[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

February 22



PAKISTAN:

India fails to answer critical questions in Jadhav case: Pakistan



Thursday was the last day of the Kulbhushan Jadhav case hearing at the Peace 
Palace in The Hague. Khawar Qureshi, representing Pakistan, began his final 
rebuttal before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by an unapologetic 
explanation of why Pakistan had to resort to “trenchant observations” in its 
rejoinder regarding India. Articulate and not one to mince his words, Qureshi 
once again chastised India for living in “wonderland” and persisting to the 
very end in seeking to “distract and deflect attention from its failure to 
answer critical questions by levelling accusations against Pakistan”.

India claims this case is only about denial of consular access whereas “it’s 
far from it”, claimed an uncharacteristically unrushed Qureshi. He found it 
absurd how India was reduced to equating the words of the Lahore High Court Bar 
Association secretary to the official position taken by the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan. He addressed what he termed as India’s “Kidnap Fiction” by 
highlighting Dr Mittal’s failure to identify any attempt by India to engage 
with Iranian authorities regarding Kulbhushan Jadhav’s alleged kidnapping. 
“Providing explanation will expose the fiction,” claimed Qureshi.

The Queen’s Counsel spoke of yet another attempt by India to mislead the court 
with the mention of “photographs” of its officials. There was only one 
photograph shown by Pakistan in the court, that of Indian national security 
adviser Ajit Doval. It was “illuminating” how India never denied the contents 
of his February 2014 speech at any point. India’s confusion with regards to 
whether there were 18 or 40 MLA requests was another example of its deflection. 
Another instance of “playing fast and loose with words”, according to Qureshi, 
was India referring to words such as “clinching and convincing and 
unimpeachable” for Indian journalists; words never used by Qureshi at any 
point.

“Have we come to so what?” inquired a bewildered Qureshi with reference to 
India’s consistent disregard of the passport issue and claiming it has no legal 
consequences. According to Khawar Qureshi, “submissions were based on clear, 
compelling, un-contradicted evidence”. It was in fact, rhetoric that has been 
used by India “by way of pure and hollow response on this issue”. It’s a “catch 
me if you can” mindset, said Qureshi, whereby “India seeks to twist the facts 
and break the law to suit its purpose, brazenly trampling on red lines”.

Qureshi clarified that Pakistan in no way wants what India contends it wants, a 
reading down of VCCR to exclude espionage. “Unless India contends that Article 
5(a) (compliance of international law) of VCCR and Article 55 (non interference 
in the internal affairs of a state) have no meaning” which would be consistent 
with India’s core stance of “behaviour of state is irrelevant,” added Qureshi.

Rebutting all of Indian counsel Harish Salve’s arguments from Wednesday, 
Qureshi sought to make it clear the preamble to the VCCR makes it clear that 
the position as at Customary International Law was unaffected in the absence of 
express provisions to the contrary in the VCCR. “Affirming that the rules of 
customary international law continue to govern matters not expressly regulated 
by the provisions of the present Convention”.

Throughout his hour-long rebuttal, Qureshi mocked Harish Salve’s use of the 
nonsensical word “studied moderation”. Pakistan has “maintained dignity and not 
allowed itself to be provoked” in the face of “linguistic gymnastics” of India, 
claimed Qureshi.

India had claimed on Wednesday that Pakistan had sought to mislead the court by 
hiding the fact that the Supreme Court had a pending appeal against the 
Peshawar High Court judgement against military court executions. An exasperated 
Qureshi wondered how a judgement becomes irrelevant or loses value by being the 
subject of an appeal, “in all legal systems a court’s decision is valid until 
declared otherwise by a superior court”.

