[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

June 19




SAUDI ARABIA:

Do not execute protesters



Urgent - executions in Saudi Arabia can happen at any time, with no warning. 
Take action now!

18 young people could be beheaded at any time for the 'crime' of protesting 
against the Saudi government. Some were sentenced to death for attending 
protests when they were children. All were brutally tortured into confessing.

Saudi Arabia claims to be reforming under its Vision 2030 programme, but these 
executions could come at any time. Urge Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to 
commute their death sentences.

Petition text

To Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia:

We call on you to stop the execution of eighteen young men in Saudi Arabia. 
Executing protesters, including 8 children and a disabled man, would be an 
appalling breach of international law and undermine any claims of reform.

see: https://act.reprieve.org.uk/page/content/saudiexecutions

(source: act.reprieve.org.uk)

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

In Saudi Arabia, Countering Terrorism Becomes Chimera for Rights Abuses



Saudi Arabia's drive to counter terrorism has become a convenient chimera to 
support crackdowns on legitimate public dissent and political or social 
activism of any kind, and the campaign has turned into an indiscriminate tool 
wielded to stigmatize critics of the state as terrorists. Those are our 
conclusions based on research and 2 comprehensive visits to the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia by one of us, Ben Emmerson, while he was serving as Special 
Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights While Countering 
Terrorism, an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Human Rights 
Council. The findings are outlined in detail in a country report issued last 
week with co-author, Fionnuala Ni Aolain, his successor as Special Rapporteur.

While expressing gratitude for the Kingdom's transparency and courteous, 
constructive and cooperative approach during the 2 visits, the report 
articulates grave and sustained concerns about Saudi Arabia's human rights 
record, and makes clear that Saudi Arabia's practices are inconsistent with its 
treaty obligations. The results call for clear and compelling changes, all the 
more because this state occupies a seat on the Human Rights Council.

We apply both international human rights and humanitarian law to assess Saudi 
Arabia's human rights record, and find that both bodies of law apply to the 
country's recent extra-territorial operations in Syria and Yemen.

The Report pays particular attention to Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism 
legislation, the most significant of which is the Law of Terrorism Crimes and 
its Financing, which was approved by the King in December 2013 and entered into 
force on Feb. 1, 2014. Interior Ministry regulations issued on March 7, 2014, 
extended the counter-terrorism law's definition of terrorism by adding to the 
list of acts classed as terrorism. On Oct. 31, 2017, the Saudi Council of 
Ministers adopted a further Law on Combating Crimes of Terrorism and its 
Financing, which replaced the 2014 framework. This new law transfers extensive 
powers from the Interior Ministry (which was reorganized in 2017) to the newly 
established Public Prosecution and Presidency of State Security, both of which 
report directly to the King.

We are particularly concerned at the wide and nefarious definition of terrorism 
contained in Saudi Arabia's domestic legislation. The 2014 law had a very broad 
definition of terrorist crimes. It encompassed any act "directly or indirectly 
intended to disturb the public order of the state, or to destabilize the 
security of society, or the stability of the state, or to expose its national 
unity to danger, or to suspend the basic law of governance or some of its 
articles, or to insult the reputation of the state or its standing, or to 
inflict damage upon one of its public utilities or its natural resources."

The report of the Special Rapporteur notes that:

Anyone, whether Saudi Arabian or a foreign national, whether inside the country 
or abroad, who is accused of such conduct could be prosecuted as a "terrorist" 
inside Saudi Arabia. This included those who attempted to "change the ruling 
system in the Kingdom" or "harmed the interests, economy, and national and 
social security of the Kingdom." Under such a broad definition, anyone 
challenging the authority or policies of the state could qualify as a 
terrorist.

