[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

March 6


CHINA:

‘Politically biased’: China rejects UN recommendations on death penalty, 
freedoms in Xinjiang and Tibet



China has not accepted 62 of the 346 recommendations made at the United Nations 
(UN) 2018 Universal Periodic Review (UPR), saying they are inconsistent with 
national conditions and laws, “politically biased or untruthful.”

Of those not accepted, the majority addressed China’s continued use of the 
death penalty, restrictions on individual freedoms, or the subjugation of 
ethnic minorities in Xinjiang and Tibet.

Countries delivered recommendations during the 3rd cycle of the UN’s UPR in 
Geneva last November, covering areas including poverty alleviation and 
international law. The majority of the points were accepted.

During the assessment – which all 193 UN nations must undergo approximately 
every four years – the Chinese delegation was grilled on the detention of an 
estimated one million Muslim Uighurs and other minorities in the northwestern 
Xinjiang region. According to NGO reports, offences such as having a long beard 
or reading religious texts can land non-Han Chinese residents in extrajudicial 
“re-education” centres.

China said in its responding report that the accepted recommendations 
demonstrate its “active, open attitude toward promoting and protecting human 
rights,” while criticising those it did not accept as interfering in its 
“sovereignty and internal affairs.”

Patrick Poon, a researcher at NGO Amnesty International, told HKFP that 
Beijing’s response is superficial: “It’s clear that the Chinese government 
doesn’t respect the comments from other states. It only picks those favourable 
comments and rejects all important and valid criticisms,” he said. “The Chinese 
government should show its willingness to follow the international standards 
which it also endorses at the United Nations. That is the only way to show its 
determination to improve its human rights record but not to turn the UN 
mechanism as window-dressing.”

Hong Kong recommendations

7 of the UPR recommendations related to Hong Kong. Of those made, China 
accepted all but Indonesia’s suggestion to ratify the UN’s migrant worker’s 
rights treaty in the territory, saying: “The specific date of ratification 
depends on whether relevant conditions in China are in place.”

The Hong Kong UPR Coalition – an alliance of 45 civil society organisations – 
said on Tuesday that they were pleased to see the majority of recommendations 
accepted, but were disappointed by the refusal to ratify the migrant workers’ 
rights treaty.

In the 2nd UPR cycle in 2013, China accepted recommendations from Egypt, Ghana 
and Guatemala on acceding to the UN’s migrant worker’s rights treaty, neither 
of which mentioned Hong Kong.

China accepted France’s recommendation to guarantee freedoms in the country and 
in Hong Kong, saying that measures had already been implemented to do so.

No such recommendations were made about the city during the prior iteration of 
the UPR in 2013.

An inter-agency mechanism, led by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
comprised of over 40 legislative, judicial and administrative departments, was 
established to consider the recommendations, according to Beijing.

After the review, each state is expected to implement the recommendations it 
accepts before the next UPR in around 4 years time.

(source: hongkongfp.com)

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

China accuses detained Canadian of stealing state secrets----Claims against 
Michael Kovrig follow Canada’s approval of Huawei executive extradition



China has accused the detained Canadian citizen Michael Kovrig of stealing 
state secrets, in the latest escalation of tension between the 2 countries 
after Canada approved the extradition of the senior Huawei executive Meng 
Wanzhou to the US.

Chinese authorities said Kovrig, who has been in detention in China since 
December, was passed intelligence by the Canadian businessman Michael Spavor, 
according to a statement released on Monday night by the Chinese Communist 
party’s central political and legal affairs commission. Spavor has also been in 
detention since December.

The statement said Kovrig, a former diplomat, had often entered China using an 
ordinary passport and business visas, “stealing and spying on sensitive Chinese 
information and intelligence via a contact in China”.

“Kovrig’s actions, suspected of stealing, spying on state secrets and 
intelligence, have seriously violated Chinese law,” the commission said, 
describing Spavor as his “main contact”.

On Friday, Canada’s justice department approved the beginning of extradition 
proceedings for Meng, who has filed a civil lawsuit against Canada over her 
arrest. She is free on bail and denies the charges against her.

Kovrig and Spavor, a businessman with North Korean ties, were detained on 10 
December, 10 days after Canadian police arrested Meng at the request of the US, 
where she faces charges of bank and wire fraud and violating US sanctions 
against Iran.

Canadian diplomats have been allowed to see the two men. People familiar with 
the case have said Kovrig has not been allowed access to lawyers or family 
members, unlike Meng. Kovrig, who works for the International Crisis Group, 
focusing on north-east Asia, has denied any involvement in espionage.

The Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, said: “We are obviously very 
concerned by this position that China has taken. It is unfortunate that China 
continues to move forward on these arbitrary detentions.”

'Hostage' diplomacy: Canadian's death sentence in China sets worrying tone, 
experts say

China has repeatedly demanded Meng’s release and said Ottawa’s decision last 
week amounted to a “severe political incident”.

Canada said China had not made a specific link between the detentions and 
Meng’s arrest, but experts and former diplomats believe Beijing is using their 
detentions as a way to put pressure on Canada. In January, a Chinese court 
retried the Canadian Robert Schellenberg on drug-trafficking charges and 
increased his sentence from 15 years in prison to the death penalty.

The Chinese commission said on Monday the next judicial proceedings would begin 
in due course and stressed that Kovrig’s and Spavor’s “lawful rights would be 
ensured”.

“China is a country with rule of law and will firmly crack down on criminal 
acts that severely undermine national security,” it said.

(source: The Guardian)








INDIA:

Supreme Court Confirms Death Sentence To Punjab Man, Says “Only Punishment 
Befitting Crime”



The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed the death sentence awarded to a man in 
Punjab who had killed 6 people by drowning them in a canal in the year 2012. 
This is the first instance since the apex court prioritized hearing in death 
penalty cases that the apex court has confirmed the sentence. So far, the SC in 
such matters has commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment in almost a 
dozemn cases.

The Court termed Singh’s offence as rarest of the rare which deserved the post 
strongest punishment since, as it noted, Singh had committed the premeditated 
murder in cold-blood, taking advantage of the trust of his wife’s relatives. It 
ruled that death sentence was the only appropriate punishment in this case. The 
court also noted that Singh was held been found guilty and already given 
another sentence of death by a CBI trial court for killing a family of four in 
2004 by in almost similar circumstances by pushing all four unsuspecting 
victims into a canal and leaving them to drown. The appeal in this case is 
pending.

(source: indialegallive.com)

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

Supreme Court acquits 3 death penalty accused, 3 sentenced to life imprisonment



In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted 3 persons who 
had been given the death penalty and 3 others who had been sentenced to life 
imprisonment for the alleged murder of 5 persons and rape of a lady and a 
child.

Interestingly, this acquittal comes nearly 10 years after a Division Bench of 
Supreme Court had affirmed the conviction by the Bombay High Court and even 
enhanced the life imprisonment given to 3 accused, to the death sentence.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices AK Sikri, S Abdul Nazeer and 
MR Shah.

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused against the death sentence 
imposed by the High Court and disallowed the appeal by the State.

The case has a very interesting history.

On 22 March 2007, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of a 
reference which was made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
(CrPC), 1973 by the 3rd Ad­hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik.

The High Court upheld the conviction and the sentence of death imposed on 
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4. While upholding the conviction of Accused Nos. 3, 5 
and 6, the High Court sentenced them to imprisonment for life. All the 6 
accused were convicted of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Accused no. 1, 2 and 4 moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court 
verdict.

The State of Maharashtra also filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the life 
imprisonment awarded to Accused 3, 5 and 6 to a death sentence.

By a judgment dated 30 April 2009, a 2-judge Bench of the Supreme Court 
dismissed the appeals filed by Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

While allowing the appeals filed by the State, the Court sentenced Accused Nos. 
3, 5 and 6 to suffer the sentence of death.

Subsequently, review petitions were filed by all the 6 accused, but the same 
were dismissed.

Then came the landmark verdict of Supreme Court in Mohd Arif v. Registrar, 
Supreme Court. In the said case, the majority decision lay in favour of 
allowing death row prisoners as many opportunities as possible under the law to 
have their case reviewed by the Court. The Court had ruled,

“… in review petitions arising out of those cases where the death penalty is 
awarded, it would be necessary to accord oral hearing in the open Court.”

The ruling was passed by a majority of judges forming a Constitution Bench of 
the Supreme Court, given the irreversible nature of the death penalty and the 
lack of sentencing guidelines in India.

Following the said decision, criminal miscellaneous petitions were filed for 
reopening the review petitions filed by the accused in the present case.

These petitions were heard in open court. By an order dated October 31, 2018, a 
three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court recalled the judgment passed in 2009.

The Court also recalled the orders dismissing the review petitions against that 
judgment.

Further, it restored the original criminal appeal against the 3 death row 
convicts and directed that it be heard afresh.

It also allowed the life imprisonment convicts to file an appeal against Bombay 
High Court verdict.

The Supreme Court has now allowed the appeal filed by the 6 accused and set 
aside the judgment of the High Court.

It has also directed the Chief Secretary to take action against the erring 
Investigating Officer in the case.

