[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

February 17





PAKISTAN:

Pakistan submits reply before ICJ in Kulbhushan Jadhav case



Pakistan on Saturday submitted its reply in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case to the 
International Court of Justice (ICJ) before the Monday’s hearing where India 
will contest the convicted spy’s death row.

Kulbhushan, who India says was kidnapped from Iran, has been sentenced to death 
by a Pakistani military court. Kulbhushan, 46, was charged convicted of 
espionage and sentenced to death in April 2017, following which India moved The 
Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ).

A 10-member bench of the ICJ had in May 2017, restrained Pakistan from 
executing Kulbhushan till adjudication of the case.

Pakistan claims its security forces arrested Kulbhushan from Balochistan on 
March 3, 2016, after he allegedly “entered Pakistan from Iran”. India, however, 
maintains that Kulbhushan was kidnapped from Iran where he had business 
interests after retiring from the Indian Navy.

India’s lawyers will present their arguments on Monday to the top UN court, 
which was set up after World War II to resolve international disputes. This 
will be followed by Pakistan’s lawyers presenting their case on Tuesday.

Islamabad reacted to the ICJ’s urgent order to stay Kulbhushan Jadhav’s 
execution at the time, but said it “has not changed the status” of Kulbhushan 
Jadhav’s case “in any manner”.

The case comes at a time when the already-strained ties between India and 
Pakistan took a further plunge following the terror attack in Kashmir’s 
Pulwama.

More than 44 paramilitary troops were killed as explosives (RDX) packed in a 
car ripped through a convoy bringing 2,500 soldiers back from leave. The terror 
attack happened less than 25 kilometres from Srinagar.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that the public hearing of 
Kulbhushan Jadhav will commence from Monday. However, MEA spokesperson Raveesh 
Kumar declined to go into the details of it.

WHAT INDIA NEEDS TO ANSWER:

According to sources, Pakistan has submitted 6 key points which India will need 
to answer. These include:

India says Commander Jadhav was an innocent Indian national who was kidnapped 
from Iran to make him confess to being an Indian RAW agent. Why has India 
failed to make good this allegation despite repeated requests for evidence that 
he was kidnapped?

India says Commander Jadhav retired from the Indian Navy. Why has India failed 
to explain when/why he retired as he was only 47 years old when arrested?

India refuses to explain how Commander Jadhav was in possession of an authentic 
Indian passport issued in a false ‘cover’ Muslim name ‘Hussein Mubarak Patel’ 
which he had used at least 17 times to enter/exit India. India has been asked 
this question many times (even by highly respected Indian senior journalists 
such as Praveen Swami and Karan Thapar) but simply says this is “irrelevant” or 
“mischievous propaganda”. India eventually said the passport was “clearly a 
forgery” but refuses to explain this statement, or why a highly credible 
independent UK expert is wrong when he says it is an authentic Indian passport 
issued by the Indian authorities. Why not?

India demands that the ICJ orders the “return” of Commander Jadhav to India. 
However, the ICJ has repeatedly stated it is not a criminal court of appeal. It 
has always so far made it clear in all its decisions that, even if consular 
access was denied, the proper order is for there to be effective review and 
reconsideration by the local Courts. Commander Jadhav and his family have been 
able to seek this at any time since 10th April 2017 in accordance with Article 
199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Instead, India launched proceedings in the 
ICJ 14 months after he was arrested and a month after he was convicted to seek 
a ‘stay’ order without a hearing. Why is India asking for an order for “return” 
in the face of the ICJ’s decision and the independent expert evidence 
confirming Pakistan has effective review and reconsideration before the high 
court and Supreme Court?

India has failed to explain why the Agreement on Consular Access between India 
and Pakistan dated 21 May 2008 (which India drafted), and which provides (at 
Article (vi)) for either State to be entitled to consider a request for 
consular access “on its merits” where it involves a person implicated in 
national security matters, does not apply in this case?

India fails to explain why highly respected UK-based military law experts are 
wrong when they say that Pakistan’s high court and Supreme Court provide an 
effective review and reconsideration of the military court process.

BACKGROUND:

The salient aspects of the case are:

On 3rd March 2016, Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested in the Balochistan 
province of Pakistan, having illegally and clandestinely entered Pakistan from 
Iranian territory. India has said that Commander Jadhav was “kidnapped” from 
Iran – but has provided no substantive evidence underpinning such an 
allegation. Commander Jadhav was carrying an Indian passport in the name of 
‘Hussein Mubarak Patel’.