The Interior Ministry regulations, issued on March 7, 2014, extended the 
counter-terrorism law's already overly broad definition of terrorism to include 
such acts as "calling for atheist thought in any form, or calling into question 
the fundamentals of the Islamic religion on which this country is based." The 
definition also included anyone who had "contact or correspondence with any 
groups, currents [of thought], or individuals hostile to the Kingdom;" anyone 
"seeking to shake the social fabric or national cohesion, or calling, 
participating, promoting, or inciting sit-ins, protests, meetings, or group 
statements in any form;" and anyone "who harms the unity or stability of the 
Kingdom by any means."

The Ministry's guidance states that anyone could be considered as committing an 
act of terrorism by "attending conferences, seminars, or meetings inside or 
outside [the Kingdom] targeting the security of society, or sowing discord in 
society;" as well as those "inciting or making countries, committees, or 
international organizations antagonistic to the Kingdom."

We are deeply concerned that the definition of terrorism in the 2014 Law on 
Counter Terrorism and its Financing is overly broad and fails to comply with 
international human rights standards. The concept of terrorism should be 
confined to acts or threats of violence committed for political, ideological, 
religious, or other motives, aimed at spreading fear among the population - or 
sections of it - to coerce a government or international organization to take - 
or refrain from taking - any action.

The 2014 law criminalizes a wide spectrum of acts of peaceful expression, 
opinion, assembly, and association, as well as freedom of thought and religion. 
This has a seriously restrictive impact on civil society, as almost any 
non-governmental political action can be criminalized as an act of terrorism.

The report also addresses a number of other substantive concerns about human 
rights protections in Saudi Arabia, including the systematic use of 
counter-terrorism law to stifle dissent. Human rights defenders, religious 
figures, writers, journalists, academics, and civic activists have all been 
targeted by counter-terrorism law in Saudi Arabia. We are deeply concerned at a 
pattern of systematic repression in the country's Eastern Province, where the 
majority Shi'a population resides.

The concept of a fair trial in terrorism cases remains highly fraught and is 
not implemented in practice. Examples include a lack of habeas corpus 
guarantees; trials proceeding in secret and/or in the absence of defense 
lawyers; and trials in absentia with no effective defense.

The visits confirmed earlier, broadly consistent reports of torture and the 
ill-treatment of detainees; arbitrary arrests and detention; violations of the 
right to independent legal counsel in detention (a key protection against 
abuse); the absence of genuinely independent medical examinations of suspects 
alleging torture; the practice of holding suspects incommunicado or in secret 
detention; the admission of evidence obtained under torture in breach of Saudi 
Arabia's obligations under Article 15 of the Convention against Torture; and 
executions following manifestly unfair trials.

Saudi Arabia's failure to provide minimum procedural safeguards during 
detention and interrogation and its judicial practice of admitting coerced 
confessions into evidence strongly suggest that these practices are officially 
endorsed. The situation in Saudi Arabia amounts to a systematic and flagrant 
denial of justice in this regard.

The report also takes a close look at the use of the death penalty in 
terrorism-related trials. We are deeply concerned at the use and misuse of the 
death penalty in cases where fair trial is not guaranteed, including against 
minors. We are blunt in our assessment and must be deeply critical of the 
state's practices.

The circumstances surrounding the execution of the death penalty can constitute 
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment or even torture. The 
methods of execution employed in Saudi Arabia include beheadings (by a 
swordsman) followed by crucifixion - the public display of the body. Stoning to 
death and execution by firing squad are also commonplace. Sometimes the 
individual's hands and legs may be amputated following their execution by 
beheading, and the families may be denied access to the deceased's body. People 
are executed in this way not only for grave crimes of violence, but for the 
so-called "crimes" of adultery, apostasy, witchcraft, and sorcery.

The Special Rapporteur considers that Saudi Arabia's use of the death penalty 
is archaic, inhumane and degrading, not only to the person who is executed but 
to all who contribute to it and those who take part as spectators. It demeans 
and degrades the people of Saudi Arabia as a whole.

