[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 10



PAKISTAN:

Insanity executed


Our fear of mentally disabled criminal offenders is reflected in court 
decisions, statutes and lawyering decisions that punish defendants for raising 
mental status defences

The relationship between mental disability and the death penalty has always 
been a troubling and contentious one. It has spawned some of the most pervasive 
and perplexing myths in all of criminal procedure jurisprudence. The execution 
of those with mental illness or 'the insane' is clearly prohibited by 
international law. Virtually every country in the world prohibits the execution 
of people with mental illness.

It is important to emphasise that a number of mentally ill prisoners in Punjab 
have been executed or have been left to die in prison without treatment. In 
June 2015, the Lahore High Court (LHC) stayed Khizar Hayat's execution on the 
basis of severe mental illness yet just a few days later the court dismissed 
that same petition on the basis of assertions by the jail that Khizar was fit 
for execution, denying the evidence of over 5 years of medical records that 
showed Khizar had schizophrenia since 2009. Sadly, Khizar's case is not unique. 
Kaneezan Bibi and Munir Hussain are prisoners with known mental illnesses. 
Kaneezan Bibi has been held in a medical facility since 2006 on account of her 
severe mental illness and could also face execution. Had these patients been 
seen by forensic psychiatrists and allowed expert medical evidence to be shown 
in court there may well have been a different ruling. Although Khizar Hayat's 
execution has been temporarily delayed for now, psychiatry???s ethical 
opposition to participation in the death penalty can play an important role in 
modifying the law and practice of capital punishment. Appeals to the Chief 
Justice (CJ) of the Supreme Court (SC) have already been passed by several 
associations, including the dean of psychiatry at the College of Physicians and 
Surgeons Pakistan.

The decisions in these cases appear, at times, internally inconsistent, 
self-contradictory, random and reflective of a 'doctrinal abyss'. Most 
importantly, the relationship has reflected our overwhelming societal 
ambivalence about the extent to which we are willing to punish, to mitigate 
punishment of or, in some cases, to more enthusiastically punish mentally 
disabled criminal offenders.

The Mental Health Ordinance 2011 has been developed but not all legal and 
medical experts follow those standards because not all experts really have any 
familiarity with the field or with what the standards are. It is regrettable 
that the courts are also not strict enough in their criteria when accepting 
testimonies from psychologists or psychiatrists on a defendant's mental 
disorder. It is completely unfair that mentally disordered people, who are more 
gullible and therefore more easily drawn by the police to confess under 
interrogation pressure, face a higher risk of being sentenced to death if they 
are not properly assessed.

The jurisprudence that has developed in this area reflects many of the same 
tensions that permeate our insanity defence jurisprudence, between our desire 
and need to punish individuals who threaten our social order, our fear and 
loathing of the mentally disabled individual who is factually guilty, our fear 
that behavioural explanations are inherently too exculpatory and our attempt to 
throw off the shackles of the medievalist and punitive spirit that still 
dominates us.

This reflects our intensified fear of 'those' people, fears that are 
exaggerated when the underlying criminal charge stems from a seemingly 
inexplicable act due to their mental disorder. Our fear of mentally disabled 
criminal offenders is thus reflected in court decisions, statutes and lawyering 
decisions that punish defendants for raising mental status defences that reject 
the notion that it is morally appropriate for mental disability to exempt some 
defendants from criminal responsibility.

This behaviour arises in the face of a series of High Court decisions that 
appear to say that the court has just the opposite expectation in a capital 
punishment context: it expects that evidence of mental disability is a 
mitigating factor that can be raised by the defendant in an effort to persuade 
fact-finders that he should not be put to death.

During trial, the insanity defence generally hinges on a person's inability to 
distinguish right from wrong or understand the nature and quality of his act. 
In the context of an impending execution, insanity means you cannot rationally 
comprehend that you are being put to death as a consequence of the crime you 
committed. Despite international and national standards banning the use of 
capital punishment against mentally ill or intellectually disabled people, 
mental health professionals familiar with death penalty legality warn that 
prisons are full of prisoners who should instead be receiving treatment.

