[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 22


PAKISTAN:

Pakistan delays hanging of paraplegic man


The planned hanging of a paraplegic prisoner convicted of murder in Pakistan 
has been delayed, his lawyer has said.

Abdul Basit could not be hanged in compliance with the jail manual because he 
is in a wheelchair, a magistrate said when ordering the postponement.

Pakistan's prison guidelines require that a prisoner stand on the gallows.

Rights groups say hanging Basit would constitute cruel and degrading treatment.

Abdul Basit, 43, is paralysed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair after 
becoming ill in prison.

Pakistan reintroduced the death penalty in December 2014 and has hanged 239 
people since.

At the time, the government said it was a measure to combat terrorism after the 
Taliban massacred more than 150 people, most of them children, in a Peshawar 
school.

The hanging of Abdul Basit has been put off not because of any questions over 
his trial or any media campaign, but due to a purely bureaucratic constraint: 
there was no way he could stand on his legs on the gallows and thereby allow 
the hangman to tie a noose of the right length.

This length is calculated in relation to the height and weight of the convict 
and is meant to ensure instant, more humane death.

Since the so-called "long-drop" method of hanging is the only form of execution 
allowed under the jail manual, there were fears that if applied to Abdul Basit, 
it could go seriously wrong. But the postponement came in the wee hours of 
Tuesday, barely an hour before the hanging, possibly to avoid any immediate 
controversy.

The postponement has created an interesting situation. Basit cannot be hanged 
unless the authorities are willing to be seen as "barbaric" by rights watchers, 
or unless they amend jail rules.

Basit was convicted 6 years ago of murder and was to have been hanged in Lahore 
last month - but that was postponed.

A court then ordered the jail authorities to go ahead with the hanging, even 
though his mercy petition filed on 22 July before the president is still 
pending. Both the Supreme Court and the Lahore High Court have given their 
consent to the execution.

It is unclear if any time limit was imposed on the most recent postponement.

"Why do they want his execution? He is already severely sick, what will they 
get from his hanging?" Basit's mother, Nusrat Perveen, told AFP.

Campaigners say there is a danger that the hanging could go wrong and end up 
being a breach of the prisoner's dignity - which is protected by Pakistani 
laws.

"The rules presume that the convict [can] walk up to the gallows, which is not 
possible in Abdul Basit's case," Wassam Waheed, a spokesman for Justice Project 
Pakistan (JPP) told the BBC.

In a statement on Sunday the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan 
(HRCP) described the court order to hang Abdul Basit as an offence "against all 
norms of civilised justice" which would raise awkward questions about the 
Pakistani justice system and "indict the Pakistani state and society as brutal 
entities".

The HRCP also urged the president to stay the execution and grant him a 
reprieve.

Pakistan has the world's largest number of death row inmates, with more than 
8,000 people reported to be awaiting execution.

It is on course to have one of the highest rates of executions in the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executions around the world

Pakistan has executed at least 239 people since December 2014

In July Amnesty said it believed Iran had put 694 people to death between 1 
January and 15 July

In August, Amnesty International said Saudi Arabia had executed 102 people in 
the first 6 months of 2015, compared with 90 in the whole of 2014

Figures for executions in some other countries in 2015 are not yet available

By the end of last year, the other countries with the highest number of 
reported executions were Iraq: 61, USA: 35, and Sudan: 23

China and North Korea refuse to divulge information on the number of executions 
that take place within their borders

(source: BBC news)






VIETNAM:

Killer of 4 in northern Vietnam faces death penalty


Police in the northern province of Yen Bai have proposed that the local 
People's Procuracy prosecute a man for murdering 4 people last month and demand 
the death penalty for him.

The provincial police on Monday said they had completed their investigation 
into the case in which Dang Van Hung, 26, killed four members in a family in 
Van Yen District on August 12.

Hung should be prosecuted for that murder and sentenced to death, pursuant to 
Article 93 of the Penal Code, police said in their conclusion.

Hung, along with 36-year-old Nguyen Thi Han, who was his family's maid, was 
arrested on August 15 in Luc Yen District, a few kilometers away from where he 
killed the victims.

Investigation showed that Hung forced Han to go with him after he killed Tran 
Van Long, 32, his 20-year-old wife Phan Thi Hoa, 2-year-old son Tran Van Tuyen, 
and sister-in-law, 15-year-old Phan Thi Ha.

At 4:00 pm on August 12, Hung went to his mountainous field in Van Yen, 
bringing along with him a machete and a bush hook.