The report concludes by observing that:

When Saudi Arabia presented its candidature for membership of the Human Rights 
Council, it pledged to commit itself to the highest standards of human rights 
protection. The picture that emerges from this report casts doubt upon whether 
it was wise for Saudi Arabia to be admitted to the council, and threatens to 
undermine the authority of the council itself in the eyes of the world. The 
special rapporteur accordingly calls upon Saudi Arabia to demonstrate, through 
concrete measures, that it genuinely intends in the future to "uphold the 
highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights," and to 
comply with the commitments it made in March 2016 when putting itself forward 
as a candidate to [the] Human Rights Council.

(source: justsecurity.org)








PAKISTAN:

Pakistan's Asia Bibi Completes 9 Years in Prison for Being Christian



On Tuesday Asia Bibi will complete her 9th year of imprisonment for her 
Christian faith after being arrested for blasphemy in 2009 and sentenced to 
death by hanging in 2010.

In June 2009, Pakistani police arrested Asia Bibi on charges of blasphemy 
following complaints by Muslim women backed up by an Imam, who claimed she had 
insulted the prophet Muhammad.

The accusations followed on a row between Bibi and a group of Muslim coworkers. 
She had been harvesting berries in a field with a group of Muslim women who 
grew angry with her for drinking out of the same metal water bowl as them, 
insisting that as a Christian she was unclean.

>From the outset Ms. Bibi has vehemently denied the charges of insulting the 
prophet. She claims that when her coworkers made derogatory statements about 
her faith, she merely answered: "I believe in my religion and in Jesus Christ, 
who died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Muhammad 
ever do to save mankind?"

In November 2010, Bibi received the death sentence by the lower court in Nanka 
district and 4 years later the Lahore High Court confirmed the verdict. She 
imprisoned in the Multan female prison.

Wilson Chowdhry, chairman of British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA) 
said last week that Bibi has been the victim of intense persecution for 
comparing Christ's sacrifice with the prophet.

"She spoke about the wonderful sacrifice Christ made of his life for us and 
asked the simple question, 'What has Muhammad done for you?' For that, this 
torture, this beating, this isolation, attempts to assassinate her," he said.

"We've never heard of such animosity that would result in, in essence, the 
whole country being against her. It has been really awful; she's been separated 
from her 5 children for the whole period of that time," he added.

At least 2 public figures have died for speaking out in support of Asia Bibi.

Former Governor of Punjab Salman Taseer and former Minister for Minorities 
Shabbaz Bhatti, Pakisttan???s only Christian minister, were both assassinated 
for raising concerns over Bibi's incarceration and calling for a review of the 
infamous blasphemy laws.

Bibi's husband and their family have reportedly been offered asylum in several 
western nations.

Pakistan has some of the harshest blasphemy laws in the world, prescribing the 
death penalty for the crime of insulting the Prophet Muhammad and life 
imprisonment for offending the ?Koran, Islam holy book.

The blasphemy laws are an extremely sensitive issue in ?the predominantly 
Muslim nation where Christians make up less than 2 % of the population.

Critics of Pakistan's blasphemy laws say the legislation is often abused to 
settle personal vendettas between families and individuals.?

The "pernicious blasphemy laws of Pakistan have to be terminated; they serve no 
purpose in modern-day society and are not even sanctioned by the Quran," 
Chowdry said. "Moreover, what divine being would need man-made laws for 
protection?"

Pope Francis held a private meeting in the Vatican with Asia Bibi's husband and 
their youngest daughter Eisham last February 24 during an event organized in 
Rome to express solidarity for persecuted Christians around the world.

(source: breitbart.com)








NEPAL:

Bring back for better----Sentence transfer is a reformative justice tool that 
protects the rights of migrants



A large number of Nepali migrant workers have been languishing in jail in 
several prominent destination countries. Many are on death row or facing life 
imprisonment. Yet despite the gravity of their sentences, Nepali prisoners are 
frequently not informed of the offences with which they have been charged. The 
harsh reality is that these populations are particularly vulnerable to threats 
and abuses. The blatant disregard of foreign criminal justice systems for their 
fundamental human right to access to justice, or more specifically, their 
entitlement to legal aid and assistance, has sparked a huge outcry among Nepali 
migrant workers.

