[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 20



BARBADOS:

A nation under law (iii)


Initially, I did not intend that this essay on the rule of law should be 
extended to as many instalments as three, but the opening of the Law Year in a 
few regional jurisdictions; the release of a book by a sitting US Supreme Court 
justice; and some provocative comments from an English Law Lord together with 
some other related phenomena all seemingly conspired to provide enough relevant 
fodder for another part or 2.

Too besides, readers of this column should have surmised by now that I am far 
more comfortable discussing the law and its operation in society than the 
admittedly more populist issue of partisan politics that is frequently reduced 
in these parts to the lowest common denominator of the personalities of the 
leading participants rather than being raised to the higher level of the 
quality of their contributions on significant issues. The situation is further 
exacerbated by the predictability of the contributions in this context of most 
of those who attempt public commentary and the tired reluctance of the very 
actors to debate the hard issues beyond mere assertion.

Because of the diverse nature of the topics covered by the writers and speakers 
last week, it may be preferable to discuss them separately although, given 
their provenance, their content offers some insight into the perspectives of 
those who are constitutionally charged with the practical administration of the 
rule of law in the various jurisdictions.

In Trinidad & Tobago, Archie CJ has firmly asserted the view that common sense 
should dictate that the carrying out of the sentence of death by hanging is not 
the solution to the spiralling murder rate in the twin-island republic. He 
appears to base this view on a combination of an apparent moratorium on such 
executions - the last occurred some 16 years ago - the number of those awaiting 
trial for murder - an estimated 514 - the dubiousness of the penalty of a 
deterrent and the sheer repugnance of executing even a fraction of the number 
awaiting trial even assuming that they were found guilty. In his words, " ... 
do we really believe, assuming that a significant fraction of those persons are 
found guilty, that we will be able to hang several hundreds of people or that 
if we tried we could stomach it?"

Of course, the learned justice was mindful of his and the court's limited 
jurisdiction in the matter, recognising expressly that this was a matter for 
the legislature and, by extension, the people of the country, but he decried 
too the judicial sense of futility of pronouncing a death sentence nowadays.

These sentiments are in sharp contrast to the view expressed recently by my 
learned friend, the retired Justice Leroy Inniss, who has advocated keeping the 
penalty on the statute books even as Barbados struggles to come to terms with 
its international undertakings, a partly self-imposed and partly 
judicially-enforced moratorium on execution of any imposed death penalty longer 
even than that in Trinidad & Tobago, and a hemispheric mood that for the most 
part regards the imposition of death penalty as an inhuman and a 
poorly-thought-out response to a grave societal problem. In these 
circumstances, it may be difficult to accommodate a view that the death penalty 
remaining a legal form of punishment will serve any useful purpose, no matter 
the eminence of its source.

Moreover, with all respect to the opinion of Mr Justice Inniss, it seems 
particularly unseemly and perhaps unnecessarily dangerous to add to the number 
of laws on our statute books for which there is little likelihood of 
enforcement. What may be more needful at this stage, if we should be so lucky, 
is a parliamentary debate on the issue; not one premised on the toeing of the 
unswerving party line as espoused by our current Westminster export-model 
system of governance but, rather, one based on the expression of the member's 
conscience or, more desirably though less likely, that of his or her 
constituents collectively.

We have skirted this difficult question for far too long. And, after all, some 
things are more important than partisan political stances.

Across the globe, in New Zealand, the Lord Chief Justice of England & Wales, 
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, advanced a revolutionary view of the concept of 
judicial independence in a speech to a convocation of the Commonwealth 
Magistrates and Judges Association. Rather than counselling his fellow judicial 
officers to adopt the traditional stance of abstentionism in the political 
sphere, he urged them to take "proactive steps" to secure adequate funding for 
a justice system that is becoming "unaffordable to most people".