Earlier, Pakistan’s Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan took exception to the 
“very strong and uncalled for criticism” made on the judicial system of 
Pakistan, in an “attempt to show that it has no review or reconsideration 
process”. In expanding on the “very robust system”, Khan continued to clarify 
that “the entire courts, whether regular civil/criminal courts, special courts, 
specialised tribunals or the military courts are created through the various 
Acts of Parliament, as prescribed by the Constitution”. With regards to India’s 
scathing criticism of secret proceedings held in Pakistan, he pointed out that 
“for reasons of state security, confidentiality and state secrets, some of the 
trials cannot be made public. This is true in almost all jurisdictions, 
including India”.

Khan went on to defend Pakistan’s military courts as being “governed by the 
Constitution and by all the statutes, including the laws of evidence, the 
Criminal Procedure Code and all similar laws. Thus, saying that the military 
courts are for some reasons incompetent or above the law is an incorrect 
assertion”.

While pointing out that the relief sought by India was outside the jurisdiction 
of this court, the AG did, however, shed some light on India’s demand for a 
retrial in civilian courts. “I surely want to bring forth the fact that there 
is an existing FIR against him in the civilian domain and that, in addition to 
the conviction so given, the case of terrorism is to commence against him.”

Pakistan’s attorney general on Thursday replied to India’s allegations by first 
reminding it how unclean its own hands were. Afzal Guru, who was refused a 
lawyer and even after being absolved of the charge of being from a terrorist 
organisation, handed down a death sentence to “satisfy the collective 
conscience of the society”, was a case in point. “I ask them, is that a ground 
for conviction under the law or Constitution. Is this fair trial in judicial 
review in India?” asked Khan.

He went on to recall the Samjhota Express terrorist attack in which more than 
42 Pakistanis were burnt alive and “Pakistan has requested that the 
perpetrators be brought to justice, but no action has since been taken. Indian 
has embarked on the process of exonerating the accused, who have confessed to 
carrying out this heinous act. Families of thousands of Muslims of Gujarat, who 
were massacred in 2002 with full state connivance, await justice”.

He was quick to point out how India has “become the judge, executioner and 
‘victim’, without any evidence to show or any inquiry held” in the Pulwama 
terror attack. However, most aptly bought up by Pakistan’s attorney general was 
the reference to Kashmir, “the atrocities committed by India, without any 
recourse for the victims. The Indian human rights have been a target all over 
the world. May I mention the use of pellet guns by the Indians on the innocent 
citizens of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, where more than 200 innocent 
civilians have lost their lives, more than 15,000 have been injured, more than 
15,000 are missing and more than 2,000 innocent men, women and children have 
been blinded for life by use of pellet guns. This includes 18-month-old Hiba, 
who would never be able to see, in her life.”

The court with the trans-national jurisdiction has reserved its verdict which 
is expected sometime in the next 6 months.

(source: dawn.com)








INDIA:

State of MP has not even cared to file Counter, Supreme Court commutes Death 
Penalty of Murder Accused



The Supreme Court today commuted the death penalty of a murder accused to life 
imprisonment. The Court also had some strong words for the State of Madhya 
Pradesh for the delay in deciding mercy petition and for failure to file 
counter-affidavit in the writ petition.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Deepak Gupta and 
Indira Banerjee.

By way of background, the petitioner Jagdish was tried for the murder of his 
wife and 5 children. He was convicted by the trial court in 2006 and sentenced 
to death. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the High Court and the 
death sentence was confirmed. Thereafter, he filed Criminal Appeal in Supreme 
Court which was dismissed in 2009.

The petitioner filed mercy petition before the jail authorities in 2009. The 
same came to be rejected by the President of India in 2014.

The petitioner then filed a Writ petition in Supreme Court in 2014 challenging 
the rejection of his mercy petition. The main ground taken by him was that 
there was a delay of almost 5 years in deciding the mercy petition and this 
itself is a ground to commute the death sentence to life imprisonment.

Thereafter, the petitioner also filed a Review Petition in which review of the 
2009 judgment of Supreme Court was sought both on merits and sentence.

Both the writ and review petitions were heard together by the Supreme Court.

