[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

July 24



IRAN----executions

5 Prisoners Hanged in Kermanshah Prison


On Friday, July 20, 5 prisoners were executed at Dizel Abad Prison in 
Kermanshah.

Iran Human Rights sources identified 1 of the prisoners as Alireza Ashouri, 57. 
The names of the 4 other prisoners will be announced as soon as they are 
confirmed by IHR.

According to Iran Human Rights annual report on the death penalty, 240 
prisoners have been sentenced to death on the charge of murder in Iran in 2017, 
which 10 of those were carried out in Kermanshah. The statistics show a 
significant increase in the number of executions compared to that of 2016. In 
2016, 142 prisoners were executed on murder charges.

(source: Iran Human Rights)






UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:

Indian walks free 12 years after getting death sentence in UAE----The Sharjah 
Police had arrested Sandeep for murdering his compatriot, Mandeep Singh, on 
November 11, 2007.


An Indian man, who was on death row for murdering a compatriot over bootlegging 
will travel back to his home country a free man, later today. Thanks to the 
efforts of a Dubai-based philanthropist, Punjab native Sandeep Singh was 
released 12 years after he was jailed.

All odds were stacked against Sandeep, as the Sharjah courts had sentenced him 
to death and the Federal Supreme Court upheld it after the victim's family 
refused blood money initially. But Dr S.P. Singh Oberoi, head of Sarbat Da 
Bhala charitable trust, managed to convince the family to accept the blood 
money and pardon the convict. But due to some documentation problems, it took 6 
more years to get Sandeep released.

The Sharjah Police had arrested Sandeep for murdering his compatriot, Mandeep 
Singh, on November 11, 2007. After standing trial, the Sharjah Court of First 
Instance awarded him the death penalty. Sandeep appealed the verdict and the 
Sharjah Appeals Court commuted the sentence to life in jail. However, the 
Sharjah Public Prosecution referred the case to the Federal Supreme Court, 
which sentenced him to death.

Dr Oberoi approached the Sharjah Appeals Court and asked for a grace period to 
negotiate with the victim's family as they were not ready to accept the blood 
money at the time.

In December 2012, Dr Oberoi managed to convince the family and paid them the 
blood money. In 2013, he submitted the attested documents of the compromise at 
the Sharjah courts and at the Supreme Court.

In April 2018, the Supreme Court asked for amendments to be made to the 
compromise papers, which were done and submitted again.

In the same month, the Sharjah Appeals Court judges commuted the death penalty 
to 3 years in jail. Since he had completed more than 10 years in jail, Sandeep 
was ordered to be released. However, as 1 clause was missing from the 
compromise document, the court asked for a fresh set of papers.

After this was done, the court issued his release order on July 22. The Indian 
Consulate issued travel documents for Sandeep and he will fly back to India on 
Tuesday.

(source: Khaleej Times)






JORDAN:

Amman Court Upholds Death Penalty of Man Rape, Murder of 70-Year-Old


The Court of Cassation has upheld a January Criminal Court ruling sentencing a 
man to death after convicting him of robbing, sexually assaulting and murdering 
a 70-year-old woman in her home in east Amman in February 2017.

The court declared the 25-year-old defendant guilty of murdering the elderly 
women with a gas cylinder while at her apartment in the 5-story building in 
Jabal Akhdar and handed him the maximum punishment.

The court also convicted the defendant of sexual assault and robbery.

Court documents said the defendant knew the victim because he was her son's 
friend.

"The defendant decided to rob the victim so he climbed some iron bars to reach 
her house around mid-night, took a gas cylinder and a television set," court 
papers said.

The defendant then headed to the victim's room where he sexually assaulted her, 
then struck her with her own gas cylinder, stole her mobile and left, according 
to court transcripts.

In the meantime, the victim's son heard noises and became suspicious because it 
was late at night so he rushed from his apartment and saw a man running in the 
street with a TV set and a gas cylinder, the court added.