On 25th March 2016, Pakistan shared with the world at large Commander Jadhav’s 
confession (confirmed before a Magistrate) as a serving officer of the Indian 
Navy, who was operating for India’s Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), to having 
been involved in crimes of espionage and terrorism directed toward the 
infrastructure and people of Pakistan, including the Gwadar port and various 
facilities involved in the prominent China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). 
India says that Commander Jadhav retired from the Indian Navy (but has not said 
when or provided any further detail). From 25th March 2016, India sought 
consular access to Commander Jadhav, which India says was denied. Pakistan says 
that an express agreement between India and Pakistan (drafted by India) headed 
Agreement on Consular Access entered into in 2008, at Article (vi), entitles 
either State to consider a request for Consular Access upon the merits where it 
involves a person implicated in National Security matters.

Pakistan sent a letter making specific requests of India to assist in the 
investigation of Commander Jadhav on 23 January 2017 attaching copies of the 
authentic Indian Passport Commander Jadhav was using in the name of ‘Hussein 
Mubarak Patel’, as well as the FIR and other material relating to the 
investigation into Commander Jadhav’s activities. India did not provide any 
assistance at all nor any evidence (either inculpatory or exculpatory) of 
Commander Jadhav.

Commander Jadhav was provided with legal representation, and after several 
hearings, he was tried and convicted by a Military Court in Pakistan, which 
passed the death sentence on 10th April 2017. Pakistan’s legal system, 
including its Constitution, provides for the availability of clemency petitions 
as of right to the Chief of Army Staff and then to the President of Pakistan. 
In addition, judicial review by Pakistan’s High Court and Supreme Court of the 
Military Court process and judgment is available pursuant to Article 199 of the 
Constitution of Pakistan. Pakistan’s Courts have frequently stayed sentences 
imposed by the Military Court at the request of the convict or his family, 
often within hours of the sentence being passed. No application of this nature 
has ever been made to the Pakistani Courts by Commander Jadhav or his family.

Both India and Pakistan have previously signed and become parties to the Vienna 
Convention on Consular Relations 1963 (VCCR 1963). Furthermore, both India and 
Pakistan signed and became parties to a separate agreement (called the Optional 
Protocol) that gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the 
interpretation or application of the VCCR 1963.

PREVIOUS ICJ PROCEEDINGS:

On 8th May 2017, India commenced these proceedings before the ICJ alleging that 
Pakistan had committed a breach of the VCCR 1963 by failing to grant immediate 
consular access in respect of Commander Jadhav, and alleging that the Military 
Court procedure was flagrantly unfair. Centrally, the relief India sought was 
“at least” the acquittal/release/transfer to India of Commander Jadhav. India 
also demanded by way of Provisional Measures that the ICJ should immediately 
make an order (without even having a hearing) that Pakistan should be 
restrained from executing Commander Jadhav pending the full hearing of India’s 
claims.

As mentioned above, Pakistan’s civilian courts can and do routinely order a 
stay of execution pending the full hearing of legal challenges to decisions 
emanating from Pakistan’s Military Courts – they do so in order to preserve the 
status quo without making any decision as to the facts or merits. The Pakistani 
courts have shown themselves capable of acting very quickly (within hours) in 
this manner in response to an application for a stay of execution. It was 
therefore not unusual that the ICJ directed a stay of execution on 18th May 
2017 pending a full hearing.

Pakistan raised the following arguments on 15th May 2017:

Pakistan raises important arguments of international law that have never been 
raised or considered before, such as the existence in Customary International 
Law (as evidenced by the practices of States) of an ‘espionage exception’ to 
consular access (given the obvious dangers of allowing a state-sponsored 
spy/terrorist untrammelled communication with the authorities of his sending 
State that despatched him to commit unlawful acts);

Furthermore, Pakistan has drawn attention to a bilateral agreement concerning 
consular access as between India and Pakistan entered into in 2008 that clearly 
qualifies consular access in matters of national security;

Significantly, Pakistan has asked the ICJ to consider whether India has acted 
illegally (with the consequence that it should not be granted relief) in 
facilitating Commander Jadhav’s espionage/terrorism by providing him with the 
passport referred to above;

The passport was carefully examined by a UK-based highly regarded independent 
expert whose detailed report concludes it is an authentic passport issued by 
the competent Indian authorities in a false identity (“the Passport Issue”). 
India refuses to explain the Passport Issue and, instead, describes this as 
“irrelevant” or “mischievous propaganda”;

Also, 2 eminent independent experts (formerly senior officers of the British 
Army) carried out a review of the Military Court jurisdictions of several major 
countries around the world (including the USA, UK, India and Pakistan), and 
found that Pakistan’s own Military Court jurisdiction was sound in law and 
contained no manifest unfairness. They concluded that the High Court and 
Supreme Court of Pakistan provided an effective review process for the Military 
Court system.