Competence to be executed raises serious ethical questions for psychiatrists. 
Does the psychiatrist not have an ethical duty to present medical evidence that 
mitigates criminal responsibility and ask courts to consider that the patient 
is fit to plead guilty or not? One can perhaps imagine a psychiatrist 
determining that the patient is incompetent to make such a decision because he 
fails to appreciate that the trial will bring about his execution.

Mentally ill people are not to be judged by the same rules as the mentally fit. 
Prisoners evaluated as being medically unfit for execution must undergo 
psychiatric treatment until their mental health is restored. Mental health 
professionals have an important role in implementing codes of ethics 
prohibiting unfair and wrong court trials of mentally disordered offenders. 
Ethical guidelines need to be established by the Pakistan Medical Association 
and the Pakistan Psychiatric Society, which recognise that an ethically 
responsible psychiatrist would have to steer an uncharted course between these 
pitfalls and the death of mentally disordered prisoners by capital punishment.

One basic principle of forensic psychiatry is that it is morally unjust to 
evaluate and judge mentally ill persons by the same legal rules as people who 
are mentally fit, punishing them for acts that are a consequence of their 
disorder. The function of the psychiatrist is that of providing the court with 
a medical answer to whether any significant psychiatric disease or mental 
deficiency is present. The verdict 'guilty but insane', that he or she is not 
responsible, is a legal task but it should yield protection against the 
imposition of a death sentence.

(source: Commentary, Dr. Fawad Kaiser; The writer is a professor of Psychiatry 
and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the UK----Daily Times)






CHINA:

Debate over death penalty for child traffickers goes on----Many say punishment 
would deter crime; others worry plan will endanger victims


Death penalty or not? That is a question facing judges who handle 
child-trafficking cases these days.

In June, calls on social media to hand down capital punishment to anyone 
involved in child trafficking triggered a heated debate on the appropriate 
punishment for such offenses.

As a deterrent

Among those voices, Chen Shiqu, director of the anti-human-trafficking office 
under the Criminal Investigation Department at the Ministry of Public Security, 
is well-known online as China's top official in charge of fighting human 
traffickers.

Chen wrote in a micro blog that defendants in "major child-trafficking cases 
should be sentenced to death to deter such crimes". He said judicial 
authorities have handed down relatively lenient punishment to child 
traffickers, resulting in rampant occurrences of such crimes.

"Appropriately using the death penalty on those who commit harmful crimes will 
effectively curb such crimes," he said.

Some Internet celebrities also joined those supporting the death penalty. Ren 
Zhiqiang, former chairman of real estate company Huayuan Property Co, also 
voiced his support to his tens of millions of followers.

"It's necessary to put child traffickers to death, considering the heavy 
destruction they cause to lots of families. Sentencing them to death will send 
a serious warning to others," he said.

"Law enforcement officers should also impose severe punishments to buyers of 
abducted children to reduce the strong demand," he said.

But others say that blaming courts' lenient verdicts may not be fair to the 
judges, who have to follow sentencing guidelines.

Xu Yongjun, senior judge from the criminal tribunal at the Supreme People's 
Court, said that judicial authorities issued a notice in 2013 that stipulated 
severe punishments for traffickers.

"Since then, we have been considering proper harsh sentences, including the 
death penalty, but it's impractical to put all of them to death," he said.

Under the Criminal Law, child abductors face a sentence of 5 to 10 years in 
prison. In particularly serious cases, such as abducting more than 3 children, 
causing death or serious injury, or selling a child or children overseas, the 
traffickers face prison terms of 10 years to the death penalty.

According to the high court, from 2010 to 2014, courts nationwide had passed 
sentence on 12,963 traffickers who had abducted women and children. More than 
1/2 were sentenced to 10 or more years in prison or death.