In an article by Owen Bowcott in the Guardian newspaper last Thursday, Thomas 
LCJ is reported as enjoining, " ... Judicial independence must not mean 
judicial isolation ... the judiciary must explain the centrality of justice and 
why it matters. That task cannot be left to others. Transparency and openness 
are crucial to instilling public confidence in the judicial system ... "

The Lord Chief Justice's comments were made in the context, as already noted, 
of funding for the justice system, a point likewise referred to in the speech 
of Archie CJ at the opening of the Law Year in Trinidad & Tobago. There, Archie 
CJ bewailed "the inability to obtain the necessary financial resources to 
implement critical infrastructure projects, although, unsurprisingly, he did 
not go as far as Thomas LCJ did in advocating a reformation of the concept of 
judicial independence so as directly to engage the political directorate.

Given our apparent judicial tradition of being perceived as being politically 
detached and, at most times, the existence of a healthy mutual respect for each 
other's constitutional authority, it is unlikely that Lord Thomas's advice will 
resonate in this region anytime soon. Yet few will want to deny that the 
justice system has not profited from the customary disengagement from the 
public sphere. This has consequently led to a climate of mistrust and 
suspicion; a circumstance that a notion so important as the dispensation of 
justice could very well do without.

Those days when a judge could state with some degree of pride that he or she 
never reads the newspapers are arguably, and happily, now of the past. And a 
local tradition that appears to abhor the idea of any judicial officer being 
invited to speak publicly on matters of law serves only to enforce a regime of 
mystery rather than the more desirable one of openness in the justice system.

(source: Jeff Cumberbatch, Barbados Advocate)






INDIA:

A BJP MLA Now Demands Capital Punishment For Slaughter And Sale Of Beef


Indian politics has always been an arena dominated by aggressive competition, 
and Indian politicians have been known for their capability for making some of 
the most absurd statements. While the government has been on a banning spree 
for a while now, a BJP MLA from Jammu and Kashmir has taken ridiculous to a new 
level.

Ravinder Raina who got elected to the assembly from Nowshera constituency, has 
moved a resolution for the implementation of the beef ban in Jammu and Kashmir. 
But in addition to that, he has also asked for capital punishment to be awarded 
for cow slaughter and sale of beef.

It is both unnerving and worrying to see that in a country where the option of 
capital punishment for heinous crimes such as rape is still being discussed, 
and even mass murderers escape the death penalty, leaders are advocating such a 
punishment for selling beef. A demand of this nature itself is ridiculous, but 
a major cause of concern is the confidence with which such demands are being 
raised.

While women are unsafe in this nation and a lot needs to be done with regards 
to law and order, the government is more concerned about deciding what people 
eat, even as millions in India are starving. The irony is that those convicted 
for gruesome mass murders, and brutal rapes have not been awarded capital 
punishment, and often get out on quick bails, but slaughtering a cow or selling 
beef can land an individual in jail for 5 years in Maharashtra and ten years in 
Haryana.

The government is willing to impose meat bans, but it has been unable to 
address the issue of farmer suicides in Marathwada and other parts of the 
country, which has plagued the nation for a long time. The very fact that the 
government isn't concerned about other animals apart from the cow in a red flag 
indicating the communal nature of these bans.

Citing a certain religion's beliefs as justification for bans exposes the 
undemocratic approach of the government, and dismisses any speculation of the 
ban being against animal cruelty. The audacity with which secularism is 
constantly and increasingly violated, the communal forces are assured that they 
can have their way in India.

The BJP MLA asking for capital punishment to be given for sale and slaughter of 
beef, probably knows that there are chances his demand might get an approval.

In this country people can spew venom through their speech, trigger violence 
and get away with it. MLAs like Ravinder Raina can make ridiculous demands and 
still not face any action in a state facing rising unrest and where security of 
citizens is constantly at risk.

In a democracy the power and responsibility to protect their freedom, rests in 
the hands of the people themselves. Why are we not as outraged at the Cultutal 
Minister's absurd statement about late night or night outs do not befit women 
in India, because sanskar? Why are we not as outraged as we were when porn was 
banned?

(source: scoopwhoop.com)






PAKISTAN:

Don't Execute Paralyzed Prisoner----Government Reportedly Conducts Most 
Executions in World in 2015


The Pakistan government should halt the scheduled September 22, 2015, execution 
of Abdul Basit, who is paralyzed from the waist down, Human Rights Watch said 
today. The case underscores the inherent cruelty of capital punishment by the 
execution of a person with a severe disability.