The Court at the outset declined the review petition on merits. It held that 3 
courts have come to a concurrent finding of fact that it was the petitioner who 
murdered his wife and 5 children. From the written submissions of the parties, 
it could not find any reason to take a different view. The Court, therefore, 
made it clear that it will restrict itself to the sentencing aspect.

The Court noted the history of the case. The occurrence took place in 2005. The 
trial court completed the trial swiftly and delivered its judgment on April 24, 
2006. The High Court confirmed the sentence within 2 months on June 27, 2006. 
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on September 18, 2009.

The petitioner filed a mercy petition addressed to the President of India and 
the Governor of Madhya Pradesh through the jail authorities on October 13, 
2009. It was rejected only after five years on July 16, 2014.

The delay was from the side of Madhya Pradesh government and not the Government 
of India or Secretariat of Madhya Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh government took 
more than four years to forward the mercy petition to Union government, the 
Court noted.

“As far as the Government of India or the Secretariat of the President of India 
is concerned, there is no delay in dealing with the mercy petition and the same 
has been dealt with expeditiously. However, the State of Madhya Pradesh has 
given no explanation for the delay of more than 4 years in forwarding the mercy 
petition”

The delay in forwarding the petition is totally un­explained and the Court 
cannot countenance an un­explained delay of more than 4 years. The Court 
expressed its objection in strong words noting that mercy petition is the last 
hope of a person on death row.

“We are dealing here with the case of a person who has been sentenced to death. 
The mercy petition is the last hope of a person on death row. Every dawn will 
give rise to a new hope that his mercy petition may be accepted. By night fall 
this hope also dies.”

The Court also said that it has held on numerous occasions that in cases where 
a death penalty has to be executed, the same should be done as early as 
possible.

Further, the Court also observed that the Madhya Pradesh government did not 
even care to file any counter affidavit in the Writ Petition even though notice 
was issued 4 years back on November 18, 2014.

“We are constrained to observe that not only was there a long, inordinate and 
un­explained delay on the part of the State of Madhya Pradesh but to make 
matters worse, the State of Madhya Pradesh has not even cared to file any 
counter affidavit in the Writ Petition even though notice was issued 4 years 
back on 18.11.2014 and service was effected within a month of issuance of 
notice.”

Besides the delay in deciding mercy petition, the court also adverted to the 
fact that the petitioner has been behind the bars for 14 years.

“We are not only dealing with the issue of delay in disposal of the mercy 
petition. The petitioner has now been behind bars for almost about 14 years. 
This is also a factor which will have to be taken into consideration”

The Court, therefore, commuted the death penalty awarded to the petitioner to 
life imprisonment.

The Court, however, also made it clear that life imprisonment would mean 
imprisonment for the rest of the life and the petitioner shall not be released 
from prison till his death.

(source: barandbench.com)

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

Death penalty in Shakti Mills gang-rape case 'savage sentence': Convicts tell 
Bombay HC



The 3 men convicted in the Shakti Mills gangrape case told the Bombay High 
Court Thursday that the death penalty awarded to them by the sessions court in 
2014 was a "savage sentence" and violated their right to life.

The trio, through their lawyer, told the high court the death sentence violated 
their fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the 
Constitution.

The convicts, Vijay Jadhav, Kasim Bengali and Salim Ansari, represented by 
senior counsel Yug Chaudhry, argued that the death sentence awarded to them was 
wrong in law since there existed an "enormous difference between the harm 
caused" by them and "the punishment" mated out to them.

Chaudhry made the arguments before a bench of Justices B P Dharamadhikari and 
Revati Mohite-Dere that began the final hearing Thursday on the writ petitions 
filed by the convicts challenging the death sentence awarded to them under 
section 376 (E) of the IPC.

In April 2014, a sessions court here held 5 persons guilty in the August 2013 
gang-rape case in Mumbai, which had caused a national outrage.

