[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 28



BANGLADESH:

Minister urges chief justice to point out lapses in war crimes cases


Against the backdrop of strong dissatisfaction of the Supreme Court about the 
way the prosecution and the investigation agency of the war crimes tribunal are 
handling the 1971 war crimes cases, Law Minister Anisul Huq yesterday urged 
Chief Justice (CJ) Surendra Kumar Sinha to give observations about these in the 
upcoming verdict.

"Whatever the CJ has said is discernible. I learned it from the reports 
appearing in the media. The thing for me to do now is to know completely why 
the honourable chief justice has said this," he said.

The minister was talking to newsmen after attending a seminar on arbitration in 
Dhaka.

"I believe he will for sure point this out in the upcoming verdict, and if he 
doesn't do, I will take his advice for sure about what he had tried to say and 
why. After learning the matter completely, I will act to find a remedy in this 
regard," Huq added.

The Supreme Court on February 23 came down hard on the ICT prosecution and the 
investigation agency for their poor performance in dealing with the war crimes 
cases.

Earlier, the highest court in its observation in the verdict on the appeal of 
another Jamaat leader Delwar Hossain Sayedee, blamed the prosecution and the 
investigation agency for their 'incompetency'.

Chief Justice Sinha vented his anger when a 5-member bench of the Supreme Court 
led by him was hearing an appeal filed by war crimes accused Mir Quasem Ali 
challenging his death penalty.

The bench gave the observation after receiving records and documents of 
International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), saying that the prosecution could not 
produce witnesses in some charges brought against Quasem.

During the hearing, the CJ said they are shocked at the performance of the 
prosecution and the investigators for their incompetence in dealing the war 
crimes cases.

Huge amount of money are being spent, but their responsibilities are not 
reflected in their performance, the CJ observed.

The attorney general was placing arguments before the apex court when the CJ 
made his observations.

Chief Justice Sinha told the attorney general that the judges were shocked to 
note that the prosecutors appear before the media and make statements 
immediately after a session of the case proceedings at the tribunal.

The CJ asked the attorney general why action is not being taken against the 
incompetent prosecutors and investigators.

The International Crimes Tribunal-2 on November 2, 2014, sentenced Quasem to 
death after finding him guilty on 10 charges of abducting, confining and 
torturing people during the liberation war in 1971.

Earlier, the SC in a verdict on the case against war criminal Sayedee 
castigated the prosecutors and investigators for their poor performance in 
handling the case.

(source: Gulf Times)






PHILIPPINES:

Can Duterte do it?


Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte says that he will eliminate the drugs problem 
and all forms of criminality within the 1st 3 to 6 months of his presidency. 
That is most welcome. He is a foolish Filipino who will not be excited about 
it, unless he is a drug lord or a criminal.

Can he do it? How?

Other than general statements about having criminals killed, Duterte has not 
provided us with any concrete plan on how he intended to carry out his 
ambitious program. He should be more specific since the fight against crime is 
the main theme of his presidential campaign.

For starters, he should reveal how he can have criminals killed without running 
afoul of the constitution. As a lawyer, Duterte is, I'm sure, aware of Section 
19 of Article III which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty unless 
Congress provides for it "for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes."

Since he will by that time have taken his oath to "preserve and defend (the) 
Constitution, execute (the) laws (and) do justice to every man," Duterte, I 
assume, would not have anyone killed without affording him due process, 
notwithstanding his reputation for tolerating extrajudicial killings in Davao 
City.

So he will ask Congress to pass a law imposing the death penalty for heinous 
crimes. He will certify the bill as urgent, reminding the legislators that they 
too have taken a similar oath to consecrate themselves to the service of the 
nation.

Those who understand the lawmaking process are aware, however, of how the 
legislative mill can grind oh so slowly even if both the House and the Senate 
agree to fast track the proceedings. A bill of that significance will require 
public hearings that, alone, could take months, given the expected opposition 
from the Church and human rights groups. By the time the law is submitted to 
Duterte for approval, more than 3 months shall have passed of his term and that 
is already a very generous estimate.

Anyway, let us say he has the desired law already and still 3 months left of 
his self-imposed deadline to wipe out criminality from the face of this part of 
the earth. Because he is no slouch, Duterte shall by then have already 
identified all the drug lords and other criminals, located their lairs and 
gathered enough evidence to damn them.