25 traffickers in 16 cases have been sentenced to death since 2000, statistics 
from the high court showed.

Among them is Jiang Kai-zhi, who organized a 36-member gang in Yunnan that 
abducted and sold 223 children from late 2009 to August 2010. Another child 
trafficker given the death penalty was Ma Shouqing, who led a gang that 
trafficked 37 children from Yunnan province. Ma was executed in February. The 
high court approved the death sentence because of its serious consequences, 
including the death of a 2-year-old victim during transportation.

Limited effect

Not all law experts and lawyers agree that the death penalty is appropriate for 
all child traffickers.

Gu Yongzhong, deputy director of the Criminal Procedure Research Institute at 
the China University of Political Science and Law, argued that its effect would 
be limited.

"It doesn't mean that if we draft a special law to stipulate severe punishment, 
such as issuing death sentence, on traffickers, such crimes may dramatically 
decline," Gu said.

Some are worried that sentencing all human traffickers to death would remove 
the difference of penalties for two groups of traffickers - those who 
trafficked children but didn't harm them, and those who hurt and even killed 
victims.

Wang Jin, a graduate student majoring in criminal procedure laws at Renmin 
University of China, and a mother of a 2-year-old girl, said: "I personally 
hate child traffickers. But if the judicial authorities sentence them all to 
death, abducted children could fall into danger and the suspects may become so 
desperate that they seriously injury or even kill the children, which will make 
it harder for the police to arrest them."

The call for the death penalty on human traffickers also came at a time when 
China is reducing the number of crimes that are subject to capital punishment.

Zheng Kai, a Beijing criminal lawyer, said: "We can learn from other countries, 
where criminal offenses haven't risen although they abolished the death 
penalty. Abolishing the death penalty is a worldwide trend."

Poverty to blame

Gu, at China University of Political Science and Law, said the death penalty is 
not the fundamental solution for child trafficking.

Chen, with the Public Security Ministry, said poverty should be blamed for the 
sales of children in remote rural areas, such as the southwestern provinces of 
Yunnan and Guizhou, as well as the Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region.

He said the buyers also should be blamed. Childless couples in comparatively 
well-to-do provinces, including Guangdong, Fujian and Shandong, often buy or 
adopt abducted children because they still believe in the importance of 
"carrying on the family line" and "having sons to support them when they grow 
old", he said.

Due to a strong market desire, the suspects traffic the children to seek huge 
profits, he said.

Under a proposed amendment to the Criminal Law, which was submitted in June to 
the National People's Congress for approval, buyers of trafficked infants would 
be held criminally accountable.

Currently, if buyers don't physically abuse the children or hamper police 
rescue efforts, they won't face criminal punishments.

"When the amended Criminal Law takes effect, it will eliminate the demand from 
buyers, and attack the trade in human traffic at its very roots," said Dai 
Peng, director of the Criminal Investigation College at the People's Public 
Security University of China.

(source: ECNS)






INDIA:

Supreme Court should try to end uncertainty principles relating to death 
penalty


Now that the dust over recent execution of a death penalty has settled down, 
there is a pressing need for the union government and the Supreme Court to set 
some ground rules for the future.

Firstly, if the finality of judicial process in a death penalty ends with the 
Supreme Court verdict, it should not be allowed to be returned to the apex 
court in the form of curative petition and other legal instruments.

It is intriguing why the Supreme Court, always eager and wise to tell other 
wings like legislative and executive to set their house in order, monitor probe 
into corruption and express its opinion on how a particular state should be 
conducting auction or formulating its drug distribution policy, has chosen not 
to set guidelines relating to time limit of death penalty execution, disposing 
of mercy petition and even the alternative method(s) of execution. Even as a 
layman, I fully recognize that several laws require to be amended and union 
government (& states) too have to come on board if these guidelines were to 
become a reality. Even then, a clean beginning has to be made....and now to end 
uncertainty principles.

