.

Noureddine Ahmine, a defense lawyer for the accused, told Human Rights Watch 
that the investigative judge has not yet called witnesses or interrogated the 
accused. As far as Human Rights Watch has been able to determine, the police 
and the prosecution did not disclose to the defense team any evidence of 
criminal wrongdoing in this case. Authorities should promptly disclose to the 
accused and their lawyers any incriminating evidence against them.

The police arrested the 25 at Fekhar's house in Ghardaia. After they spent six 
days in police detention, a public prosecutor in the first instance court of 
Ghardaia brought the 18 charges against them. An investigative judge issued an 
order for their pretrial detention. The group was transferred to the M?n?a 
prison, 270 kilometers south of Ghardaia. The pretrial investigation continues.

The inter-communal violence that erupted in July - the latest such episode in 
an ethnically tense region - left 25 people dead and more than 70 injured, from 
both communities, most from gunfire. The 2 communities have clashed 
sporadically over property, land ownership, and other issues. Fekhar, in a TV 
interview, accused Algerian security forces of standing by without intervening 
during attacks on the Mozabites, as the region's Amazigh are known.

During an earlier round of ethnic clashes, in November 2013, Mozabites in the 
city of Guerrara accused the security forces of torturing at least 10 people 
who had been detained. Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the Algerian 
authorities in October 2014 to inquire about investigations into the complaint 
the 20 men filed with the prosecutor of the First Instance Tribunal in 
Ghardaia. Human Rights Watch did not receive a reply.

On July 2, 2015, Fekhar addressed a letter to United Nations Secretary General 
Ban Ki Moon requesting UN intervention to protect against what he called "the 
apartheid and ethnic cleansing" practiced by the Algerian government against 
the Mozabite community. On July 11, Ahmed Ouyahya, cabinet chief for President 
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, during a public meeting, accused "those who have 
addressed requests for foreign intervention to the United Nations" of being 
behind the violence in Ghardaia.

Ahmine, the lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that a police report in the case 
file stated that the police arrested Fekhar and the 24 others on July 9 because 
of information that they were gathering that day and might be instigating 
further violence in the region.

The grave charges brought against the accused include committing subversive 
acts of terrorism targeting the state security, national unity, and territorial 
integrity; forming a criminal gang to commit crimes; murder with premeditation; 
harming the integrity of the national territory; distributing material harmful 
to the national interest; participating in an armed gathering; participating in 
a non-armed gathering; and defamation against state institutions, respectively 
under articles 87bis, 176, 255, 79, 96, 97, and 146 of the penal code.

On July 16, Fekhar started a hunger strike. At his hearing before the 
accusation chamber on August 2 he was too weak to speak, Ahmine said. The court 
rejected a defense motion to grant Fekhar and the other 24 codefendants 
provisional pretrial release.

Algeria is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights (ICCPR). Article 9 states, "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal 
charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by 
law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a 
reasonable time or to release." The article also says that "it shall not be the 
general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody," though 
release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial.

The Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance 
in Africa, adopted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in 
1999, also say that "unless there is sufficient evidence that deems it 
necessary to prevent a person arrested on a criminal charge from fleeing, 
interfering with witnesses or posing a clear and serious risk to others, States 
must ensure that they are not kept in custody pending their trial."

The same principles mandate the authorities to inform the person detained of 
details of the charge or applicable law and the alleged facts on which the 
charge is based, sufficient to indicate the substance of the complaint against 
the accused. They further say that the accused must be informed in a manner 
that would allow the person to prepare a defense and to take immediate steps to 
secure their release.

(source: bignewsnetwork.com)



EGYPT:

Egypt court sentences 12 IS supporters to death


An Egyptian court sentenced to death 12 members of the Islamic State group 
Thursday for planning attacks against police and soldiers in the country, a 
judicial official said.

6 of those who were on trial are behind bars, while the rest are still at 
large, the official said.

They were convicted of having joined IS -- which has declared a "caliphate" in 
parts of Iraq and Syria under its control -- and of plotting to attack members 
of Egypt's police force and military.

In Egypt, death sentences are forwarded to the country's grand mufti, the 
official interpreter of Islamic law, who then issues a non-binding opinion.

The sentences issued will either be confirmed or commuted on September 12 by 
the court in the northern province of Sharkia, a court official said.

In a separate trial, 2 cousins were sentenced to three years in prison in the 
same province for using Facebook to promote the ideology of IS, the official 
added.

(source: al-monitor.com)