They are all arrested and held in jail without bail while the courts hear their 
cases. The trial courts go on overdrive and decide the cases within 2 months. 
Duterte now has 1 month left of his 6-month window. How long do you think will 
the automatic review of death convictions take?

I am not being pessimistic. All I want is for Duterte to provide us with, if 
not the detailed plans, at least a timeline. I do not want to think like most 
others do that:

--He will hit the ground running on his first day of office and order his men 
(death squads?) to kill them on sight.

--He will abolish Congress and the judiciary in order to eliminate the 
roadblocks and make summary justice the hallmark of his administration.

I still believe that a President Duterte will uphold and preserve the 
Constitution.

(source: Opinion, Frank Malilong; Sun Star)






INDONESIA:

Should Indonesia Abolish the Death Penalty Law for Drug 
Criminals?----Indonesia, following President Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo's anti-drug 
campaign, executed a total of 14 drug dealers in January and April of last 
year.


The rise in the number of drug users in Indonesia had led civil society 
organizations to urge the government to abolish death penalty against drug 
dealers.

Their suggestions were based on the data provided by the National Narcotics 
Agency (BNN), which showed that there is an increasing number of drug users in 
Indonesia, from 4.2 million people in June 2015 to 5.9 million people in 
November 2015.

The fact could suggest that the death penalty law for drug-related crime is not 
quite effective to curb drug use and drug smugglings in Indonesia. This is 
according to leaders of civil society organizations who attended a discussion 
forum about drug trafficking issues at the office of Komnas HAM in Jakarta as 
reported by Kompas.com.

Besides Komnas HAM executives, also attending the meeting were representatives 
of other civil society organizations like Universitas Indonesia's Indonesian 
Judicial Watch Society (MAPPI) and the Setara Institute. Among the attendants 
were senior officials of BNN, the National Police (Polri) and the Army 
Strategic Command (Kostrad).

Indonesia, following President Joko 'Jokowi' Widodo's anti-drug campaign, 
executed a total of 14 drug dealers in January and April of last year. They 
included 2 Indonesian nationals. The President repetitively said he would not 
show mercy for drug smugglers.

The executions took place despite mounting pressures from within Indonesia and 
various parties in the international community that President Jokowi give 
clemency to drug convicts in death row.

In last Friday's discussion forum, Nur Kholis, an executive of the National 
Commission of Human Rights (Komnas HAM), said, "Punishment (against drug 
dealers) could take the form of life sentence or others."

Meanwhile, Setara Institute chairman Hendrardi said on a separate occasion that 
it was so ridiculous to see the government's failure to rid prisons and 
detention centers of drug trafficking practices.

In the meeting at Komnas HAM, BNN head Comr. Gen. Budi Waseso admitted the 
illegal widespread use of narcotics in Indonesia. Even government workers and 
law enforcement personnel had been implicated in drug use and trafficking. The 
2-star police general suggested that the punishment meted out to these people 
should be harsher than those given to others.

The discussion at Komnas HAM followed early last week's arrest of a House 
member, 19 personnel of the Army Strategic Command (Kostrad), 5 police officers 
and 8 civilians. All these people had been suspected of using drug and their 
names were found on a list of alleged drug buyers at the Kostrad command in 
Tanah Kusir, The Jakarta Post reported.

In response to the arrest, Kostrad Headquarters in Central Jakarta last Friday 
conducted urine tests for its personnel.

(source: globalindonesianvoices.com)

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

AFP to help Indonesians in 'cyanide' case after death penalty taken off 
table----Justice Minister Michael Keenan's approval required for AFP to assist 
with possible death penalty case in Indonesia


Indonesia has guaranteed that an Australian permanent resident charged with 
murdering her friend with cyanide-laced coffee will not face the death penalty.

Justice Minister Michael Keenan has now agreed to the Australian Federal Police 
assisting with the case of 27-year-old Jessica Kumala Wongso, who allegedly 
poisoned her friend Wayan Mirna Salihin at an upmarket cafe in Central Jakarta 
in January.

The allegations have transfixed Indonesia.

Indonesian police sought assistance from the AFP because the 2 women had 
studied together at Billy Blue College of Design in Sydney and Swinburne 
University of Technology in Melbourne.

Jakarta police chief Tito Karnavian last week flew to Australia where he met 
with Mr Keenan, who was required by law to personally sign off on the request.