The concept of mercy petition is with a noble cause. In fact, the concept dates 
back to the era of God-like Kings where an omnipotent monarch possessed the 
power to punish or remit any punishment. In the words of Seervai "Judges must 
enforce the laws, whatever they be, and decide according to the best of their 
lights; but the laws are not always just and the lights are not always 
luminous. Nor, again are Judicial methods always adequate to secure Justice. 
The Power of pardon exists to prevent injustice whether from harsh, unjust laws 
or from judgments which result in injustice; hence the necessity of vesting 
that power in an authority other than the judiciary has always been recognized" 
(Seervai, H. M., Constitutional Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. 
Ltd., p.2004)

Article II of the US Constitution grants the President the "Power to Grant 
Reprieves and Pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases 
of Impeachment." In United Kingdom, judicial review of the power of pardon is 
extremely restricted in scope. Some of the considerations determining mercy 
are: (1) interest of society and the convict; (2) the period of imprisonment 
undergone and the remaining period; (3) seriousness and relative recentness of 
the offence; (4) the age of the prisoner and the reasonable expectation of his 
longevity; (5) the health of the prisoner especially any serious illness from 
which he may be suffering; (6) good prison record; (7) post conviction conduct, 
character and reputation; (8) remorse and atonement; (9) deference to public 
opinion. Ocasionally, UK has commuted the sentence in deference to the public 
opinion, on the ground that it would do more harm than good to carry out the 
sentence if the result was to arouse sympathy for the offender and hostility to 
the law.

It is understandable that in a pluralistic society like India where there is no 
consensus over continuation of death penalty, taking in account so many 
considerations can be counter-productive. However, there is craving need for 
transparency and time-framework in each case of convict seeking Presidential 
mercy. In common perception, a year's time limit after the Supreme Court's 
final verdict would be considered sufficient.

On the issue of settling the finality of judicial process, the apex court and 
the law commission should come up with a formulation to end spectacle of 
"Adl-e-Jahangiri" (famed sense of justice and fairness of the Mughal emperor 
Jahangir). Legend has it that Jahangir had placed a bell outside his court -- 
Diwan-e-Aam -- where any commoner could ring to demand instant justice from the 
emperor.

In 21st century India, society need not be told that imparting justice is not 
just an ideal but a service. In other words, delivering justice is not the 
responsibility of an individual or an institution but it is the right of every 
citizen to get justice through a 'system.'

Incidentally, neither the UK nor the US courts accept the concept of 'suo-motu' 
cases simply on grounds that Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence basics view a judge to 
be a neutral, passive arbiter of justice rather than assuming an act to be 
wrong while admitting it for examination.

It is time that death penalty issue is not left hanging on uncertainty 
principles.

(source: Associate Editor with The Telegraph, Rasheed Kidwai; abplive.in)

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

India Warns TV Stations Over Criticism of Hanging


India's government on Friday accused 3 television networks of violating 
broadcasting regulations by showing interviews that criticized the execution of 
Yakub Memon, hanged last month for bombings that killed 257 people in Mumbai in 
1993.

In formal notices to the three networks, the Ministry of Information and 
Broadcasting said the interviews were improper because they "cast aspersions on 
the integrity" of India's judicial system. The notices require the 3 networks - 
NDTV, ABP News and Aaj Tak - to explain why they should not face a possible 
broadcast suspension.

The move drew immediate protest from India's Broadcast Editors" Association, 
which said the notices were a "questionable pretext" for a larger government 
campaign to control news coverage. The association, representing top television 
news editors, cited several other "selective" actions by federal and state 
governments, including threats of defamation lawsuits and a new rule that 
limits news coverage of antiterrorism operations to "periodic briefings" by 
government press officers. "Media coverage cannot be restricted to official 
briefings," the association said in a statement on Saturday.