(source: albawaba.com)






KENYA:

Life in Prison is Enough Punishment, Millie Odhiambo Sympathizes With Ruth 
Kamande


Following the capital punishment meted out to Ruth Kamande for the cold-blooded 
homicide of her boyfriend in 2015, High Court Judge Jessie Lesiit has come 
under fire from some sections for the retrogressive ruling.

The Judge held that Kamande acted in malice and showed no remorse for the 
murder in the course of the trial, thereby deserving of a death sentence.

Human rights activists have since protested the sentencing and have been joined 
by vocal lawmaker Millie Odhiambo in calling for an end to the death penalty.

According to the Suba North MP, life in prison is enough punishment for Ruth 
Kamane.

"When we were discussing it at Bomas, I was one amongst very few who were 
calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

"I am the Chairperson of the Parliamentarians for Global Action in Kenya and we 
believe in the rule of law and human rights. And one of the things we're 
working on this term is the abolition of the death penalty and we're going to 
bring amendments to remove the death penalty in our books."

Speaking during a TV interview, Millie added: "This girl is so beautiful... 
she's so young... she has lost her entire life; that is enough punishment."

The outspoken legislator further advised young people to walk away from toxic 
relationships.

"I would want to encourage young people; if you're in a bad relationship... if 
someone is cheating on you, he's not the only man on earth, walk away, other 
men will come; she's still too young and beautiful, she would have found many 
more men," remarked Millie.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International-Kenya last week issued a statement of Ruth 
Kamande's death sentence terming it as "cruel and inhumane."

"We are concerned that Kenya continues to use this cruel, inhumane and outdated 
mode of punishment. This sentence is a blow to Kenya's progressive record in 
commuting death sentences to terms of imprisonment," AIK Executive Director 
Irungu Houghton said.

Despite the lack of executions, death sentences are still passed in Kenya. No 
executions have been carried out in Kenya since 1987 when Hezekiah Ochuka and 
Pancras Oteyo Okumu were hanged for treason.

(source: nairobiwire.com)






UNITED KINGDOM:

Is the UK government's stance on the death penalty shifting?----Questions 
raised by Sajid Javid's decision not to oppose it potential use in the US in 
the case of 2 Isis suspects


Sajid Javid's letter to the US attorney general, in which the home secretary 
says the UK government will not seek assurances over the use of the death 
penalty against 2 former British citizens and alleged terrorist murderers has 
renewed concerns the government is loosening its stance on the abolition of the 
death penalty.

The UK abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965. Looking overseas, there 
has been a long-held opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances as a 
matter of principle.

The coalition government published a death penalty strategy in 2011, setting 
out its approach to the issue. The current government decided not to publish an 
updated strategy. Pressed on the issue since 2015, the it has said it has not 
changed its policy.

Under its goals, the strategy states the UK aims to increase the number of 
countries that have abolished the death penalty.

Why is the UK's stance under fresh scrutiny?

Javid has told the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that the UK will not 
seek assurances that the death penalty will not be used against 2 former 
British citizens if they were put on trial and convicted in the US for alleged 
crimes committed in Syria as members of an Islamic State (Isis) cell.

Who are the 2 former British citizens? Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh 
are alleged to have been members of a 4-man cell of Isis executioners in Syria 
and Iraq responsible for killing a series of high-profile western captives.

The two men, who are understood to have been stripped of their British 
citizenship, were captured in January, sparking a row over whether they should 
be returned to the UK for trial or face justice in another jurisdiction.

When does the UK seek a death penalty assurance?

The Extradition Act 2003 allows the UK to extradite individuals to certain 
countries, including the US, but removing someone to the authority of a foreign 
state is prohibited by statute if that person could face the death penalty - 
unless the home secretary gets adequate written assurance that it will not be 
imposed.

Kotey and Elsheikh, however, were not captured on British soil, and so have not 
been subject to extradition proceedings.