The recent amendment to the Foreign Employment Rules, followed by the 
government's optimism towards advancing the right to legal assistance to those 
in foreign jails, is welcome and praiseworthy. As the Ministry of Labour, 
Employment and Social Security is actively exploring transformative, yet 
practical, possibilities vis-a-vis access to justice and legal assistance for 
migrant workers, the government should keep in mind recent developments and 
global best practices regarding justice modules.

One such development is the 'transfer of sentenced prisoners' or 'sentence 
transfer', a widely discussed, popular alternative to implementing prison terms 
abroad. Unlike extraditions, a sentence transfer is an international process 
that is only applicable after a foreign court returns a final verdict and 
declares a consequential punishment. Through sentence transfer, an inmate in a 
foreign jail is sent to a prison located in his or her native country to serve 
the remainder of the sentence.

Rationale of sentence transfer

The rapidly spreading wave of the idea of 'reformation equals justice' marks a 
paradigm shift in global conceptions of criminal justice, from viewing 
sentencing as a retributive or punitive measure to an educational or 
correctional tool. The decades-long struggle between healing and killing 
approaches to justice logically concludes with the majority of the modern world 
finding that killing is, and was never, the ultimate solution. Instead, 
criminal justice systems should approach crime as a disease, with criminals in 
need of holistic treatment.

Consequently, the international community has embraced this attitude by 
adopting the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, especially 
the second optional protocol on abolition of death penalty. Many leading 
nations have been fighting to implement this correctional justice approach 
domestically by dismissing and reforming hardcore punitive approaches. 
Critically, such nations have meticulously sought to bring their nationals, who 
are facing criminal sentences in foreign countries, home with the aim of 
rehabilitating and re-socialising them and preparing them for reintegration 
into society. Against the backdrop of reformation and reintegration, sentence 
transfer has been a widely appreciated and important tool.

Almost all institutions and instruments that regulate international sentence 
transfers indicate that social rehabilitation is one of the primary grounds 
supporting such transfers. Research proves that social rehabilitation and 
reintegration success is correlated with and bolstered by the prisoners' 
regular communication with family members and their opportunity to form social 
links and solidarity with fellow inmates who belong to similar religious, 
cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

When considering the diverse and distinctive legal structures worldwide, 
sentence transfer, with its positive impact on prisoner rehabilitation, is even 
more meaningful for Nepali citizens sentenced in regions of the world that 
commonly attract migrant workers. In certain destination countries, such as the 
Gulf countries, non-citizens are extremely at risk of being denied their basic 
fundamental rights to a fair trial and free legal assistance. As such, sentence 
transfer becomes an essential instrument for a country to protect its citizens' 
rights across the globe.

International laws

Although it sounds like a new concept in Nepal, sentence transfer has been 
widely practiced around the world and is supported by various regional and 
international human rights instruments. The European Convention on the 
International Validity of Criminal Judgments, Inter-American Convention on 
Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad, and UN Conventions against Transnational 
Organised Crime, including the UN Model Agreement on the Transfer of Foreign 
Prisoners, are but a few international instruments approving and facilitating 
the transfer of sentences.

Taking into consideration international best practices, countries have been 
implementing sentence transfer through one of two methods. Some countries have 
adopted new legislation and accordingly signed a bilateral or multilateral 
treaty with other states based on the pertinent act. For example, India enacted 
the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 2003 and subsequently signed bilateral 
agreements with countries like Australia, among others, to govern transfers of 
sentenced persons between the 2 countries. The 2nd method involves countries 
simply incorporating sentence transfer provisions into their international 
agreements. For example, in 1963, the Scandinavian governments created a 
multilateral arrangement whereby nationals of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway 
and Sweden could be transferred with the consent of the prisoner.