On his way Hung met Long and Hoa in an area about 300 meters from his field and 
asked them why they were working in his family's field.

After Long replied that he was working in the area that his parents-in-law had 
given him, Hung kicked him in his face, causing him to fall to the ground.

Long then asked his wife to phone his father-in-law and she followed suit.

Hung requested her to hand her cellphone to him but Hoa turned him down.

Long ran away but Hung chased him and slashed him to death. Hung then returned 
and killed Hoa and the 2 other victims.

He moved on to rush to the tent in his family's mountainous field, where he 
informed his father of the killings and took away 2 guns before fleeing.

On the way out of the field, he met Han and forced her to go along with him.

Hung threw his knives and guns during the escape, and they were arrested on 
August 15 morning in Khanh Hoa Commune in Luc Yen.

Police released Han a day later after investigation showed that she was not 
involved in the murder and did not know about it, Colonel Pham Ngoc Thang, 
deputy director of the provincial Police Department, told Tuoi Tre (Youth) 
newspaper.

Han only knew about the killings when Hung revealed them to her, Col. Thang 
said.

(source: Tuoi Tre News)






AUSTRALIA:

AFP actions at odds with death-penalty foes


On April 30 this year, Australia's Justice Minister Michael Keenan made a 
disturbing revelation: 24 hours after two Australians lost their lives on the 
killing fields of Indonesia's Nusa Kambangan, Keenan released a statement 
defending the Australian Federal Police's approach to international 
co-operation in death-penalty situations, saying it "reflects Australia's 
position on the death penalty". If it does, though, we're in deep trouble.

Despite the AFP commissioner's assurances, in May this year, that the 
organisation had "tightened" its co-operation with death-penalty states, 1847 
individuals have been exposed to the risk of execution over the past 5 years - 
an average of one a day. How many of these are Australian citizens is anyone's 
guess because, apparently, police don't track that data; an assertion that 
stretches belief almost as much as the claim that the current approach delivers 
"appropriate checks, safeguards and balances". Indeed, the word "balance" is 
verging on unseemly, in light of figures revealing that requests for assistance 
are almost never refused.

Information on the 15 occasions in recent years when the AFP has declined to 
provide information, released under FOI, offers no comfort. A cursory analysis 
of these documents suggests that - when you remove the double counting, the 
requests that were subsequently approved, and the requests rejected on purely 
procedural grounds - possibly as few as 3 requests for assistance were declined 
because of perceived risks to the individual.

So we're left to conclude that our federal police, for whatever reason, do not 
give any serious weight to death-penalty risks when deciding whether to release 
information to foreign law enforcement. There is no other way to construe these 
grim statistics and no amount of evasion or justification - by the commissioner 
or the Minister for Justice, or by successive Australian governments that have 
failed to deal with this nefarious policy conundrum - can make it otherwise.

Why this is a surprise to anyone, though, is bewildering. Almost 10 years ago, 
in a Federal Court case brought by members of the Bali 9, Justice Paul Finn 
observed that Australia's opposition to the death penalty "has not been pursued 
unqualifiedly in our legislation and guides in relation to dealings with 
foreign countries". Despite 2009 revisions to the AFP guideline - a document 
described by legal expert Simon Bronitt as "entirely agnostic" with respect to 
the death penalty - not much has changed.

In 2010, the Law Council of Australia offered strident criticism of the new 
guideline, noting with concern the "broad discretion" available to the AFP and 
pointing to a "balancing exercise that is neither weighted in favour nor 
against the provision of information in death-penalty cases". That assessment, 
it now seems, was wildly optimistic.

Almost every request for assistance from death-penalty states is approved, 
which might say something about police culture, and a fixation with law 
enforcement outcomes. The tendency to view the world through the prism of the 
"thin blue line" might also explain why arguments in favour of unfettered 
co-operation are uncomfortably similar to those advanced by police against our 
current approach to extradition, which requires a refusal to extradite in 
capital cases unless assurances are provided that the death penalty won't be 
carried out.

In 1997, the president of the AFP Association denounced "conditional" 
extradition, arguing that Australia would become a "safe haven" for murderers 
and terrorists. In the decades since its adoption, however, there is no 
evidence to suggest this approach - now widely adopted around the world - has 
significantly hampered effective law enforcement.