In his letter to Sessions, Javid agrees to the US request for "mutual legal 
assistance" (MLA). MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining 
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.

He reveals that SO15, the counter-terrorism command of the Metropolitan police, 
has worked with the FBI in investigating Kotey and Elsheikh. They have compiled 
more than 600 witness statements, he says. Intelligence implicating the 2 men 
in kidnap and murder has been gathered.

Official guidelines for the granting of MLA state that if death is a possible 
sentence or penalty for the offence under investigation, an "assurance that 
such a sentence will not be carried out or will be commuted" is required.

In this case, however, Javid has decided not to seek a death penalty assurance.

What are the implications of this shift?

In his letter, Javid says that the decision does not reflect the UK 
government's policy on assistance in US death penalty cases generally nor its 
stance on the global abolition of the death penalty.

Human rights campaigners are concerned, however, thatthe decision not to seek 
assurance from the US over the use of the death penalty is unprecedented. They 
say it could pave the way for further assurances to be abandoned in cases with 
less overwhelming evidenceand in which the accused might be innocent.

(soruce: The Guardian)

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

The Guardian view on the death penalty: barbarism by jihadists is no 
justification----Sajid Javid's decision to reverse decades of British 
government policy is wrongheaded and reckless


Nearly all western democracies, as well as dozens of other countries, have 
abandoned capital punishment. There is good reason for this: none of the 
arguments made in its favour stand up to scrutiny. It does not deter others, 
nor save innocent lives by ensuring that murderers cannot kill again. It is 
wrong to suggest there is a moral claim for retribution. The United States is 
an exception, wrongly persisting with the death penalty. So it is appalling to 
learn that a British cabinet minister would see fit to send 2 men to stand 
trial in America on charges that could see them executed.

Yet this is the chain of events that the home secretary, Sajid Javid, has set 
in motion with a letter to the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, published in 
a newspaper on Monday. In it he states that the British government is prepared 
to waive its usual insistence that the death penalty should not be applied in 
the case of two men alleged to have been part of an Islamic State execution 
squad, Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh. They are being held by US-backed 
Syrian Democratic Forces, and appear likely to be tried in the US with the 
cooperation of the UK. The murders these men are alleged to have committed 
alongside 2 other British men - Mohammed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, and Aine 
Davis - were barbaric. The victims included 2 British aid workers, Alan Henning 
and David Haines, as well as three Americans, the journalists James Foley and 
Steven Sotloff and humanitarian worker Peter Kassig. Other westerners were held 
hostage and tortured. It is not an exaggeration to say the videos that the 
killers made, in which their captives gave statements before being beheaded, 
shocked the world. No doubt some people will feel that the sheer horror of such 
deeds means we need not worry too much about due process. Emwazi was killed by 
a drone strike in Raqqa in 2015, while Davis is in prison in Turkey. Kotey and 
Elsheikh have been stripped of their British citizenship, and since the men 
they are alleged to have killed included Americans, there is a case for trying 
them in the US.

It's not hard to see why this is Mr Javid's preferred outcome. There is no 
doubt that dealing with the hundreds of British fighters for Islamic State is 
extremely challenging. But it is deeply concerning that Mr Javid apparently 
believes a successful prosecution is more likely to take place in the US than 
in the UK, even if this includes the violation of human rights norms to which 
the UK has adhered for decades. It is well known that such violations, and the 
existence of facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, can aid and facilitate 
terrorists. The UK government's blanket opposition to the death penalty is a 
longstanding point of principle. Its abolition has been an objective of foreign 
policy. However heinous the crimes thought to have been committed by Kotey and 
Elsheikh, assurances that the death penalty would not be applied should have 
been sought from the US government in the usual way.

(source: Editorial, The Guardian)

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

Equality and Human Rights Commission statement on death penalty


Opposing the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles that underpins 
our country's commitment to human rights, says David Isaac, EHRC Chair.