In Nepal, the very recent Sentencing Act 2018, which is slated to become 
effective by mid-August, indicates that the country is progressing towards 
restorative justice goals by introducing new endeavours in the parole system to 
socialise prisoners. In this new system, potential sentence transfer mechanisms 
would significantly increase the likelihood that migrant workers sentenced 
abroad would have a realistic chance to reform and live productive lives. 
Beyond this individual opportunity, the system also provides avenues for 
prisoners to work for the benefit of their home communities, increasing 
multiplier effects to local areas and general social welfare.

In light of these facts, international practices and trends, and Nepal's newly 
amended Foreign Employment Rules and upcoming Sentencing Act, the government of 
Nepal should duly consider the benefits and prospects of sentence transfer in 
the upcoming amended Foreign Employment Act and when signing new bilateral 
labour agreements with destination countries.

(source: Op-Ed; Anurag Devkota is an advocate specialising in the rule of law 
and human rights----kathmandupost.ekantipur.com)








SOUTH KOREA:

S. Korea pushing for official declaration on abolition of death penalty



South Korea is pushing for a presidential declaration on the abolition of 
capital punishment, the state human rights watchdog said Monday, resuming 
efforts toward doing away with the long-disputed measure, in step with the 
growing international trend.

"We are working to bring an announcement by President Moon Jae-in on a 
moratorium on the use of the death penalty around the time of this year's 70th 
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," Shim Sang-don, chief 
of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)'s policy and education bureau, 
told reporters.

Such a moratorium would be one step in the formal process toward abolition. The 
watchdog has started working-level discussion with the Ministry of Justice for 
action plans, Shim added.

South Korea retains capital punishment as part of state-sanctioned practices 
for punishing serious crimes. But it has not carried out a death sentence on 
prisoners on death row since December 1997, nor has the country officially 
declared its discontinuance.

The NHRC has maintained its stance in support of repealing the death penalty, 
citing international standards. The watchdog recommended its abolishment to the 
National Assembly in April 2005 and submitted a similar petition to the 
Constitutional Court in July 2009.

Public opinion is largely in line with moves to abolish the measure, but 
failure to reach consensus on alternatives to replace it with has held back the 
move.

Shim indicated that the situation may be different this time.

"President Moon gave a positive response regarding abolition when we brought up 
the issue at the meeting last December," he said.

The NHRC plans to hold a hearing on capital punishment in September and carry 
out research on the issue, with a focus on alternative measures.

Data from correctional authorities show that there are currently a total of 61 
prisoners, including military officers, that have been sentenced to death in 
South Korea.

(source: Yonhap News)








INDIA:

Life on Death Row----"One inmate invited us to his execution like it was his 
wedding."



A man convicted of raping and murdering a woman had been sentenced to death by 
a high court. He was several years into serving his sentence when Angela Joseph 
came to see him. He told her that the police forcibly took semen from him in 
custody, and framed him. This was Joseph's 1st interaction with an inmate. She 
felt he might have been reluctant or awkward because of her gender. A male 
colleague with her took over the case. "I felt so rejected," she said.

There are currently 408 prisoners sentenced to death in India. Joseph, 34, is a 
trained clinical psychologist and works with inmates on death row. She is a 
part of a project undertaken by the Project 39A at National Law University at 
Dwarka, Delhi (earlier known as Centre on the Death Penalty). She is also 
joined by Maitreyi Misra, 33 and Peter John, 26. They tell us they've 
interviewed "close to 100 death row prisoners". The project aims to "undertake 
a descriptive analysis of the lived experience of prisoners on death row with a 
focus on mental health" and was launched in 2015, with the interviews beginning 
in November 2016.

What must it feel like to be constantly aware of one's impending state 
sanctioned death? John admitted "The normalcy of these interactions kind of 
throw me off." Misra, who is a lawyer, chipped in, "Sometimes they 
[conversations] are silly and sometimes they are philosophical."

Misra who was instrumental in starting this project told me, "I was once 
interviewing an inmate who was under severe depression. He had been accused of 
raping and murdering a minor." Because prisoners who commit heinous crimes are 
thought of as demons, Misra said, no one was eager to talk to him. "It was 
terrible." Prison officials dismiss it by saying "Depression hi toh hai," she 
tells me.