On the previous occasions when the ICJ has considered the issue of death 
penalty / consular access, the ICJ has never ordered relief of “acquittal, 
release and return” such as that sought by India. The ICJ has repeatedly stated 
that it is not a Criminal Court of Appeal. Effective review of a conviction is 
available before the domestic Courts.

Despite having been on notice of Pakistan’s key arguments since the Provisional 
Measures phase, India insisted on a further round of pleadings. The ICJ granted 
permission, and India filed its Reply on 17th April 2018, to which Pakistan 
filed a detailed Rejoinder in response on 17th July 2018.

TIMETABLE:

The conduct modalities of the hearing are as under:

The ICJ has set a timetable for public hearings to be held on February 18-21 
2019 in The Hague (which will be live-streamed, including on the UN TV 
website).

India will go first, on 18th Feb 2019 (10:00-13:00 local time), then Pakistan 
will make submissions on 19th Feb 2019 (10:00-13:00 local time). India will 
reply on 20th Feb 2019 (15:00-16:30 local time). Pakistan will make its closing 
submissions on 21st Feb 2019 (16:30-18:00 local time).

It is expected that the ICJ decision may be held by the summer of 2019.

In accordance with the Rules of Court, all pleadings should be made available 
after the commencement of the hearing at 18 Feb 2019 (10:00 local time) on 
ICJ’s website.

Pakistan’s arguments are summarised in its Counter-Memorial (at paragraphs 
6-21) and its Rejoinder (at paragraphs 1-10). The experts’ reports referred to 
above are at Annexes 141 and 142 to the Counter-Memorial.

The legal arguments for the Government of Pakistan will be presented by English 
Queen’s Counsel Khawar Qureshi QC who also drafted the written pleadings. The 
delegation will be led by the attorney general of Pakistan. It is understood 
that India’s arguments will be presented by Mr Harish Salve.

(source: pakistantoday.com.pk)








BANGLADLESH:

Over 100 drug dealers surrender in Bangladesh crackdown----In 2018, Bangladesh 
launched a 'war on drugs' after the proliferation of illegal substances, mostly 
pills called 'yaba'.



Over 100 Bangladeshi drug dealers have surrendered to the authorities at a 
pre-scheduled ceremony in a coastal town seeking clemency and vowing to go back 
to a normal life.

The unprecedented event on Saturday was prompted by a Philippines-style massive 
anti-narcotic crackdown, which led to the killing of nearly 300 people and 
arrests of about 25,000 others since May of last year.

Bangladesh last year launched a "war" on drugs following a proliferation of 
illegal substances in the South Asian nation of 165 million people, mostly of 
cheap methamphetamine pills known as "yaba".

'I carry yaba to survive': Rohingya and Bangladesh's meth trade

Those who surrendered before the country's Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan at 
Teknaf town in the coastal Cox's Bazar district included drug traders, 
traffickers and several "godfathers".

They surrendered a total of 350,000 vanilla-scented, pink-coloured pills of 
"yaba" - which derives its name from a Thai word that means a "crazy medicine" 
- and dozens of illegal firearms.

"I was leading my life towards a wrong path. I regret my past activities," said 
Sirajul Islam, one of the drug traffickers who surrendered.

"I want your blessings so that I would be able to live a better life and work 
for building a drug-free society."

Islam hails from Teknaf, a southeastern coastal town bordering Myanmar, which 
is known as a hub of "yaba" smuggling and trading.

He was named in the list of 1,151 "yaba" traders prepared by the country's 
Ministry of Home Affairs after the proliferation of the pills in the past few 
years.

Of those traders, 73 were named the "yaba godfathers". On Saturday, a total of 
24 such godfathers surrendered, police sources said.

Data from the country's Department of Narcotics Control said some 7 million 
people use drugs, with "yaba" the most popular substance.

Law enforcerment officials seized a record 53 million yaba pills in 2018.

Are Bangladesh activists being killed amid the war on drugs?