Opposing the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles that underpins 
our country's commitment to human rights. There is no conflict between these 
values and ensuring that justice is served. We believe the Home Secretary 
should first have sought assurances that the death penalty will not be used in 
this case. The same basic human rights should apply to everyone and they must 
be exercised without exception. Failing to do so risks setting a dangerous 
precedent and jeopardises our ability to hold other countries to account for 
human rights breaches.

(source: politicshome.com)

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

ULTIMATE SANCTION ----Death penalty UK - when was it abolished, was treason 
punishable by death and when was the last execution?


Britain is one of the 141 countries that has abolished the death sentence in 
law or practice

The UK's stance on the death penalty was brought into focus after the British 
government did not get assurances that 2 Isis members dubbed "The Beatles" 
would escape execution in the US.

Here is a brief summary of our death penalty policy.

It has been a long time since a death sentence was handed down in the UK

When was the death penalty abolished in the UK?

The death penalty was scrapped by parliament in 1969.

This came after public anger led to the suspensions of executions in 1965.

The UK is one of 141 countries that Human rights group Amnesty International, 
which has been campaigning on the issue since 1977, says has abolished the 
death sentence in law or practice

Was treason punishable by death?

Technically the death penalty could be handed down in high treason cases until 
1998.

But the last person to be executed for treason was 39-year-old William Joyce

Better known as Lord Haw-Haw, he was a notorious broadcaster of Nazi propaganda 
to the UK during World War 2.

He was hanged in at Wandsworth Prison, London, on January 3, 1946, for 
betraying Britain.

The last people to be hanged in Britain, Peter Allen, left, and Gwynne Evans 
When was the last execution?

The last people to be sentenced to death in Britain were Peter Anthony Allen 
and Gwynne Owen Evans - real name John Robson Walby - in 1964.

They had knifed a friend to death for money.

The last woman to be executed was Ruth Ellis, a peroxide-blonde club hostess 
with film-star looks, who shot dead her posh racing-driver lover David Blakely 
outside a London pub in 1955.

(source: The Sun)

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

British readiness to allow death penalty for IS 'Beatles' suspects shows the 
need to strengthen the law


The British home secretary's decision to assist authorities in the US with the 
prosecution of 2 Islamic State terrorist suspects, without first seeking 
assurances that they will not face the death penalty, has attracted criticism 
from human rights activists, other MPs, and legal commentators. While some have 
suggested that Sajid Javid's actions contradict long-standing British law and 
policy, I believe they reveal the need to reform British law and policy 
regarding the death penalty.

Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, from West London, are accused of being 
the last surviving members of the so-called "Beatles" gang of British IS 
fighters. They were arrested in February by Syrian Kurdish fighters. They are 
currently detained in Syria on suspicion of committing some horrific 
atrocities, including the beheadings of US and UK nationals. Britain could seek 
custody of the 2 men, given their links to Britain, but Javid has instead 
assured his American counterpart that the UK will permit their extradition to 
the US, and will hand over intelligence to help prosecute them over there on 
charges that are punishable by death.

In his letter to Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general, which was leaked to 
the Daily Telegraph, Javid also stated that the UK would not demand assurances 
that the US would not seek or impose the death penalty on the 2 men. It is this 
statement that has inflamed politicians of all parties, lawyers, and activists: 
they claim that the UK not only has a strong tradition of seeking "no death 
penalty" assurances, but is also legally obliged to seek such assurances.

It's certainly true that UK law, European law, and international law all 
prohibit states which have abolished the death penalty from extraditing 
individuals within their jurisdiction if there is a risk that the receiving 
state will impose a death sentence or carry out an execution. This much is made 
clear in Article 7 of the 2003 extradition treaty between the UK and the US; a 
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 2010; and in multiple reports 
of various UN bodies (see paragraph 57).