Basit, a former administrator at a medical college, was sentenced to death in 
2009, after being convicted of murder. He became paralyzed after contracting 
tubercular meningitis in 2010 while in the central jail in Faisalabad.

"Rather than confronting the inherent cruelty of capital punishment, Pakistani 
officials are puzzling over how to hang a man in a wheelchair," said Brad 
Adams, Asia director. "The government should urgently commute Abdul Basit's 
sentence."

Basit's execution was earlier scheduled for July 29. On July 28, the Lahore 
High Court accepted a petition challenging Basit's execution on the basis that 
it would constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, contravening 
Pakistan's prison rules and violating Basit's fundamental rights under 
Pakistan's constitution and international law. On September 1, the Lahore High 
Court dismissed Basit's petition, ruling that since the hanging of a paralyzed 
prisoner was not expressly forbidden by the prison rules, there was no bar to 
the execution.

On December 17, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif rescinded a 4-year unofficial 
moratorium on capital punishment in apparent response to the December 16 attack 
by the Pakistani Taliban splinter group Tehreek-e-Taliban on a school in 
Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan that left at least 148 dead - almost all of 
them children.

The Pakistani government has executed 236 people this year, making Pakistan 
responsible for the largest number of reported executions in the world in 2015. 
Despite government claims that the death penalty is necessary to confront 
terrorism, only a small percentage of those executed were linked to militancy.

Pakistan has more than 8,000 prisoners on death row, one of the world's largest 
populations of prisoners facing execution. Pakistani law mandates capital 
punishment for 28 offenses, including murder, rape, treason, and blasphemy. 
Those on death row are often from the most marginalized sections of society, 
such as Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death by the Lahore High 
Court on charges of blasphemy. In many cases, particularly those involving the 
poor, accused persons facing capital punishment do not receive adequate 
assistance of counsel.

Human Rights Watch opposes the death penalty in all circumstances because of 
its inherent cruelty and irrevocability. Pakistan's use of the death penalty is 
inconsistent with international human rights law, according to statements of 
United Nations human rights experts and various UN bodies because of the 
fundamental nature of the right to life, the unacceptable risk of executing 
innocent people, and the absence of proof that the death penalty serves as a 
deterrent to crime.

Pakistan should join with the many countries already committed to the UN 
General Assembly's 2007 resolution calling for a moratorium on executions and a 
move by UN member countries toward abolition of the death penalty.

"The death penalty is an inherently cruel and irrevocable punishment that 
doesn't solve any of the complex security problems facing the Pakistani 
people," Adams said. "The Pakistani government should strengthen its justice 
system rather than sending more people like Abdul Basit to the gallows. The 
government should place an official moratorium on capital punishment until the 
practice is abolished."

(source: Human Rights Watch)

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

Death penalty for the disabled


Rather than challenging the inherent cruelty and injustice of capital 
punishment, it seems that the state has embarked upon an unyielding spree to 
execute hordes of prisoners-ones that have not seen any semblance of justice 
towards them for decades. The story of Abdul Basit echoes the appalling state 
of Pakistan's criminal justice system and reaffirms that capital punishment 
means those without the capital get the punishment. Whilst the wealthy and 
influential escape through the loopholes, the poor, disabled, mentally ill, and 
the most vulnerable just like him, are rushed to the gallows - celebrated as an 
indicator of its success in eradicating terrorism. The state is apathetic to 
the violations of their human dignity, and it has become evident with Basit, 
where despite his permanent disability and humiliating imprisonment, Abdul 
Basit faces execution on Tuesday, 22nd September 2015.

Abdul Basit was convicted for the murder of another man during a heated 
altercation in 2009. The deceased was a 3rd year law student, the younger 
brother of a noted local advocate. No lawyer from Okara would take the case, 
and even a respected advocate from Faisalabad came under pressure, not to 
represent the Petitioner. Abdul Basit has always claimed his innocence, 
asserting that Asif Nadeem was the one who first offered violence. It was on 
the basis of evidence given by just 2 relatives of the deceased that Abdul 
Basit was convicted of murder.