One of them, Siraj Khan, was sentenced to life imprisonment, while a second 
accused, a minor, was sent to a correctional facility.

Jadhav, Bengali, and Ansari were sentenced to death under the then newly 
introduced section 376 (E) of the IPC since the three had also been convicted 
in a previous case of gang-rape.

The three, however, moved the HC soon after their conviction, challenging the 
constitutional validity of the law under which they were sentenced to death for 
a repeat offence.

The petitioners challenged the sessions court order allowing the prosecution to 
invoke section 376 (E) of the IPC when the trial was already underway.

They also challenged the constitutional validity of this section, brought in by 
the Union government after the infamous 2012 Delhi gang-rape case.

In March 2013, the Centre amended the rape laws in the country, introducing 
several stringent provisions, including section 376 (E).

This section says if a person, who has been previously convicted for rape under 
the IPC section 376, is subsequently found guilty in a similar offence, the 
courts can sentence him to imprisonment for the rest of his life, or, even 
award the death penalty.

On March 20, 2014, the 3 petitioners were convicted for raping a city-based 
photo-journalist in the premises of defunct Shakti Mills here.

The next day, while the sessions court was scheduled to begin arguments on 
their sentence, the state government moved an application, seeking framing of 
an additional charge under section 376 (E) since they had been convicted of 
raping another woman earlier.

The sessions court found merit in the prosecutions submissions and in April 
2014, awarded the maximum punishment of death to the three petitioners, noting 
they were repeat offenders.

Advocate Chaudhry, however, questioned Thursday the state's move to frame 
additional charges when the trial in the case was "almost complete".

He also argued that section 376 (E) was arbitrary and that it entailed 
disproportionate punishment.

"Section 302 under the IPC entails a minimum punishment of life and a maximum 
of death for an offence of murder. Section 376 (E), however, entails a minimum 
punishment of imprisonment for one's full life without any possibility of 
remission," he said.

"Therefore, is our legislation saying that the offence of repeat rape that 
doesn't cause homicide is harsher than the offence of murder?" Chaudhry asked.

"How can one prescribe death in a case where another life has not been taken?" 
he argued.

He cited several judgements of the Indian and American Supreme Courts mandating 
that the death sentence was an unfair punishment in cases of non-homicidal 
offences.

Such punishment, he said, had been termed by the US Supreme Court as a "savage 
sentence", he argued.

The arguments are likely to continue on Friday.

(source: business-standard.com)








SOUTH SUDAN:

South Sudan and the Inhumanity of the Death Penalty



I am deeply appalled by the continuous use of death penalty as the best form of 
punishment in our fractured society. In a span of one week, South Sudan has 
carried out 6 executions on inmates, some of who have not exhaust all their 
legal options, including the right to appeal for clemency to His Excellency the 
President of the Republic. REST IN PEACE!

This is a worrisome development in a country that is preaching forgiveness, 
tolerance and peace. It’s very painful that the government can embark on this 
undertaking when it has other weighty state responsibilities.

As concerned citizen of our nascent Republic, we are call to duty when the 
responsibility knocks on our doors. The duty to protect, preserve and defend 
the constitution does not only liewith the government, it’s a collective 
responsibility of every citizen. Our national heroes including our President 
gave their lives to liberate millions of us from the bondage of slavery.

I am not writing for the sake of making noise, my writing on the subject is a 
deep-seated belief in the application of fair justice. I am writing to correct 
what is fundamental wrong in our justice system that I beared witness.

The course of justice that led to the execution of these citizens is a 
distinctive process which seem not to have been entirely observed. It starts 
with a police officer responding to a crime and conduct an investigation. Once 
the suspect is fully interrogated, he/she is presented before a court of law. 
Upon conviction, he/she will be sentence and convict to the degree of his/her 
crime.