And it's true that the UK has traditionally sought such assurances in 
extradition cases, including in the notorious Jens Soering case in the late 
1980s. US authorities requested the extradition of Soering and his girlfriend 
to stand trial for murdering her parents in Virginia, and the UK duly sought 
assurances that Soering would not face a death sentence (his girlfriend pleaded 
guilty and avoided capital charges).

Rules on 'mutual legal assistance'

But when Ben Wallace, a security minister, was pressed in parliament on the 
alleged incompatibility of Javid's letter with the law and policy on 
extradition in capital cases, which could involve a death penalty, he revealed 
that the present case is not an extradition one. Kotey and Elsheikh used to be 
British citizens, but Wallace confirmed that their citizenship had been 
revoked. They are not within the custody of British officials either, so they 
are not within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of extradition law.

Instead, this is a case about aiding another country with a prosecution, 
referred to as mutual legal assistance, and the law in this field is not quite 
the same. The UK's Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Guidance makes it 
clear that "no death penalty" assurances should be sought before providing 
intelligence and other assistance. The guidance also makes clear that, on 
occasion, officials may decide, with ministerial approval, that "there are 
strong reasons not to seek assurances" and that "given the specific 
circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance".

In 2017, the National Crime Agency was rebuked by the High Court for providing 
assistance to Thai authorities in a case that resulted in the death penalty, 
but only because the agency didn't seek ministerial approval first. In the case 
involving Kotey and El-Sheikh, ministerial authorisation has been given, in the 
shape of Javid's letter.

Strengthen the law

The problem, then, is not so much the content of Javid's letter, but the law 
and policy that has enabled him to take this step. British law and policy is 
currently premised on a belief that the extradition of a person is 
qualitatively different to the provision of mutual legal assistance. However, 
in capital cases, it's arguable that both extradition and the provision of 
assistance constitute complicity with the death penalty, and it is unacceptable 
for an abolitionist state to ever be complicit in a practice that it has 
roundly condemned.

Up until Javid's letter emerged, it looked like the UK was aligning its mutual 
legal assistance policy with its extradition policy. In 2013, the UK followed 
the likes of Ireland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Norway in refusing 
to provide assistance to anti-drug trafficking initiatives in Iran when it 
became clear that this assistance was contributing to the execution of drug 
traffickers. The British government, like the European Union, has also enacted 
export controls to ensure that private companies cannot export the drugs that 
are needed for lethal injections. Again, this recognises that the UK must not 
in any way contribute to the use of capital punishment elsewhere, regardless of 
whether or not the person facing death is in our jurisdiction.

Those who have expressed disgust with Javid's letter are right to do so - it 
flies in the face of British moral opposition to state-sanctioned killings, and 
it hinders the UK's ability to promote abolition worldwide. But their anger 
would be better directed towards strengthening British law and policy against 
complicity with the death penalty.

(source: theconversation.com)

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

UK facing legal action over 'unlawful' decision not to protect Isis 'Beatles' 
from death penalty----Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, who were stripped 
of their British citizenship, could face execution in the US


Legal action could be launched against the government over its failure to 
demand that two members of a British Isis cell known as "the Beatles" will not 
be executed in the US.

MPs are in uproar over the fact that they were not consulted about the reversal 
of a long-held policy barring extradition or intelligence sharing in cases 
where the death penalty may be used.

The Howard League for Penal Reform is now examining the possibility of legal 
action against home secretary Sajid Javid over the fate of Alexanda Kotey and 
El Shafee Elsheikh, who were stripped of their British citizenship before they 
were captured in Syria earlier this year.

The charity's chief executive Frances Crook said: "We are committed to 
upholding the rule of law and the total abolition of capital punishment. We 
have been advised that legal action is feasible. We are consulting with senior 
legal figures on the precise details and we will make an announcement shortly."

Ben Emmerson QC, a former United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on human 
rights and counter-terrorism, said the decision was "unprincipled, incompetent 
and almost certainly unlawful".