The notices come one week after the government abruptly ordered Internet 
service providers to block 857 pornography websites. Officials were forced to 
rescind the ban in the face of a furious backlash, but the episode fueled a 
growing perception that the government is quietly seeking greater control over 
what its citizens read or watch. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 
which is overseen by Arun Jaitley, one of the most powerful and influential 
members of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet, did not respond on Saturday 
to phone and email messages seeking comment.

In interviews, television news executives said they were stunned by the 
government's crackdown, especially since all three networks gave significant 
airtime to government officials who defended Mr. Memon's execution. Until now, 
they said, government officials have usually been content to take their 
complaints over coverage to the News Broadcasting Standards Authority, an 
independent body set up by TV networks to police unfair or unethical news 
coverage.

"We don't think we have violated any regulation at all," said Sonia Singh, the 
editorial director of NDTV. "We feel our coverage was extremely fair and 
balanced. However, we are looking at the notice and will respond to the 
ministry."

The ministry cited ABP News and Aaj Tak, 2 popular Hindi-language networks, for 
their telephone interviews with a man known as Chhota Shakeel, a Mumbai 
underworld figure whom authorities have accused of helping plan the 1993 Mumbai 
bombings.

Mr. Shakeel, who has avoided arrest, called numerous Indian news organizations 
to angrily denounce Mr. Memon's execution. He told The Times of India it was "a 
legal murder." He told ABP News that Mr. Memon was hanged for the crimes of his 
brother, Tiger Memon, the alleged bombing mastermind who remains at large. 
"This is not justice, this is vengeance," he told Aaj Tak.

In the case of NDTV, the ministry's notice took issue with a 20-minute program 
the network broadcast on Aug. 1 called "Truth vs. Hype: The Riddle of Yakub 
Memon."

The program, hosted by Sreenivasan Jain, one of India's most respected 
broadcasters, carefully sifted through a controversy that erupted days before 
Mr. Memon's execution - whether India's intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies betrayed him by reneging on a promise to spare him the death penalty 
in exchange for his cooperation in describing how the bombings were planned, 
financed and executed.

Mr. Jain presented both sides of the dispute, interviewing those who said Mr. 
Memon was betrayed and scapegoated, as well as a former senior police official 
who said the only promise made to Mr. Memon was that he would receive "the 
great justice of India."

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting took issue with comments made at 
the end of the program by Majeed Memon, 1 of Mr. Memon's former lawyers. (The 2 
men are not related.) The lawyer pointed to a defendant who he said was 
pardoned despite playing "10 times more" of a role in the bombings than Mr. 
Memon.

"If you show this pardon to any person outside India - U.K. authorities or U.S. 
authorities or the best brains in the world as far as criminal law is concerned 
- they will laugh at you," Majeed Memon said. "They will laugh at you. They'll 
say, 'Is this justice?'"

He went on to emphasize that he was not criticizing India's Supreme Court, 
which rejected Mr. Memon???s final appeal only hours before his hanging at dawn 
on July 30. "I salute the Supreme Court for having at least afforded to him 
even the last opportunity at 3 a.m.," he said.

According to the ministry's notice, this interview "not only questioned the 
judicial system of India, but tended to denigrate the very institution by 
hinting that it was not at par with the judicial systems existing in the U.K. 
and U.S."

(source: New York Times)

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

Ready for debate on death penalty: Venkaiah Naidu


Union Minister for Urban Development Venkaiah Naidu on Sunday said the Centre 
was ready for a discussion on the need for death penalty, but no one could 
accept attempts to "glorify terrorists."

Replying to a question on DMK Rajya Sabha MP Kanimozhi planning to move a 
private member's Bill for abolishing capital punishment, Mr. Naidu said the BJP 
had no problem with a debate on the issue.

It was "surprising" that some people came out openly as and when death penalty 
was given to terrorists. "It is my view and my party's view that terrorists, 
anti-nationals, rapists and other such heinous criminals should be given the 
strongest of punishment, including death penalty," the Minister told reporters.