There's little to be gained from a forensic dissection of police procedure but 
there's no doubt that effective policing of transnational organised crime 
relies to a large extent on the capacity to exchange information in real time. 
Police will naturally find any measures that restrict information exchange 
unpalatable.

When it comes to actual life-and-death decisions, though, something more robust 
than a guideline is called for, let alone one as nebulous as the AFP's 
guideline for death-penalty situations. If anyone was in any doubt about that, 
they need only consider the precarious balancing act that has put 1847 lives at 
risk.

The realisation of a "better balance" as recommended by Justice Finn remains 
frustratingly remote. It may be possible, but not unless we confront the facts; 
the truth, as it's said, is a bitter pill to swallow.

If it's any consolation to those caught in the crossfire, coming to grips with 
the true state of affairs is not about vilifying our law enforcement agencies, 
which are in the unenviable position of having to balance complex and 
occasionally contradictory justice objectives - to say nothing of flip-flopping 
ministerial directives - under the gaze of a vengeful public. But a genuine 
remedy for these bleak circumstances is not, in the end, about blaming our 
federal police for failings that are well beyond their capacity to address. 
It's about relieving them of a burden they shouldn't have to bear.

(source: Sarah Gill has worked as a writer, researcher and government policy 
analyst. She is undertaking postgraduate study in law, policy and government at 
the University of Western Australia----The Age)






INDIA:

11/7 accused earned respect of fellow inmates: Arun Ferreira


The last among the 9 witnesses to testify, to seek a lenient sentence for 
convicts in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case, was Arun Ferreira, a 
writer and social activist, who was acquitted on charges of being involved in 
naxal activities.

Ferreira who was released from jail after being incarcerated for four years and 
eight months, told the special MCOCA court on Monday how he and 3 other accused 
in the blasts case were kept in solitary confinement in the phansi (hanging) 
yard at the Nagpur jail, which was meant for convicts on the death row. He 
described it as a collection of solitary cells adjoining the gallows.

The witness said he was in jail from 2007, and there were 11 cases against him, 
in which he was acquitted. He said that it was a practice to keep terror 
accused in the cells. Ferreira said he was acquainted with 10 of the accused 
while he was in that jail and knew Mohammed Shafi, Sajid Ansari and Muzammil 
Shaikh well. He said Sajid was soft-spoken and always cooperated with jail 
authorities in solving problems. Ferreira described Shafi as an emotional 
person who comforted others who were awarded the death penalty, and would give 
them hope of being released. He stated that Muzammil used to pass time reading 
books and studying the chargesheet to prepare his defence in the case. Ferreira 
claimed the accused had earned the respect of fellow inmates as they helped 
them draft applications and in correspondence.

Referring to his stint in solitary confinement, Ferreira said it had affected 
him mentally and when released he found it difficult to adjust to social life. 
He alleged that he remembered seeing the accused bruised when they were brought 
to the Nagpur jail from Arthur Road jail. In his cross-examination by special 
public prosecutor Raja Thakare, Fereirra said he was not in touch with the 
accused or any of their relatives since his release. He further said Sajid's 
brother Khaled had approached him to appear before the court on Monday.

Following the deposition, advocate for the defence, Yug Chaudhary, while 
opposing the death penalty told the court that the accused had committed the 
offence under duress and this was a mitigating factor. He said the prosecution 
had to show that the accused could not be reformed.

He said there was no evidence to show the death sentence acted as a greater 
deterrent than life imprisonment.

'Neighbours welcomed me back but I'm not happy'

(source: The Times of India)

*******

2006 Mumbai train blasts: Defence examines its last witness


Advocate Chaudhari restricted his arguments on a number of findings laid down 
by the apex court, wherein the court had described the conditionswhich attract 
capital punishment.

While advancing his defence arguments in the 2006 serial train blast case, 
senior advocate Yug Chaudhari said: "As per Supreme Court's rulings, the main 
criterion to award death penalty is that the quality of evidence has to be 
higher than expected. The evidence should be beyond reasonable doubt and above 
certainty." Meanwhile, the defence examined its last witness, Arun Ferreira, 
whom it had called to testify on the conduct of convicts in the prison.

Advocate Chaudhari restricted his arguments on a number of findings laid down 
by the apex court, wherein the court had described the conditionswhich attract 
capital punishment. "It has been observed that especially in Mumbai (court's) 
the application of death is much alarming than what is envisaged in the known 
Bachan Singh's case (Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, 1980). The court while 
awarding the death penalty needs to be very clear on its reasoning. The 
prosecution needs to exhaust all of its options which would prove that there is 
no chance of reformation of the convict.