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the British government's historic 
position of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances "has translated to 
an absolute rule, which is legally enforceable, not to extradite an individual 
to a country where they are at serious risk of the death penalty without an 
assurance in advance that the penalty will not be carried out".

Kotey and Elsheikh are currently being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces 
(SDF), a non-state coalition backed by the US.

This, along with the fact that they are no longer British citizens, means the 
transfer will not technically be an extradition but a "mutual legal assistance" 
arrangement.

A leaked letter from the home secretary told the US Attorney General that the 
government was not requesting the pair to be transferred to Britain for trial 
or seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be used.

"We believe that a successful federal prosecution in the US is more likely to 
be possible because of differences in your statute book and the restrictions on 
challenges to the route by which defendants appear in US courts," Mr Javid 
wrote.

He also promised to hand over material from a four-year investigation by 
counterterror police to be used in a federal criminal investigation.

UK 'should not let Isis men be made martyrs through death penalty'

Mr Emmerson said the decision could "absolutely" be challenged in court and 
violated government guidance published by David Cameron in 2010 which 
"prohibits any cooperation of this kind".

The lawyer said that although the deprivation of UK nationality means Kotey and 
Elsheikh cannot assert some of their previous rights, it is "immaterial to the 
legality of the British government passing information to a foreign power where 
they know the consequence is going to be a fundamental human rights abuse of 
this kind".

Ben Wallace, the security minister, argued that seeking an assurance against 
the death penalty might "get in the way" of a US trial in the House of Commons 
last week.

He was jeered for suggesting the alternative was letting Kotey and Elsheikh 
"roam free' and used Isis' horrendous crimes to bat away questions from MPs 
over why the government had not followed normal policy.

"The crimes that we are talking about include the videoed beheading of dozens 
of innocent people by one of the most abhorrent organisations walking this 
earth," Mr Wallace said.

(source: The Independent)






SOUTH AFRICA:

Should SA bring back the death penalty? IFP believes it may be time


On 19 July, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) issued an official statement, 
penned by party MP, Narend Singh, stating that the time had come to discuss the 
possibility of reinstating the death penalty in South Africa.

The IFP's Chief Whip in Parliament addressed the letterhead: Let's talk about 
the death penalty. In the statement, Singh argues the importance of an open and 
fair discussion regarding capital punishment within the South African context.

He also mentions that he has written to Parliament's Joint Constitutional 
Review Committee, requesting that the death penalty debate be placed on the 
Committee's agenda for urgent public input and discussion.

Opening his address, Singh states:

"An open and frank discussion must be had in our country about this matter as 
South Africans are becoming more and more fed-up with the scourge of violent 
and sexual crimes particularly against women and children."

The Chief Whip expressed his political party's dismay and concern regarding 
current crimes plaguing the country, saying:

"The IFP remains extremely concerned as crime levels have drastically increased 
over recent years, this despite the latest SAPS Crime Statistics of which its 
proponents would claim figures to the contrary."

Should South African bring back the death penalty?

While Singh was careful not to propagate his political party's preferences 
relating to the reinstatement of capital punishment - it's quite clear that the 
statement is aimed at creating debate around the matter, specifically calling 
for those in support to speak up.

According to the IFP, the current punishment reserved for brutal crimes is not 
enough of a deterrent. Singh says:

"Current deterrents to violent crime particularly murder, rape and aggravated 
robbery are to some extent ineffective and a debate about finding alternative 
solutions at this juncture is a necessary one."

Singh has also directed his request for debate to the Speaker of Parliament, Ms 
Baleka Mbete.

The death sentence, in South Africa, was abolished on 6 June 1995, by the 
ruling of the Constitutional Court.

A national survey, conducted in 2012, found that 76% of young South Africans, 
between 18 and 34 years old, thought capital punishment should be reinstated.

Reporting on the outcomes of the findings, News24 related that:

"80 % of all respondents also believed that having the death penalty would 
deter criminals and reduce crime. The survey also found that a similar 
proportion of respondents felt crime in South Africa was becoming progressively 
worse."