The police investigation reeked of corruption (Basit's family was too poor to 
pay the bribe asked by the police) and implanted evidence: there was a gun 
allegedly found at the scene, but the police officer did not take the 
fundamental step of writing down its serial number and there was no ballistics 
evidence to show that Basit's gun was the one used in the killing. 
Nevertheless, Basit was sentenced to death and his subsequent appeals to the 
High Court and Supreme Court were rejected.

In 2010, Abdul Basit was transferred to Central Jail, Faisalabad. Later that 
year, the prisoners in Faisalabad jail rioted against the torturous practices 
of the jail administration especially, the Superintendents. Several prisoners 
died in the riots, and many more injured. The Superintendent was suspended and 
the new Superintendent, confined most of the prisoners to the "punishment wing" 
in Central Jail. For, months, Abdul Basit was held in the filthy and unhygienic 
conditions of the punishment ward where disease is rampant. While there, he 
began complaining of severe headache and an extremely high temperature. His 
family narrated that his headache became so severe that he would scream and 
bang his head against the wall for any form of relief. His anguish was only met 
with apathy by jail authorities despite repeated pleas from his family. It was 
discovered later that based on his symptoms Abdul Basit had contracted 
Tuberculosis (TB) meningitis in prison. Despite the knowledge that TB, if left 
untreated, could result in permanent damage, the jail authorities denied him 
any access to the requisite healthcare and simply confined him to a solitary 
cell to prevent an outbreak. It was only after Abdul Basit succumbed to a month 
of indelible pain and lost consciousness that he was transferred to DHQ 
hospital in Faisalabad.

At DHQ hospital, Faisalabad, it was discovered that his condition was so 
critical, that he fell into a coma for 3 weeks. Eventually his family was 
informed that as a result of neglect and a lack of timely treatment he had 
contracted Tuberculosis (TB) meningitis. Over the course of thirteen months his 
condition plummeted - he became paralyzed from the waist down and would suffer 
from long-term consequences of spinal cord permanently. Abdul Basit would never 
walk again, and lost all control of his basic bodily functions permanently. In 
2011, a Medical Board at Services Hospital Lahore deemed that management of his 
medical condition "would be very difficult in jail". In April 2012 it was 
established that he was suffering from paraplegia and long term complications 
of spinal atrophy. More recently in August, a new medical board was convened at 
the order of the Lahore High Court, where it was concluded that Basit was 
"permanently disabled ... He is likely to remain bed-bound for the rest of his 
life."

Under Rule 107 (iv) of the Prison Rules (1978) ill health is a ground for 
clemency from execution. However, despite this, the President of Pakistan in 
January 2013 rejected a petition from Abdul Basit's family requesting to 
commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment on the basis of his 
disability.

On 28th July 2015 the Lahore High Court accepted a writ petition challenging 
Basit's execution on the basis that it would constitute cruel, inhuman and 
degrading treatment, contravening the Pakistan Prison Rules and violating 
Basit's fundamental rights as protected by the Constitution of Pakistan and 
international law. This was made clear with the Pakistan Prison Rules 1978, a 
binding statutory legislation, which governs the manner and procedure to be 
adopted at the time of executing a condemned prisoner. Here, rule 356 
(Regulation of drops) has been specifically designed in order to avoid the 
possibility of a botched execution and contains procedures that simply cannot 
be carried out in respect of a disabled prisoner.

The prison authorities once again showed their indifference and incompetence 
when they appeared in court on 1st September, unable to give exact details of 
the procedures they intended to use, but instead suggesting that there were a 
number of possibilities, including hanging Basit from his wheelchair or from a 
stool placed on the gallows. This led to the Lahore High Court dismissing 
Basit's petition, vehemently stating that "international laws should be set 
aside".