Mr. Naidu said some people had shown concern for what had happened to 
terrorists like Yakub Memon. "He was hanged after 20 years of trial. The 
Supreme Court sat up till 3.45 a.m on this. This shows the independence of the 
judiciary," he added.

He also decried those dragging religion into the matter. "I have some figures 
now. In recent years, some 37 persons have been awarded death penalty. Only 
Maqbool Bhat, Afzal Guru.. one Sardar and Yakub Memon have been hanged. All the 
remaining are from the other side. Do you want such details to be discussed? I 
don't understand," he said.

Jayalalithaa-Modi meeting

On the Congress's criticism that the meeting between Prime Minister Narendra 
Modi and Chief Minister Jayalalithaa betrayed a "secret pact" between the 2 
parties, Mr. Naidu said the Congress was probably speaking out of its 
experience. "We do not have the habit of making secret pacts," he said, terming 
the meeting a matter of courtesy where State issues were discussed.

He also hit out at the Congress for disrupting Parliament, stating that the 
party which took India backward in the last 10 years was now blocking the 
country's forward march.

On the demand for prohibition gaining strength in Tamil Nadu, Mr. Naidu said 
the people's movement should grow stronger and it should not be politicised. 
"But we cannot make unilateral decisions on such matters," he said.

(source: The Hindu)






IRAN----executions

Kurdish political prisoner hanged in Iran


The Iranian regime's henchmen on Sunday hanged a Kurdish political prisoner in 
the central prison of the city of Tabriz, northwest Iran, without informing his 
family.

Sirvan Nezhavi, was arrested on July 5, 2011 in the city of Karaj and was 
charged with 'Moharebeh' (waging war on God) for membership in a Kurdish group 
that opposes the Iranian regime.

According to Sirvan's brother, Hossein, the victim's relatives were only 
informed of Sirvan's execution when the authorities in Tabriz Prison contacted 
them to go to prison to collect his body. Hossein said his family had not been 
informed of plans for Sirvan's execution and they were not able to pay a last 
visit to him.

Sirvan along with another political prisoner had been transfered to solitary 
confinement on Saturday.

Sirvan Nezhavi was sentenced to death on April 11, 2012 by a branch of the 
Iranian regime's Revolutionary courts without having a defense lawyer of his 
choice. He death sentence was later approved by the regime's Supreme Court.

Sirvan was among a group of 6 political prisoners who were transferred last 
February to an unknown location. 2 members of the group Ali and Habiballah 
Afshari were hanged but there was no information on the remaining 4 until 
recently.

It took five months for the Iranian regime to admit that it had executed Ali 
and Habiballah Afshari in the western city of Orumieh.

In July 2015, the authorities in the city's Central Prison told the two 
dissidents??? relatives that they had been hanged on February 19, 2015 and 
ordered them to pay for the cost of the execution.

***********

2 men hanged in public in Iran


Iran's fundamentalist regime on Sunday hanged 2 young men in public in the city 
of Mashhad, north-east Iran.

The official state broadcaster quoted the regime's prosecutor general in 
Mashhad, Gholam-Ali Sadeqi, as confirming the 2 men to have been 24 and 25 
years of age.

Their names were not given.

They were hanged in the city's Hafez Square.

At least 66 prisoners, including 2 women, have been executed in Iran, in some 
cases in public squares, in just over a fortnight.

A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on Wednesday said: "Iran has reportedly executed 
more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last year, at least 753 people were 
executed in the country."

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

55-year-old mother of 3 to be executed in Iran


An Iranian woman in her 50s is at imminent risk of execution in a prison in the 
city of Varamin, south-east of the Iranian capital Tehran.

The mullahs' regime has transferred Batool Karimi, 55, to solitary confinement 
in the notorious Qarchak Prison for Women in preparation for her execution.

Ms. Karimi, a mother of 3, has been imprisoned for the past 4 years.

She is accused of a drugs-related offence.