The convict has the right to appeal his conviction to higher courts including 
the Appeal and the Supreme courts. After exhausting all legal options, the 
convict has the right to apply for pardon to his Excellency the President of 
the Republic. If clemency plea is rejected by the President, it would be 
automatically presumed that the President has confirm the conviction and sign 
the execution order.

In three of the 6 cases executed, these standards seem not to have been 
followed. One guy whom I will not name for the sake of grieving family was 
tried in absentia even though he was in prison as a remand prisoner for more 
than 10 years. 3 other individuals were still waiting for their appeal 
judgement, eightyears since their conviction and subsequent appeal after 14 
days as the law requires. The appeal court, the second highestcourt did not 
pronounce any judgement prior to their executions. Have we now abandoned the 
rule of law, the cornerstone of justice?

These oversights amount to culpability and the weaknesses of the justice system 
in the Country. And the very reason why death penalty should not be carried out 
at all time. Fast it backward, 2 under age brothers were executed in 2017 in 
complete violation of their rights under article 21 of the South Sudan’s 
Transitional Constitution as amended. This article restricts the use of death 
penalty on any person under the age of 18.

These excesses affirm the UN General Assembly’s resolution 62/149 which stated 
that “Death Penalty undermine human dignity”. It further expounds that “any 
miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is 
irreversible and irreparable”.

When it comes to our laws, South Sudan Transitional Constitution has those safe 
guards. The right to life is the foundation of all human rights. The 
constitution grantee it under article 11, Life and Human Dignity, “Every person 
has the inherent right to life, dignity and the integrity of his or her person 
which shall be protected by law; no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or 
her life”. but still state officers are not ready to do the right thing.

What is puzzling, from time to time and despite the glaring facts, there is a 
concert denial from the government about the use of death penalty as a form of 
punishment in the country. There is this narrative that South Sudan has never 
executed anyone since its inception in 2011. You can’t fool all the people all 
the time.

The secrecy surrounding all these executions indicated that the state is guilty 
of the practice. It’s inhumaneand cruel to take out human life of which all 
other rights depend on. If you are not alive, you cannot claim any right. 
Anything that takes away human life from God gifted existence is tantamount to 
murder, the very thing that need to be corrected with that form of punishment.

Death penalty retentionist deterrent hypothesis is discarded long time ago. 
Countries that are still carrying out the death penalty on some of the most 
gruesome crime are still experiencing those crimes. It’s not the number of 
people that you hanged through state sanction killing that deter others from 
committing thosesame crimes. Human impulses determined action that lead to 
murder.

Resolution 62/149 of the UN General Assembly categorically declared that “there 
is no conclusive evidence that death penalty deterrent argument by many 
countries that retain capital punishment reduces crimes of murder from being 
committed in those countries”.

We are a progressive society. To be held in the bondage of historical form of 
justice as the best practices annihilate our best values as a society. Do we 
love to see human being struggling like a chicken, pleading for his/her dear 
life during the execution? With all the state power, his life is exterminated 
without his wish.

It is time to rethink as a country on the use of death penalty. I urge our 
leadership, Religious and Political leaders, our Parliamentarians who are the 
makers of our laws, the Executive headed by our President as the implementing 
authority of those laws to look at the logic of the use of death penalty. At 
the end of the day, you have 2 broken families and communities who have lost 
their dear one. One as a result of crime committed in what every form and the 
other one, a state sanctioned killing. We have been taught in school that 2 
wrong don’t make a right.

We must, as a country revisited and revise those laws like the penal code and 
the code of criminal procedures 2008. The discretion given by law to nearest 
family member in section 206 (b) of the penal code 2008 has been repeatedly 
misuse and has putted so many innocent people at risk. Section 48 of the same 
penal code, “Acts Committed by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common 
Intention” is no exception.

This section is being use without clearly demarcating the element of action and 
intention of each accuse in the crime. As long as the prosecution and the 
complainant have bundled you together, be sure you will be convicted together. 
Criminal actions that constitute a join act must clearly be outline in the text 
of the laws. Leaving it to individual judicial officers to interpret has 
resulted into too many miscarriages of justice.