Abdul Basit remains in prison, with only 3 days left till his execution. He has 
spent the past several years lying on the floor of his cell, reliant on jail 
officers to assist him with even the most basic hygiene. He also suffers from 
fecal and urinary incontinence. He has even been denied access to a wheel chair 
with the result that he suffers from bedsores. Despite these horrendous 
conditions, he occupies himself by copying out verses from the Qur'an, perhaps, 
this being his only cradle of hope. He leads an undignified, inhumane and 
unhygienic life - failed by the government, prison system and the criminal 
justice system.

The state refuses to look past it incongruity, and look at Abdul Basit as a 
paraplegic prisoner, especially one who has suffered for seven years in prison. 
Under the guise of combating terrorism, it seems that it is obliviously using 
the death penalty- clearing out its prisons, one helpless casualty at a time. 
Abdul's disability is permanent. His execution would constitute a cruel and 
inhuman punishment under our constitution and Islamic jurisprudence.

His lawyers have petitioned for a stay, one that has to fight the labyrinthine 
and archaic procedure of testimony and evidence, that has been used to pass 
death sentences. These courts are blind to justice and norms, where saying 
enough is enough is only the beginning. The justice system has proved to be 
nothing less than vengeful and futile. The constitution has also been amended 
to speed up the prosecution of terrorism-related cases, and move them from 
civilian to military courts. On 11 March 2015, the Pakistan government 
announced that it was unconditionally lifting the moratorium for all capital 
crimes and threatened to send up to 1000 prisoners to the gallows who had 
exhausted all legal options and mercy petitions. Pakistan has executed more 
than 200 people since reintroducing the death penalty, where its initial use of 
combatting terrorism seems to be long forgotten.

Abdul Basit is not a terrorist nor does he pose a violent threat to society. He 
has already forsaken his dignity and freedom to try to fight an inequitable 
justice system. It is time for the President of Pakistan, our self-proclaimed 
gallant state, and the inadequate justice system to look at what they have 
taken from Abdul Basit. It is time to take a stand and halt his execution- not 
making him another faceless number, hung from his wheelchair from the gallows.

(source: The Nation)






NEW ZEALAND:

International death penalty experts calls for NZ to toughen its death penalty 
opposition


2 leading Australian death penalty experts have arrived in New Zealand in a bid 
to persuade the Government to toughen its stance against the practice in 
foreign countries.

Julian McMahon, the lawyer who represented executed Bali nine ring leaders 
Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, and Reprieve Australia vice president Ursula 
Noye will meet with Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, members of 
Parliament, and Government officials this week.

They will also take part in a public seminar about the issue at Te Papa at 5pm 
on Monday, at the invitation of the New Zealand Drug Foundation and Amnesty 
International.

The call for New Zealand to boost its opposition of the death penalty came 
after Kiwi Anthony de Malmanche faced that prospect for trafficking 
methamphetamine into Indonesia last December.

New Zealand-Australia dual citizen Peter Gardner is still at risk of being put 
to death for allegedly smuggling drugs out China in November.

De Malmanche's life was spared but he received a 15-year jail sentence.

McMahon said on Sunday New Zealand "absolutely" had the capacity to do more in 
ending the death penalty.

"New Zealand is ideally positioned to provide continued and sustained 
principled leadership in this important debate."

New Zealand was well-respected internationally and had a seat at the United 
Nations Security Council table. It could also discuss the death penalty during 
trading negotiations with its partners and when sending aid, he said.

Drug Foundation executive director Ross Bell said the government's condemnation 
of the recent Indonesia executions was welcome, but it was silent on the many 
executions conducted by the United States, Saudi Arabia, China, and new trading 
partner Iran.

New Zealand shouldn't sit back and wait until another one of its citizens was 
facing a possible execution, he said.

Speaking as United Future leader, Dunne said on Sunday the death penalty was 
"despicable" and New Zealand should throw its weight around at the UN Security 
Council to push for its abolition.

There needed to be a consistent campaign, rather than raising the issue only 
when a high-profile execution loomed, he said.

"It's all very well and good when a case like the Bali nine arrives but 
frankly, it's a little too late at that point."

A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said the minister was 
on his way to New York on Sunday and was unavailable for comment.