Depression is common. "Courts take notice when suicides occur inside prisons, 
not when depression has been building throughout." Misra pointed out. Indian 
prisons have a severe dearth of mental health professionals and trained staff.

Once, an inmate gifted Misra a painting he had made. "Take this from me. Maybe 
you'll remember me after I am dead," Misra recalled him saying.

Another inmate asked John to come to his execution, "as if he was inviting us 
to a wedding". "It was ridiculously mundane the way he said it."

Joseph recollected a particularly interesting conversation with a man who had 
been convicted of murder. "The deceased's wife was the one responsible for him 
being in the prison." In India, prisoners on death row face harrowing living 
conditions and torture. "In spite of all the misery, he could still find it in 
his heart to forgive that woman." She believes she learns from these 
conversations with inmates every time. "This man was not an educated person, he 
has not read a thousand books. He has his own life experiences to guide him."

John believes that "praying had the connotation of redemption", and recalled 
another interaction with an inmate. "The man was telling me that he was very 
young when his father abandoned him. He was kind of riffing and trying to make 
sense of his own abandonment while talking. He is using you as a sounding board 
to make sense of his life." John recalled, "He came to the conclusion that he 
has a responsibility to ensure that he doesn't become like his father but he 
realised that he in some ways has replicated that. Because he is no longer with 
his family."

Abandonment was another dominant theme. "This was something we noticed in a lot 
of prisoners, a lot of abandonment that have happened to them throughout their 
lives," John said. John is interested in understanding how prison research and 
religion are intertwined and is pursuing his research on "human sacrifice, 
mental illness and capital punishment." He was reading a judgement and the 
"judge used the word demonic to describe one of the prisoners who was on death 
row." It was interesting as that "harkened back to the idea of demonic 
possession as a source of mental illness.:

Between the 3 of them, it's not just the inmates' stories that they carry with 
them but also their families. For Joseph, it's when she is talking to the 
inmates' families that shades of gray begin to appear. "Stepping into their 
world and seeing repercussions of someone's else' actions on their lives, it is 
hard."

Joseph once met a boy in his early 20s whose father had been convicted of rape 
and murder and was now serving a death sentence. "This boy had it rough. His 
home was destroyed. And he had to move different localities. He has to guard 
his identity." Joseph met him at a place where the boy had last met his father. 
"You can see that it is a constant war that he is waging within himself just to 
survive." He also has to take care of his mother, his brother who has some kind 
of mental illness. He is taking responsibility plus fighting an internal 
battle. A part of him wants to reach out to his father but at the same time he 
knows that it is because of his father they have landed in this situation."

Joseph claimed that the children of condemned inmates usually "build an armour 
around themselves." They have survival instincts, these kids, and they rise 
above those circumstances but a part of them is also hardened."

And then there are other indignities meted out to those inside. Joseph once 
addressed an inmate as ji in conversation with a prison official, who snapped, 
"how can you call him ji? This is a criminal we are talking about." Only the 
interviewers get proper chairs during a session. The inmate sits on a tiny 
steel stool. Someone of these interviews have gone on for 5 hours. An inmate is 
never served tea during an interview. "We don't want the tea but they put the 
cups in front of us. There is never any tea for the inmate," Joseph said.

The Centre on Death Penalty does not have a stance on capital punishment. Misra 
explains, "Our aim really is to make the state accountable." I ask them about 
their own views on the death penalty. "It is a complicated question. But I do 
think that it is a good way for the state to say that they have done something 
without actually bringing in any systemic changes," said Misra. "As someone 
with an anthropological background, I would refrain from saying that capital 
punishment is intrinsically evil. That being said, I do think that 
industrialist democracies use state-sanctioned murder in truly despicable ways 
that have little to do with the cultural expression of violence. In India 
especially, it is has been and will be unsustainable."

(source: vice.com)