In May of last year, Bangladesh started a Philippines-style war on drugs after 
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina declared a zero-tolerance policy against illegal 
drugs.

In October, Bangladeshi authorities made "yaba" a class-A banned substance and 
the country’s parliament passed a law allowing the death penalty for those 
dealing in the drug.

A 2nd chance

"This formal surrender is a part of the government's ongoing war against 
drugs," said Home Minister Khan at the programme. "Those who surrendered would 
be given a second chance to live a normal life."

"Those who haven't surrendered yet would face dire consequences," he warned.

Inspector General of Bangladesh Police Javed Patwary said the government will 
"sincerely try to ensure a better life to those who surrendered today, and if 
needed they will be rehabilitated".

"The police will also advocate for lesser sentences for them," said Patwary.

Cox's Bazar police superintendent ABM Masud Hossain told Al Jazeera that the 
surrender of drug dealers was conditional and their ill-gotten wealth would be 
investigated by the authorities.

"They will not receive any general amnesty but will have to face legal action 
as per the law," said Hossain, adding that two separate cases (for drugs and 
arms) will be filed against those who surrendered and they will be jailed.

When asked whether there would be any more public surrenders like this, Hossain 
said, "There might be. Our war against drugs hasn't ended with these 
surrenders. There are still a lot of traders out there."

Talking to Al Jazeera, human rights activist Nur Khan Liton said a number of 
drug dealers were killed "extra-judicially" last year.

"I believe those killings instilled fear among the drug dealers, thus this 
public surrender has happened."

Bangladesh: Extrajudicial killing fears in drug crackdown

Like the Philippines, Liton said, the current Bangladesh regime wanted to 
create a public spectacle out of this "war on drugs".

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's highly controversial anti-drug crackdown 
has killed thousands of alleged users and pushers since 2016.

"What we need to monitor is whether this war would really reduce the 
proliferation of drugs in Bangladesh," said Liton.

(source: aljazeera.com)








MALAYSIA:

2 key reasons why death penalty must go, says Ambiga



Former chairperson of Malaysian Bar Council S Ambiga is looking forward to the 
abolishment of the mandatory death penalty, a punishment she deems as 
oppressive.

Ambiga outlined 2 key reasons why the death penalty should be repealed namely 
the ineffectiveness of the punishment in deterring crime and the possibility of 
executing the innocent.

(source: malaysiakini.com)






TAIWAN:

Death row inmate’s request for inflatable love doll rejected



A man who has been awaiting execution since he was sentenced to death in 2010 
applied to purchase an inflatable love doll at his own expense, but had his 
request rejected by prison authorities.

Hsiao Renchun made his request in writing to prison authorities late last year, 
asking that prison administrators provide a place to store the love doll, and 
promising that he would clean the device after using it.

Hsiao, a baptized Christian, and model prisoner, also requested that he be 
allowed to grow his hair long so that he could donate his hair to make wigs for 
child cancer patients. However, both requests were denied by prison 
authorities. The Taipei Detention center currently holds 21 death row inmates.

In considering the application, the prison authorities looked to prison 
practices in other countries, including the USA, the European Union, and Japan, 
and decided that inflatable love dolls were not a life necessity.

As for Hsiao’s request to grow his hair for cancer patients, authorities 
decided that it would breach prison hygiene regulations limiting death row 
inmates hair to a length of no more than three centimeters.

After his requests were rejected, Hsiao sought the help of the Judicial Reform 
Foundation who have assisted Hsiao file a 1st and 2nd appeal regarding his 
requests to grow his hair for compassionate purposes.

Although the results of the appeal have not been released, the JRF expects that 
they are likely to be dismissed again, and have appointed a lawyer to help 
Hsiao file an administrative lawsuit.

Hsiao has been in detention for 23 years. After serving time for robbery with 
force and kidnapping for ransom, Hsiao was released on parole in 1995.

However, Hsiao continued his life of crime, committing a spate of robberies at 
medical clinics in Keelung, Taipei, and Chiayi County, until he was arrested 
for the robbery and brutal murder of a lawyer in Taipei City in 1996.

After a long series of litigation, trials, and appeals, Hsiao was eventually 
handed the death penalty in 2010.

(source: Taiwan English News)








INDIA:

On pretext of playing, neighbour allegedly rapes 18-month-old baby in open 
field----The police arrested the accused and booked him under IPC section 376AB 
and also relevant provisions of POCSO Act.