(source: thesouthafrican.com)






INDIA:

Migrant Workers, the Death Penalty and Human Trafficking


India's Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill 
2018 is not consistent with international human rights standards. The Bill 
fails to identify and protect Indian migrant workers trafficked out of the 
country. It fails to incorporate the non-punishment principle and allows for 
criminalization of victims of human trafficking for crimes that they were 
compelled to commit. In some cases, these victims risk being executed for 
crimes they were forced to commit by their traffickers. Click here for our full 
submissions.

Reprieve's work indicates that South Asian migrant workers may be 
disproportionately sentenced to death in the Gulf following patently unfair 
trials, in violation of international law and domestic safeguards. For 
instance, since 2014, 37% of the persons executed in Saudi Arabia were foreign 
nationals, a large number of who were South Asian nationals.

There are indicators suggesting that a number of foreign nationals either 
executed or facing execution may have been victims of human trafficking, who 
were compelled to commit crimes. There is consensus in the international 
community that victims of human trafficking should not be punished in any form 
- including prosecution, detention or imprisonment - for crimes related to 
their trafficking, i.e., the non-punishment principle. However, despite wide 
recognition of the non-punishment principle, the status of these foreign 
nationals as victims of human trafficking has not been investigated into by the 
sending or the detaining state, leading to arbitrary deprivation of life and 
imposition of capital punishment on individuals who have reduced moral 
culpability and penalizing a victim for crimes related to their status as a 
trafficked person.

"We are gravely concerned about the Bill as presented by the Government to the 
Indian Parliament on 18 July. Its focus on addressing trafficking from a 
criminal law perspective is not sufficiently complemented by a human-rights 
based and victim-centred approach, and this risks further harming already 
vulnerable individuals,"----Statement of UN Special Rapporteurs

Our work in the region suggests that migrant workers are disproportionately 
targeted in the application of the death penalty for drug offences in several 
jurisdictions. For instance, since 2014, 67% of the persons executed for drug 
offences in Saudi Arabia have been foreign nationals. As on September 2017, 20 
of the 25 Indian nationals on death row in Kuwait had been convicted for drug 
trafficking.

First, there is widespread consensus that drug offences do not meet the "most 
serious crimes" threshold mandated under international law.1 Further, it 
appears that there is a nexus between human trafficking practices, the 
exploitation of persons as forced drugs mules, and the application of the death 
penalty for drug offences. There are indicators to suggest that a number of 
migrant workers facing the death penalty for drug offences may have been 
victims of human trafficking, who were vulnerable people who were forced to act 
as 'drug mules' to transport drugs across the border.

In some cases, people were forced into smuggling drugs in their intestines. In 
at least 10 cases identified by Reprieve in 2017, South Asian nationals were 
executed for smuggling narcotics or psychotropic substances that were ingested. 
In similar cases, the UN has raised concerns with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
that such practices may be indicators that the defendants were subject to human 
trafficking, calling on the Kingdom to immediately conduct a review of such 
death sentences.

There have also been a number of cases where domestic workers have been 
sentenced to death for committing murders of their employer or employer's 
family members. We are concerned that in some instances, these domestic workers 
might have been victims of human trafficking, who were compelled to commit the 
crime under deeply abusive and exploitative working conditions that amount to 
forced labour. There are indicators that some of these women were unwitting 
victims of recruitment agencies who act as a front for human trafficking.

In light of these concerns, , it is imperative for the Indian law to clearly 
enunciate the non- punishment principle for victims of human trafficking and 
introduce mechanisms to identify and protect victims of human trafficking, in 
consonance with international human rights standards. The Trafficking of 
Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, in its current 
form, falls short of these obligations and lacks provisions to prevent 
trafficking, identify and protect victims, and ensure that they are not 
punished in any form for crimes related to their trafficking.

(source: reprieve.org.uk)