We all belief as a country that laws are made to govern society, not to be use 
against the people. Immediate corrective measures need to be undertaken to 
arrest the situation, to stop further executions.

I personally appeal to our President’s usual human conscience to envoke his 
moratorium commitment under the UN charter to stay further execution. South 
Sudan as member state of the United Nations have obligation under international 
law to subscribe to best practices that are moving human dignityforward. We 
should strive to uproot those gallows at our midstto the museums, not to be 
seen ever again. It must never touch human born.

In the absent of the constitutional court, I appeal to His Excellency the 
President to consider setting up clemency review committee in his office to 
advise him on existing cases of death sentences with the view to commute them 
to life imprisonment.

(source: The author, Kur Ayuen Kou, is a South Sudanese Australian who lives in 
Melbourne, Australia ---- paanluelwel.com)








EGYPT:

Egyptian executions follow flawed trials, torture -UN rights office



The U.N. human rights office voiced concern on Friday that trials that led to 
the executions of 15 people in Egypt this month may have been unfair amid 
allegations that torture was used to obtain confessions.

Egypt executed 9 men on Wednesday convicted over the 2015 killing with a car 
bomb of the its chief prosecutor on Wednesday, adding to a surge in death 
sentences carried out in February, according to lawyers, activists and 
officials. 6 convicted people were executed in other cases.

"There is significant cause for concern that due process and fair trial 
guarantees may not have been followed in some or all of these cases, and that 
the very serious allegations concerning the use of torture were not properly 
investigated," U.N. human rights spokesman Rupert Colville told a briefing in 
Geneva.

All were murder cases, for which the death penalty is permissible under 
international law, Colville said, although the United Nations advocates its 
abolition. "The issue here is fair trial, the use of torture, forced 
confessions," he said.

Torture has been shown to be "well-established and endemic" in Egypt, Colville 
added, citing a U.N. investigation concluded in June 2017. "A confession 
obtained under torture should not be admissible," he said.

Egypt blamed the Muslim Brotherhood and Gaza-based Hamas militants for the 
operation to kill public prosecutor Hisham Barakat in a car bomb attack on his 
convoy in Cairo. Both groups denied having any role in the attack.

Colville said that other defendants convicted in similar circumstances, after 
trials marked by "disturbing reports of a lack of due legal process", are 
currently on death row and at "imminent risk of execution".

The U.N. human rights office urged Egyptian authorities to halt executions, 
review pending cases involving the death penalty, and conduct independent 
investigations into all allegations of torture, he said.

Since 2013, when the military under then-army chief and now President Abdel 
Fattah al-Sisi ousted Islamist President Mohamed Mursi, Egyptian courts have 
issued hundreds of death sentences. Only a small proportion have been carried 
out, though the rate of executions has risen since 2015, rights activists say.

(source: Reuters)

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

Former Egyptian VP calls for abolition of death penalty----Appeal comes day 
after Egyptian authorities execute 9 for alleged involvement in 2015 
assassination



Former Egyptian Vice-President Mohamed ElBaradei has decried Egypt’s frequent 
resort to capital punishment and has called for the abolition of the practice.

He made the assertion a day after the Egyptian authorities executed 9 people 
for alleged involvement in the 2015 assassination of Attorney-General Hisham 
Barakat.

“The death penalty is irreversible,” ElBaradei tweeted, going on to assert that 
the practice had been “universally rejected”.

“More than 170 countries have abolished capital punishment, either 
legislatively or in practice,” he said. “Less than 40 countries still use it.”

ElBaradei briefly served as vice-president following Egypt’s 2013 military 
coup, which led to the ouster of Mohamed Morsi, the country’s first 
democratically elected president and a Muslim Brotherhood leader.