In a shocking incident, an 18-month-old girl was allegedly raped by a man in 
Madhya Pradesh’s Khandwa, police said. The accused, who was known to the 
victim's family, has been arrested, they said. The 20-year-old man took the 
minor girl from her parents on the pretext of playing with her, police 
inspector Jaipal Inwasi. He then allegedly raped her at an agriculture farm in 
Harsud area, some 50km from the district headquarters, he said. When the man 
did not return with the toddler till night, the girl's mother lodged a police 
complaint, Inwasi said. The police launched a search and found that the girl 
has been sexually assaulted, he said.

The police arrested the accused and booked him under IPC section 376AB and also 
relevant provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) 
Act, the inspector said.

Meanwhile, in a unrelated incident, a school teacher convicted for raping a 
4-year-old-girl has filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court 
against his death penalty, a prison official said. Mahendra Singh Gond (28) 
filed the SLP in the Supreme Court on February 11, challenging his death 
sentence in the rape case, Jabalpur Central Jail's law officer Ashok Singh 
said.

A trial court in Satna had earlier this month issued a 'death warrant' against 
Gond after the Madhya Pradesh High Court confirmed his death sentence on 
January 25, he said. The trial court had sent the death warrant, fixing his 
execution for March 2, 2019, through an e-mail to the Central Jail earlier this 
month.

The convict has other remedies also as he can file a mercy petition before the 
President, Singh said, adding the death warrant will be executed only after all 
the available legal remedies are exhausted.

The trial court had sentenced Gond to death under the recently-introduced 
Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 376(a)(b) (raping a minor under 12 years of 
age). Gond was also found guilty under IPC Section 363 (kidnapping), for which 
he was awarded seven years' rigorous imprisonment, besides being fined Rs 
5,000, Singh said.

According to the prosecution, the convict had raped the minor girl after 
kidnapping her from her house on July 1, 2018 and later dumped her in the 
bushes. The girl received severe injuries in the incident and was admitted to a 
Delhi-based hospital. Gond was later arrested by the police and a charge sheet 
was filed against him.

Madhya Pradesh was the 1st state to enact a law in December 2017, providing for 
death penalty for rapists of girls below 12 years of age. The Centre had 
brought an amendment in the IPC to punish the rapists of girls below 12 years 
of age with death last year.

(source: newsnation.in)








PHILIPPINES:

'No to death penalty, not even for terrorists' – Senate candidate Gutoc



Opposition senatorial bets reiterated their stance against the death penalty, 
with Mindanaoan candidate Samira Gutoc saying it shouldn’t be imposed even on 
terrorists.

“No to death penalty,” Gutoc answered when asked if “death penalty should be 
imposed on terrorists” during ABS-CBN’s "Harapan 2019" senatorial forum on 
Sunday, February 17.

Gutoc hails from Marawi City, which was ravaged in 2017 after a 5-month-long 
battle to flush out local armed groups whose leaders pledged allegiance to the 
international terrorist network Islamic State.

Because of the conflict in Marawi, the entire island of Mindanao remains under 
martial law.

Longtime human rights lawyer Chel Diokno was asked if he would favor the death 
penalty against a person who would rape or kill his child.

“I am strongly against death penalty because it is anti-poor. It is not the 
severity of the punishment but the certainty [of it] that stops crime,” Diokno 
said.

Diokno and Gutoc are part of the opposition Otso Diretso slate.

Physician Willie Ong, a candidate under Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats, said 
he favors the return of death penalty “if it’s for heinous crimes.”

In past senatorial forums, administration bets said they favored the death 
penalty, especially for drug-related crimes.

Former police chief Ronald "Bato" dela Rosa, former presidential political 
adviser Francis Tolentino, and reelectionist Senator JV Ejercito voted "yes" 
when asked if they favored the death penalty for drug offenders during CNN 
Philippines' senatorial forum last December.

Dela Rosa, Tolentino, and Ejercito are among the 11 candidates endorsed by 
President Rodrigo Duterte.

In the same CNN forum, former senators Serge Osmeña and Juan Ponce Enrile said 
they are not in favor of the death penalty. Other opposition bets Gary Alejano 
and Bam Aquino also said they are not in favor.

The House of Representatives has passed the bill reimposing the death penalty, 
but the proposal faces a bleak future in the current Senate.

The House version of the bill seeks to reimpose the death penalty for 
drug-related crimes.