(source: barandbench.com)

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

IPC section on death penalty for rape legally right HC told



The Indian Penal Code section that prescribes death penalty for repeat rape 
offenders was rightly introduced by the legislature to impose a deterrent 
against such crimes, the amicus curiae in the Shakti Mills gangrape case told 
the Bombay High Court on Monday.

However, the application of this Section 376 (E) in the present case could be 
questionable, the amicus told a bench of justices B P Dharamadhikari and Revati 
Mohite-Dere which was hearing a challenge to the constitutional validity of the 
provision through writ petitions filed by the 3 death row convicts in the 
Shakti Mills case.

Section 376 (E) of the IPC that provides for the death penalty for repeat rape 
offenders was introduced by the Centre through an amendment in existing laws in 
2013 following the December 2012 gangrape case in New Delhi.

Advocate Abad Ponda, appointed by the court as the amicus curiae to assist it 
in the case in 2014, told the HC that the section was in consonance with all 
legal and constitutional principles.

However, the section's application in the present case could be questionable, 
Ponda said.

Earlier, during the hearing, the bench had asked the Union government what was 
the purpose of introducing section 376 (E) of the IPC since another 
sub-section, sub-section A of section 376, already prescribed the maximum 
punishment of death for offences of rape.

However, both the Union government and the amicus curiae defended the new 
section.

They told the HC while sub-section A dealt with a grave case in which the 
victim died, or was reduced to a vegetative state, section 376 (E) provided 
that a person previously convicted under any sub-section of section 376 was 
liable to be sentenced to the maximum punishment of death for the subsequent 
offence of rape, if the court deemed fit.

However, while the Centre has maintained that such repeat offence can occur 
anytime after the first offence, Ponda told the court the accused person could 
be termed a repeat offender only if the second offence was committed after he 
was convicted for rape for the 1st time.

The amended law has been challenged by Vijay Jadhav, Mohammad Kasim Bengali and 
Mohammad Salim Ansari, who were sentenced to death by a sessions court in April 
2014 for raping a photojournalist in Shakti Mills compound here on August 22, 
2013.

The sessions court had awarded them the death penalty as they were also 
convicted for having raped a telephone operator in July 2013.

The trials in both cases were held simultaneously and the conviction was handed 
out the same day. However, the sentences were awarded to the convicts within a 
period of 2 weeks from each other.

The sessions court first pronounced the punishment in the telephone operator 
case, sentencing the convicts to life imprisonment.

It subsequently allowed a prosecution plea to charge the convicts under Section 
376E and awarded the death penalty to 3 out of the 5 convicts in the Shakti 
Mills case.

The 3, however, challenged the death sentence and the constitutional validity 
of Section 376 (E).

Their counsel in the HC, advocate Yug Chaudhry, has argued that the first 
conviction ought to be secured before the 2nd offence was committed for Section 
376E to be applicable in a rape case.

(source: theweek.in)








MALAYSIA:

Axe death penalty once and for all: Bar



The Government should abolish the death penalty once and for all, says the 
Malaysian Bar.

It should table the Bill to abolish the death penalty in the upcoming 
Parliamentary session, which is scheduled to start on March 11, Bar president 
George Varughese said in a statement today.

Varughese said such a move would be in tandem with the strides taken by the 
nation to become a “new Malaysia” that now abides by the Federal Constitution 
and upholds the rule of law, as has repeatedly been asserted by the Prime 
Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

The decision to abolish the death penalty was announced by the Minister in the 
Prime Minister’s Department (Law), Datuk Liew Vui Keong,on Oct 10, 2018.

“The Cabinet decision is clearly correct and conscionable, and we eagerly await 
the decision to be acted upon,” Varughese said.

He stressed that the right to life is a fundamental right that must be 
absolute, inalienable and universal, irrespective of the crime committed.

He also called upon the Government to stop all executions and review all cases 
of those sentenced to death prior to the abolishment of the death penalty.

The Bar recommended that alternative punishments be given to each such death 
sentence that is commensurate with the circumstances of each case.

(source: theedgemarkets.com)

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

I just want to see my dad again, says daughter of death row inmate



Agilandeswari Mainthan was only three years old when her father, Mainthan 
Arumugam, was convicted and sentenced to death for a murder he denies 
committing.

That was the last time she was ever in her father’s arms.

She turned 18 on Friday, and her biggest birthday wish is to see her father 
again.

“I cannot remember what it felt like to experience a father’s love. I was just 
3 years old then.

“Now I’ve turned 18, and I want nothing more than a fair and just judgment for 
my father, and for him to be released from prison so that our family can be 
together once again,” she told FMT on the sidelines of the recent Abolish Death 
Penalty forum.