Qarchak Prison, also referred to as 'Qarchak Death Camp', was used by the 
regime in Iran as a place to brutally torture and rape those arrested during 
the 2009 anti-regime popular protests. The deaths of at least 4 young 
protesters under torture in Qarchak turned into a scandal for the Iranian 
regime.

Iran's regime hanged 2 other women at the end of July.

One of the women, identified as Pari-Dokht Molai-Far, was hanged in the 
notorious Qezelhesar Prison on July 29. The mother of 1 had been imprisoned in 
the notorious Qarchak Prison for the past 3 years and was transferred to 
Qezelhesar to face execution.

Another woman was hanged in Kerman's Shahab Prison, southeast Iran, on July 30.

"Iran has reportedly executed more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last 
year, at least 753 people were executed in the country," UN High Commissioner 
for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said on Wednesday.

(source for all: NCR-Iran)

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

UN EXPERT CALLS FOR IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM AFTER IRAN HANDS DOWN DEATH PENALTY TO 
A PRISONER OF CONSCIENCE


The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, 
Ahmed Shaheed, last week urged the Iranian authorities to immediately commute 
the death penalty recently handed down to Mohammad Ali Tehari, a well-known 
author of alternative medical theories practiced in Iran and abroad, and 
founder of Erfan-e-Halgheh (Inter-Universalism), an arts and culture institute 
in Tehran which promoted healing concepts.

Mr. Taheri was reportedly sentenced to death on 1 August on charges of 
'Fisad-fil-Arz' ('Corruption on Earth'), while he was serving a 5 year 
sentence. He was arrested in May 2011 and sentenced to 5 years in prison for 
insulting Islamic sanctities.

"It is unacceptable and a clear violation of international law for an 
individual to be imprisoned and condemned to death for peacefully exercising 
his rights to freedoms of religion and of expression," the United Nations 
expert stressed. "Mr. Taheri has been handed a death sentence for his spiritual 
beliefs and teachings."

The Special Rapporteur noted that the United Nations opposes the use of death 
penalty in all circumstances, and recalled that Iran is a party to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*. "The Covenant protects 
freedom of religion or belief and provides that countries which have not 
abolished the death penalty may only impose it for the most serious crimes, 
that is, those involving intentional killing, and only after a fair trial, 
among other safeguards," he explained.

"Mr. Taheri's actions were peaceful and constitute protected activities under 
international human rights law," the human rights expert said.

"The rights protected by international law encompass the right to have and 
express any belief that one chooses, regardless of whether that expression is 
through private actions or public teachings," he stated. Condemning a person to 
death for expressing their beliefs is unacceptable."

Mr. Shaheed's call has been endorsed by the United Nations Special Rapporteurs 
on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt; on torture, Juan E. 
Mendez; on extrajudicial executions, Christof Heyns; on freedom of opinion and 
expression, David Kaye; and on human rights defenders, Michel Forst.

Special Rapporteur Shaheed also renewed his call on the Government of the 
Islamic Republic of Iran to institute a moratorium on capital punishment and to 
demonstrate its commitment to fulfilling its obligation to respect and protect 
the right to life, as well as other fundamental freedoms guaranteed by national 
and international law.

(*) Check the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx

(source:Ahmed Shaheed (the Maldives) is a Visiting Professor at Essex 
University, UK; a former member of the Maldivian presidential Commission 
Investigating Corruption; and a foreign policy advisor to the President of the 
Maldives. Mr. Shaheed was Foreign Minister of the Maldives from 2005 to 2007 
and from 2008 to 2010. He led the country's efforts to sign and ratify all 9 
international human rights Conventions and to implement them in law and 
practice. He was appointed as the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human 
rights in Iran in June 2011 by the UN Human Rights Council. Learn more, 
visit:http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/IRIndex.aspx The 
Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the 
Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent 
experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council's 
independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific 
country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special 
Procedures' experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not 
receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or 
organization and serve in their individual 
capacity----diplomaticintelligence.eu)