However, in response to the executions of the Bali nine members and other 
prisoners in April, McCully said New Zealand was strongly opposed to the death 
penalty in all cases under all circumstances.

(source: The Dominiona Post)






IRAN----executions

2 men hanged in northern Iran city


Iran's fundamentalist regime on Saturday hanged 2 men in the northern city of 
Rasht.

The 2 men were hanged at dawn in Rasht's central prison.

Their full names were not given. They were identified only as 45-year-old H.M. 
and 46-year-old S.P.

They were accused of drug smuggling.

On Wednesday, the mullahs' regime hanged a man in public in Ardestan (central 
Iran). The official state broadcaster announced his name as Saeed Zargari.

Only on Wednesday 9 prisoners were hanged by the Iranian regime in prisons in 
Karaj (north-west of the capital Tehran) and in Sanandaj (western Iran). 8 of 
the prisoners, including a 22 and a 24-year-old, were collectively hanged in 
Gohardasht Prison in Karaj.

A statement by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human 
Rights Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein on August 5 said: "Iran has reportedly executed 
more than 600 individuals so far this year. Last year, at least 753 people were 
executed in the country."

Amnesty International said on September 7 that "the Iranian authorities must 
end their unprecedented killing spree - more than 700 people have been executed 
so far this year."

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

The Netherlands' Foreign Minister visits Iran amid executions


The Iranian Resistance strongly condemns the visit of the Netherlands' foreign 
minister Mr. Bert Koenders to Iran under the rule of religious fascism and 
calls on the country's parliamentarians and human rights defenders to stop this 
visit that encourages this regime in carrying out its executions and 
suppression that is against the interests of the Iranian people and their will 
for the establishment of democracy. The leaders of the velayat-e faqih regime 
that the Netherlands' foreign minister plans to meet have the execution of 
120,000 political prisoners in their infamous record and are dubbed "Godfather 
of ISIS" by the Iranian people. The number of executions in the 2 years of 
Rouhani's presidency stands at 2000. The leaders of this regime are, for 
example, the actual murderers of Motahare (Zahra) Bahrami, the Dutch-Iranian 
citizen who was arrested in the 2009 uprising and subsequently executed on 
January 29, 2011. This trip in the midst of large number of executions is 
nothing but disrespect for human rights and democratic values. The leaders of 
the religious fascism ruling Iran stand to benefit from this and similar trips 
to cover up their medieval nature. These visits have only resulted in the 
continuation and intensification of suppression, especially the savage usage of 
the death penalty inside Iran and the export of terrorism and fundamentalism 
and warmongering in the region.

The visit by Mr. Bert Koenders is taking place while on September 16, the 
regime's supreme leader Khamenei reiterated the regime's policies and strategic 
principles. He wholeheartedly supported the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and 
stressed on the need to continue nationwide suppression domestically and 
warmongering, terrorism and aggressive meddling by the IRGC in other countries 
in order to ensure the survival of the regime.

Similarly, a day prior, the regime's president Rouhani who was meeting IRGC 
leaders, emphasized on continuing regime's aggressive meddling and warmongering 
in the region by saying, "We cannot be indifferent regarding Muslim nations."

This visit is taking place while thousands of prisoners are on the death row 
and while political prisoners are constantly harassed and tortured. Mr. Zeid 
Ra'ad Al Hussein, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, asserted on 
September 14: "Accelerated use of the death penalty, concerns about the right 
to a fair trial, and the continued detention of the journalists, bloggers, and 
human rights defenders remain a major cause for concern" in Iran.

Similarly, in a statement on July 23, Amnesty International expressed its 
concern regarding the close to 700 executions in the 1st half of this year and 
noted: This "paints a sinister picture of the machinery of state carrying out 
premeditated judicially-sanctioned killing on a mass scale."

Travelling to Iran under the rule of the mullahs, turning a blind eye to its 
crimes, and making concessions to this regime under whatever pretext is 
vehemently condemned by the Iranian people and Resistance and is utterly 
unacceptable. All relations with Iran need to be made contingent on the 
improvement of human rights and a halt to the death penalty.

(source for both: NCR-Iran)