[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

April 21



PHILIPPINES:

Death penalty: No opting out----It never makes good sense to flaunt our 
violation of international law. After all, when rapacious neighbors dig into 
our pie and leave not even the crust to us, we seek relief by invoking our 
rights under international law.


The Philippine Senate recently received advice from a UN monitoring office that 
it could not, without violating international law, pass a bill that would 
return the death penalty into the country's statute books. I have repeatedly 
pointed this out.

We became parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights. Article 1 of the Protocol cannot be any clearer than it is 
succinct: No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present 
Protocol shall be executed. By virtue of the Executive's ratification and 
Senate concurrence, the Protocol entered into force for the Philippines.

Of course, statutes can always be amended and repealed by subsequent acts of 
the legislature of equal rank. But treaties are not the same thing, because 
they are covenants we enter into with other States and, as in the present case, 
establish a regime that cannot be left to the unilateral disposition of one of 
the State-parties.

Treaties (and protocols are essentially treaties) are entered into by the 
sovereign power of a State to bind itself, in what can be reasonably 
characterized as auto-limitation of power. That, social contract theorists have 
always taught, lies at the heart of any organized society - whether it be a 
domestic society or a community of nations: auto-limitation of individual 
autonomy. So there is really no reason for us to be bawling about a derogation 
of our "sovereignty", and whining that our "freedom" has been compromised!

The incorporation clause of Article II of our Constitution makes the generally 
accepted principles of international law part of the law of the land. This is 
not empty rhetoric. It is a constitutional provision, and it has been held to 
be one of the self-executing principles found in Article II. One of the 
accepted principles of international law is that a treaty can be denounced (the 
"opt-out" mechanism) only when the treaty provides for it, otherwise, there is 
no way that a State-Party, having acceded to a treaty, can extricate itself 
from its obligations. Once more, this quite clearly results in a limitation on 
what our Legislature may or may not pass - but it is a limitation we took upon 
ourselves by acceding to the treaty.

In respect to human rights treaties (as well as in the case of other treaties, 
such as the settlement of territorial boundaries) there are no provisions for 
treaty-denunciation and it should not be too difficult to see why: Human rights 
have attained a status both of importance and urgency that they did not have 
prior to the Second World War.

It took the egregious violation and the shocking transgression of human rights 
on a scale that remains shocking to awaken the world to the primacy of human 
rights. And when States freely take upon themselves the obligations imposed by 
human rights treaties, then it is the better policy to disallow them from going 
back on their word.

Of course, the Philippines can strike a cavalier pose and pass a death penalty 
bill anyway. And under the flow of the municipal law system - the domestic laws 
of the Philippines - the trial courts will then sentence some persons to death 
and, after the exhaustion of all post-conviction remedies, the Bureau of 
Corrections will inflict the awful sentence.

Interdependent world

We can then congratulate ourselves about having dutifully executed our laws - 
except for one thing: We remain bound by our international obligations and 
fortunately, it is a highly interdependent world in which we live, the loud 
mouths of boastful leaders who claim we do not need the rest of the world 
notwithstanding!

Should we insist on passing a death penalty law and executing condemned persons 
under its provisions, we will then be in violation of our international 
obligation not to execute. This will allow the relevant monitoring Committee to 
receive reports of our violation and to require comment on the part of the 
government. If the international community is met with contumacy on our part, 
it has an arsenal of enforcement mechanisms. Iran heaved a tremendous sigh of 
relief after sanctions against it were lifted because whether autocrats accept 
it or not, sanctions can be burdensome, painful and really punishing.

No, it never makes good sense to flaunt our violation of international law. 
After all, when rapacious neighbors who are armed to the teeth dig into our pie 
and leave not even the crust to us, we seek relief by invoking our rights under 
international law. We take umbrage because our rights under international law 
shall have been violated.

But we cannot engage in double-speak. If we desire the guarantees and the 
protection of international law - and the world order it endeavors to establish 
- then it should not be one of our legislature's options to doggedly pass a 
bill that diametrically negates an international duty. This is no time to play 
the childish role of neighborhood toughie. This is the time to manfully stand 
by our word!

(source: Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino; The author is vice president for 
administration and finance of the Cagayan State University and Dean of the 
Graduate School of Law at San Beda College----rappler.com)






PAKISTAN:

To the gallows: Murder convict hanged in Dera Ghazi Khan Jail


A convict, facing death penalty in a dual murder case, was hanged in Central 
Jail, Dera Ghazi Khan, prison officials said. They maintained on June 4, 1995, 
Huzoor Bakhsh had killed his wife Bharawan Mai and Muhammad Iqbal over 
suspicion of having illicit relations in Rajanpur.

Later, the police arrested the accused and a case was registered against him. 
The officials maintained on December 15, 1999, Rajanpur Additional Session 
Judge Muqarrab Khan awarded death sentence to Huzoor Bakhsh. He filed 
applications against the decision in the Supreme Court, high court and the 
President of Pakistan but all appeals were rejected. He had a final meeting 
with his family members late on Tuesday evening and in early hours of Wednesday 
Huzoor Bakhsh was taken to the gallows.

Earlier, 3 convicts on death row were hanged across jails in Punjab. Nabeel 
Ahmed, Saleem and Rashid were all handed the death sentence for committing 
murders in 2000 and 1998 respectively.

(source: The Express Tribune)






UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:


10 Indians on death row await pardon decision


10 young Indian workers in Al Ain jail, convicted of murdering a Pakistani 
worker, are expected to learn whether they will be pardoned as early as next 
month.

The Al Ain Appeals Court on Wednesday completed the hearing in the case and 
adjourned the matter to May 25 to pronounce the verdict, head of an Indian 
charity involved in the case, told Gulf News on Wednesday.

The court is expected to issue a verdict on the letter of consent submitted by 
the family of the Pakistani victim to pardon the accused Indians, said S.P.S. 
Oberoi, chairman of Sarbat Da Bhala Charitable Trust, that donated the blood 
money for the accused men.

Oberoi, a Dubai-based businessman, said he has already saved 78 Asian men who 
were convicted of murder in the UAE from death row by paying blood money on 
their behalf to their victims' families.

"With my experience in similar cases, I will tell you that their death penalty 
will be commuted because the victims' family has already given the pardon. We 
are expecting the verdict on what other punishment, possibly imprisonment or 
fine for their crimes including bootlegging and fighting, to be given to the 
convicts," he said.

As Gulf News first reported on December 8, 2016, the murder allegedly occurred 
during a brawl over bootlegging in Al Ain in December 2015.

11 men from the Indian state of Punjab were convicted in the case but 1 was 
spared the death sentence.

On March 22, the father of the victim had appeared in the court and submitted 
the letter of consent.

Oberoi, who is also from Punjab, had deposited Dh200,000 in blood money on 
behalf of the accused at the court.

Oberoi's Pakistani manager had travelled to Peshawar in Pakistan and talked to 
the victim's family and their relatives to secure the pardon.

An Indian Embassy official said the embassy was closely following the case.

"We are waiting for the verdict," said Dinesh Kumar, counsellor, Community 
Affairs at the embassy.

Oberoi said some of the convicts did not have valid passports.

"I will request the embassy to issue them emergency travel documents, once they 
are released from jail. They have been in jail since July 2015 and that time 
will be deducted from their punishment to be pronounced next month," he said.

(source: Gulf News)