The 9 men executed on Wednesday had been among 28 people sentenced to death in 
2017 for alleged involvement in Barakat's murder.

Earlier this month, the Egyptian authorities put 6 people to death in 2 
different cases for the murder of a senior police officer and the son of a 
prominent judge.

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

Germany to call out Egypt on executions: diplomat----Berlin in talks with Cairo 
following execution of 9 men in Egypt, says senior diplomat



Germany will call on Egypt to suspend death penalty and stop executions, a 
senior diplomat said Thursday.

“We are very concerned about the increase in death sentences and executions in 
Egypt,” the senior diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Anadolu 
Agency.

“We call on Egypt to immediately suspend the death penalty and stop the 
executions,” he stressed.

He underlined that the government will continue talks with Egyptian authorities 
and convey Berlin’s expectations for suspending death penalty and putting an 
end to executions.

“The German government will continue to raise this issue in talks with the 
Egyptian government. We are also in permanent contact with international human 
rights organizations,” he said.

The execution of 9 young people in Egypt on Wednesday caused an international 
uproar, with Amnesty International saying that these men were convicted after 
“grossly unfair trials” marred by torture allegations.

They were accused of assassinating Egypt’s Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat in 
2015.

The diplomat underlined that Germany rejects death penalty under all 
circumstances and works actively with other European Union members to campaign 
for its worldwide abolition.

(source for both: aa.com.tr)

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

MENA Death Penalty Opponents Stand Against Egypt



As the Egyptian authorities execute 9 people over charges of involvement in the 
murder of former Prosecutor General, discussions on the death penalty and the 
fact that it is still widely carried out in the Middle East are on the rise.

On Wednesday, the Egyptian Ministry of Interior announced executing 9 people 
who were unfairly charged with death sentences over assassinating former 
Prosecutor General Hisham Barakat in June 2015. This comes following the Grand 
Mufti’s approval of the sentence that was issued in November 2018.

During the trial, some of the defendants said they were forcibly disappeared or 
tortured to confess to a crime.

A day before authorities carry out the executions, Amnesty International 
released a statement urging authorities to halt executions because the nine 
prisoners were charged based on confessions extracted through torture.

Translation: “The executions are the government’s revenge from the opposition 
in a despicable way.”

Considering the Egyptian government’s history of carrying out death sentences 
after unfair trials, human rights organizations and activists have condemned 
death sentences as a cruel and inhuman punishment, especially if carried out 
during an unfair trial.

For the past couple of years only, Egypt has seen hundreds were sentenced to 
death after being presented in unfair trials.

On hashtags # [Stop Death Sentences] and # [No for Executions], Twitter users 
have got also a say on this.

Translation: “Today, 9 young men accused of killing the prosecutor general were 
executed in Egypt. 9 young men!!!”

The death penalty in the Middle East has long divided opinion, and opposition 
voices have been notably growing for the past few years.

Translation: “The right of life is an integral part of human rights, you can 
never be human rights defender who supports death sentences.”

Several opinions believe in abolishing the death penalty, as it had no place in 
the 21st century.

Translation: “In today’s morning, nine young men were executed in the 
prosecutor general assassination case with without fair trial or a system that 
protects [people’s] rights and in a semi-country. God, no refuge for us except 
for you.”

(source: Al Bawaba)








IRAN:

Stop imminent execution of three prisoners arrested as teenagers



The Iranian authorities must immediately halt plans to execute 3 young men who 
are on death row for crimes that took place while they were under the age of 
18, said Amnesty International.

The organization has learned that Mohammad Kalhori, Barzan Nasrollahzadeh and 
Shayan Saeedpour, who were all convicted for separate crimes that took place 
while they were minors, are at risk of imminent execution.

“The Iranian authorities must act quickly to save these young men’s lives. 
Failing to stop their execution would be another abhorrent assault on 
children’s rights by Iran. International human rights law strictly prohibits 
the use of the death penalty against people who were under the age of 18 when 
the crime was committed,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Middle East and North 
Africa Director at Amnesty International.