Her mother, Gunalakshmi, 48, and siblings Nirmal Raj, 20; Suria Raj, 17; and 
Shiva Sangari, 16, were also present at the forum.

They pleaded for the resolution of their father’s case, which has been heard by 
a total of 19 judges since 2004.

“He has been on death row for 15 years over the murder of a man. But the man is 
still alive.

“Four people were arrested, but my father was the only one punished. The others 
were released,” Agilandeswari said, adding that her family was at its wit’s 
end.

She said they had gone to the Federal Court but that the apex court rejected 
their appeal. They have also given documents to MPs, but are no closer to a 
solution.

“I hope that my father will be freed as soon as possible as he has done no 
wrong.

“The man is still alive but we have not been given a chance to prove my 
father’s innocence. We do not know what to do. Please help us save my father,” 
she said during the forum.

Lawyer Abdul Rashid Ismail, who was one of the panellists at the forum, said he 
was aware of the case.

He said the problem was that the country’s criminal justice system does not 
allow the opening of a new case, even when there is proof of miscarriage of 
justice.

“The system places a high standard if we seek to reopen a case,” he said. “The 
standards are way too high.

“We see the injustice, but the system itself (has high standards). It is hard 
to say. We are still looking at what should be done,” he added.

Mainthan’s story is told in “Menunggu Masa”, a documentary produced by lawyers 
Sherrie Razak and Seira Sacha Abu Bakar.

(source: freemalaysiatoday.com)








GUYANA:

Guyana abstains from vote on death penalty moratorium—after years of voting 
against



In December, 2018, for the first time, Guyana shifted its stance from opposing 
a moratorium on the death penalty, and instead, abstained from the vote at the 
United Nations General Assembly in New York.

It was among 32 states to do so, with 121, including Dominica, having voted in 
favour of the death penalty moratorium, and 35 states, including the USA, 
India, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, voting against it.

A press release from the Justice Institute Guyana (JIG), stated that Guyana’s 
move was acknowledged during the United Nations Biennial High Level Panel on 
the death penalty last week. The panel met at the 40th session of the United 
Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland.

(source: stabroeknews.com)








EGYPT:

Egypt MP calls for execution of negligent employees after Ramses station fire



An Egyptian MP has called for negligent employees to face the death penalty, 
after 6 men were detained for a further 15 days pending investigation as to 
their involvement in the train accident at Ramses Station, the Egypt 
Independent has reported.

At least 25 people were killed and dozens more injured after a blaze was 
triggered by a high speed train colliding with a concrete buffer stop at Ramses 
Station in downtown Cairo last week. The train’s fuel tank reportedly exploded 
after the crash, setting a platform and nearby buildings on fire.

6 men, including 2 train drivers, were detained for 4 days following the 
incident, facing accusations of murder and negligence. According to initial 
investigations, 1 of the drivers left the train to talk to the other without 
pulling the handbrake to stop the train, which was moving at a high speed 
towards the buffer stop.

The drivers have allegedly admitted to being responsible for the crash.

Following the incident, Egyptian MP Sherif Fakhry announced that he had 
formally submitted a proposal to the parliament to modify the Egyptian penal 
code such that negligent employees could face the death penalty.

According to Article No. 238 in the Egyptian penal code, anyone who 
unintentionally kills a person due to carelessness faces up to 10 years in jail 
and a fine of 200 Egyptian Pounds ($11.4). However Fakhry argued that the train 
accident showed that stronger sentencing of either the death penalty or a life 
sentence, was needed to act as a significant deterrent for others.

Egypt’s frequent use of the death penalty has come under scrutiny in recent 
weeks after nine men accused of plotting the assassination of the country’s 
attorney general in 2015 were executed, warranting international condemnation.

Cairo executed 6 other men in 2 separate cases last month that were also 
denounced by rights groups as unjust. Some 1,400 people have been sentenced to 
death since 2013, convicted mostly of incidents of political violence.

Amnesty International has called for Egypt to abolish the death penalty 
altogether and allow those sentenced to death to appeal in cases where evidence 
has not been considered.

Following the accident, the Minister of Transportation Hesham Arafat resigned, 
having formed a technical committee to investigate the allegations of 
negligence.

Fatal train crashes and accidents have been frequent occurrence in Egypt for 
the past 2 decades. Observers attribute such crashes to old equipment, poor 
maintenance and inefficient government regulation.

Last week’s incident came almost exactly a year after a collision between 
trains in the northern province of Beheira left 15 people dead and a further 16 
injured.

(source: Middle East Monitor)