(source: rappler.com)








SRI LANKA:

Priest: Sirisena, as a Buddhist, should be against the death penalty----Fr. 
Reid Shelton Fernando: "It is useless to reintroduce capital punishment, hate 
generates hatred". The government has canceled a moratorium in force for 43 
years. The provision after a meeting with his Filipino counterpart, Rodrigo 
Duterte. A nun proposes alternative penalties to hanging.



The President of Sri Lanka, Maithripala Sirisena, "claims to be a fervent 
Buddhist, but does not seem to have understood the message of the Buddha": Fr. 
Reid Shelton Fernando, well-known human rights activist and expert on 
socio-political phenomena.

The priest, formerly chaplain of the Young Christian Workers Movement, comments 
with AsiaNews about the head of state's decision to resume capital executions.

Last January 31, Sirisena announced that his government has canceled a 
moratorium in force for 43 years. While officials are already engaged in the 
search for 2 executioners, the 1st to risk death by hanging are drug dealers 
and drug traffickers held in prisons on the island.

The president's choice, by his own admission, matured after a meeting with his 
Filipino counterpart, Rodrigo Duterte. He is the promoter of a fierce war on 
drugs, which in the Philippines has so far caused over 5,000 official deaths 
(but for the activists the victims are more than 12,000).

"Hatred generates hatred and the reintroduction of the death penalty will not 
stop the drug trade", says Fr. Fernando. "In this way a just society will not 
be created. It is sad to note that the leaders of many religious denominations 
seem to support its provision. Perhaps, these are not up to their founders in 
solving this crisis ".

Sr. Jesmin Fernando, provincial superior of the Holy Family Association, also 
expressed her disappointment at the announced resumption of the death penalty. 
"I disagree," says the nun. "Every life has value in itself, there is always 
the possibility to go back and start a new life. There must be a way to punish 
those involved in trafficking and drug dealing. In my opinion, this could be 
the detention in an isolation regime and under strict surveillance for a 
certain period of time. Furthermore, the properties or money earned by inmates 
in their illicit activities could be used for their rehabilitation. Finally, 
they should publicly admit that their wrong actions and the people behind 
them".

(source: asianews.it)

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

200 kilo stone to test new hangman’s noose



The strength of the hangman’s noose which is slated to be imported will be 
tested with a 200 kilogramme stone, Sri Lanka Standards Institute (SLSI) 
Director General Dr. Siddhika Senaratne told the Sunday Times.

“The existing noose was found to be damaged and unusable,” she said. It is 12 
years old and had been imported from Pakistan.

There are no Sri Lankan regulatory standards that an imported noose should 
comply with.

“The SLSI will have to carry out a standards test based on the regulatory 
standards that are followed in the country from which the noose is being 
imported,” Dr Senaratne said.

This week, the Prisons Department advertised for two individuals of stable 
mental health and between 18 and 45 years, with “an excellent moral character” 
to be recruited as hangmen.

They would be paid a monthly salary of Rs 36,410 based on the Public 
Administration Circular 03/2016.

Amnesty International’s South Asia director Biraj Patnaik condemned the advert 
saying it should never have been published.

“There is no place for the death penalty in a civilised society,”

Mr. Patnaik said on his official Twitter account.

The last death penalty carried out in Sri Lanka is recorded to have taken place 
in 1976 with the execution of J.D. Siripala, a.k.a. ‘Maru Sira’, a murder 
convict.

Human rights activists have now turned towards religious leaders and questioned 
their silence.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference opposes the death penalty and called for 
“stringent security measures” to prevent drug dealings in prisons.

A statement said the death penalty was impermissible according to the Gospel.

This is because it is “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the 
person” who is subject to the death penalty.

This week, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) called for the 
withdrawal of the death penalty.

President Maithripala Sirisena resurrected the idea in the context of the 
narcotics menace.

“The ICJ opposes the death penalty in all circumstances – as it constitutes a 
violation of the right to life and its imposition constitutes per se cruel, 
inhuman, or degrading punishment,” the statement said.

It also called on the government to uphold its vote in favour of a moratorium 
on the use of death penalty during last year’s UN General Assembly.

The ICJ also urged Sri Lanka to sign the Second Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which obligates state 
parties to take measures to abolish the death penalty.

In the backdrop of condemnation, the Justice Ministry this week had sent a 
letter to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requesting that a noose be imported.

The letter had emphasised that the noose must be imported from a country which 
has implemented the death penalty.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Singapore were some of the countries listed in 
the letter.

(source: sundaytimes.lk)