A spokeswoman for Mr Keenan told Fairfax Media the minister agreed Australia 
would provide assistance in the investigation of the alleged murder in 
accordance with Australian law.

"The Indonesian government has given an assurance to the Australian government 
that the death penalty will not be sought nor carried out in relation to the 
alleged offending," she said.

Jakarta CID chief Krishna Murti told Fairfax Media the approval came after the 
Indonesian Attorney-General's Office guaranteed it would not seek the death 
penalty.

"Please note that the death penalty is the maximum sentence, it's reserved for 
extraordinary crimes only," he said. "After the guarantee, approval was given 
and now we have started cooperating with the AFP."

Under AFP guidelines on international police assistance in death penalty 
situations, ministerial approval is required if a person has been detained, 
arrested, charged or convicted of an offence that carries the death penalty.

The AFP faced criticism for handing over information to Indonesian authorities 
about the Bali 9, which led to their arrests for heroin smuggling in 2005. The 
coordinators of the Bali 9, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, were executed in 
Indonesia last year.

New guidelines for the AFP's role in cases involving the death penalty were 
introduced in 2009 after a federal court exonerated the AFP from acting 
unlawfully in the Bali 9 case but argued new protocols were needed.

Chief detective Krishna said police were investigating the interaction between 
Ms Wongso and Ms Salihin and their interactions with other people: "The case is 
now progressing and we are getting a flow of information in."

He said Ms Wongso, who worked for NSW Ambulance until late last year, was a 
permanent resident of Australia. "Therefore we stopped her from travelling back 
to Australia (in January). It would've been difficult if we had to extradite 
her back."

Ms Wongso and Ms Salihin met at Olivier Cafe in Grand Indonesia Shopping Mall 
on January 6.

Ms Salihin took a sip of the Vietnamese iced coffee, which Ms Wongso had 
reportedly ordered for her. She began to suffer convulsions and foam at the 
mouth and died on the way to the hospital.

A pretrial motion at which Ms Wongso's lawyer argued there was insufficient 
evidence to justify her ongoing detention is currently before the Central 
Jakarta District Court.

The court's ruling is expected to be handed down before March 2.

(source: Sydney Morning Herald)






PAKISTAN:

To the gallows: Murder convict sentenced to death


Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Yaqoob on Friday awarded death 
sentence to a man he convicted of murder.

Prosecution said Jamshed and his accomplices Rashid, Arshad, Azmat, Asmat, 
Sajid, Khalid Husssain, Sabir Ali and Talib Hussain had shot Mujahid Ali over a 
property dispute in 2012.

After hearing the arguments and examining the evidence, the judge awarded death 
penalty to Jamshed and directed him to pay Rs100,000 compensation to heirs of 
the deceased. He would undergo an additional 6-month term if he fails to pay 
the fine. The judge acquitted the others, giving them benefit of doubt.

Separately, Additional Sessions Judge Malik Ali Raza Awan awarded death 
sentence to a man he convicted of murder and acquitted 3 others.

(source: The Express Tribune)






INDIA:

Death from Trial Court, Acquittal from High Court and Life Sentence from 
Supreme Court


In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to 
give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, 
people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it distressing and 
stressful, the Bench said.

Supreme Court in Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of UP, taking note of the 
reluctance of people to come forward to give statement in respect of criminal 
cases, said that prosecution case cannot be doubted merely on the ground of 
absence of Independent witness.

Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana set aside 
the order of acquittal by the High Court. The Trial Court in this case had 
convicted the accused and had imposed death sentence on 2 accused. The relative 
of the deceased had appealed, after taking leave of the Court, against the 
acquittal by the High Court.

Non examination of independent witness, not a ground to doubt prosecution case

The Bench observed "non-examination of any other independent witness is 
concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce 
any independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this 
ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come 
forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is 
inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it 
distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed 
unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of 
the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire 
case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the 
evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy."

Trial Court imposes death penalty, High Court acquits, Apex Court awards life 
imprisonment

The Trial Court had awarded death sentence to Ramashraya Singh and Kamla Singh. 
The Apex Court said that this is not a rarest of the rare cases which warrants 
the penalty of death sentence. The Court also said that the reasons given by 
the High Court to reverse the conviction and sentence of the accused are 
flimsy, untenable and bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence. Finally 
the Apex Court awarded Life imprisonment.

(source: livelaw.in)