The defence had pleaded the court to call for reports from the probation 
officer, which would give a clear picture to the court to decide if there was 
any chance for the accused to reform. However, the court had rejected the 
application. "The fact remains that the entire burden to prove that there is no 
scope of reformation left with the convicts is with the prosecution; however, 
it has not been done in this case," argued Chaudhari.

"As per the Supreme Court's findings, the term 'rarest of rare' is not 
attracted with respect to the crime aspect of the case, but with the criminal's 
aspect. The person has to be a menace to the society and that he has a heinous 
mindset, with no scope of reformation. However, conditions when the crime was 
heinous or brutal, cannot attract the criteria of rarest of rare case," argued 
Chaudhari.

The senior advocate further argued on the quality of evidence recorded by the 
prosecution. Advocate Chaudhari said that the prime aspect for the court to 
award the convicts with death penalty is that the evidence which the 
prosecution has brought on record has to be higher than expectation. "The main 
point in this case is that can the death penalty be based on the confessional 
statement, which was not recorded before the magistrate, but was recorded by 
the deputy commissioner of police? Also, we cannot forget that the police 
officials who were investigating the case, their names have been popped up in 
certain criminal cases," he said.

Citing from the latest Law Commission report of August 2015, advocate Chaudhary 
pointed out that over 95 per cent of death sentences awarded by the trial 
courts either resulted in acquittals at the Supreme Court or were commuted to 
life. Only 4.3 per cent of the death penalties were upheld by the apex court. 
"Only if the accused is a threat to society is the death penalty given. In more 
than 95 per cent of the cases the trial courts have wrongly given the death 
sentence. Especially in Mumbai, the application of the death sentence is 
alarmingly high," he said.

Meanwhile, the last witness in the case, was examined by the defence advocate 
to testify in favour of the accused. Arun Ferreira, formerly accused and later 
acquitted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for alleged Maoist 
activities, vouched for the helpful nature of 10 of the accused persons.

(source: dnaindia.com)

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

Justice for the victims


The 7 peak-hour serial explosions on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai came as a blow to 
the collective consciousness of Maximum City. For months after the explosions, 
daily commuters entered the compartments of suburban trains, rightly called the 
lifelines of Mumbai, with suspicion in their eyes, and fear in their hearts, 
every single day. The task of securing the lives of 7.5 million daily commuters 
against attacks still remains a challenge. In these nine years, the Railways 
spent over Rs. 10 crore to upgrade security on the Central and Western Railway 
systems. From a situation where there were virtually no CCTV cameras, the 
suburban train lines now have over 3,600 cameras. But Mumbaikars know in their 
hearts that while commuting on the train network they are really on their own 
in a city that has faced 7 major terror attacks since 1993 - 3 of them on its 
trains.

The 2006 train bombings killed 189 people; in terms of numbers it is 2nd only 
to 257 victims in the 1993 serial bombings. The trial of the 1993 serial 
bombings case took 14 agonising years, but Judge Y.D. Shinde has managed to 
complete this trial in less than 5 years. At least 2 more terror trials 
including the Aurangabad arms haul case of 2006 and the Malegaon bombings case 
of 2008 are still pending in Maharashtra. Mumbai's 2 worst terror attacks make 
for a strong case to expedite terror trials through fast-track courts. It will 
not only help bring quicker closure to the victims and reduce their 
helplessness in the face of a tardy justice system, but also aid the 
rehabilitation of unfortunate people like Abdul Wahid Shaikh, a 37-year-old 
teacher who has now been acquitted after 9 years in jail. The final verdict in 
this case will be significant as it will be the 1st major terror case after the 
July 30 hanging of Yakub Memon to bring into focus the question of the death 
penalty. The Law Commission of India in its draft report recommended speedy 
abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except those involving terrorism. 
The defence team led by advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry, a strong voice against the 
death penalty, has made pertinent points before the court. He submitted that 
the Law Commission's August 2015 report points out that only 4.3 % of all death 
sentences awarded by trial courts were upheld by the Supreme Court; the rest 
either resulted in acquittals or were commuted. Arguing that the train blasts 
case rests merely on the confessions of the accused, which may be a basis for 
conviction, he urged the court to award the death penalty only if culpability 
is absolutely certain. Now, Judge Shinde has the task of defining the direction 
of the debate on capital punishment with his verdict.

(source: Editorial, The Hindu)