“The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Its use is 
horrendous in all circumstances but is even more appalling when it is used as 
punishment against people who were under 18 when the crimes took place and 
within a judicial system that is blatantly unfair.”

Iran is one of a handful of countries that continue to execute juvenile 
offenders in flagrant violation of international law. Over the past three years 
the Iranian authorities have stepped up such executions.

The organization is aware of more than 90 cases of people in Iran currently on 
death row for crimes that took place while they were under 18, though the real 
number is likely to be far higher.

“The Iranian authorities have a horrific track record of putting juvenile 
offenders to death in flagrant violation of international law and their own 
human rights obligations,” said Saleh Higazi.

“Instead of sending more juvenile offenders to the gallows the authorities must 
commute all death sentences and immediately reform Iran’s Penal Code to abolish 
the use of the death penalty against all those who were under the age of 18 at 
the time of the crime. This should be a first step towards abolishing the death 
penalty completely.”

As a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child Iran is legally 
obliged to treat everyone under the age of 18 as a child and ensure that they 
are never subject to the death penalty.

Amnesty International has also noted an alarming pattern of the Iranian 
authorities scheduling executions of juvenile offenders at short notice to 
minimize the chances of public or private interventions to save people’s lives.

Mohammad Kalhori was 15 years old when he was arrested in December 2014 over 
the fatal stabbing of one of his schoolteachers. Branch One of the Provincial 
Criminal Court of Lorestan Province found him guilty of murder in March 2016. 
He was initially sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay “blood 
money” (diyah) to the victim’s family. In its verdict, the court relied on a 
state medical opinion which concluded that he did not have “mental growth and 
maturity” at the time of the crime.

However, the verdict was overturned on appeal by the Supreme Court and in 
January 2017, Branch Two of the Provincial Criminal Court of Lorestan Province 
dismissed any arguments about Mohammad Kalhori’s “mental growth and maturity” 
and convicted him of murder sentencing him to death. At least two judicial 
reviews of his case since then have been rejected and his family have now been 
told by the prosecutor’s office that his death sentence will be implemented 
soon.

Under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code judges have the discretion to replace the death 
penalty with an alternative punishment if they determine that the juvenile 
offender did not understand the nature of the crime or its consequences, or 
that there were doubts about his or her “mental growth and maturity” at the 
time of the crime.

Barzan Nasrollahzadeh was arrested by Ministry of Intelligence officials at the 
age of 17 in Sanandaj, Kurdistan Province in May 2010. He was held for several 
months in a Ministry of Intelligence detention facility in Sanandaj without 
access to his family or a lawyer. He has said that during this period he was 
tortured, including with an electric-shock device, by being suspended upside 
down, and beaten. After his trial in August 2013, he was sentenced to death 
after being convicted of “enmity against God.” He is currently held in Raja’i 
Shahr prison, Karaj. His request for judicial review of his case has been 
rejected, which means that his sentence may be sent for implementation soon.

Shayan Saeedpour was arrested at 17 after surrendering himself at a police 
station for the murder of another person during a fight in August 2015. In 
October 2018 branch One of Kurdistan’s criminal court sentenced him to death 
for 1st degree murder and to 80 lashes for drinking alcohol.

Amnesty International is calling on Iran’s parliament to urgently amend Article 
91 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code to abolish the death penalty for crimes 
committed by people under 18 in line with Iran’s obligations under the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention 
on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

The organization is also calling on doctors affiliated with Iran’s Legal 
Medicine Organization, an organization which provides courts with medical 
opinions on the “maturity” of persons convicted of crimes committed when they 
were still children, not to give medical legitimacy to judicial processes that 
lead to executions of people who were under 18 at the time of the crime.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception 
regardless of the nature of the crime, the characteristics of the offender, or 
the method used by the state to execute the prisoner. The death penalty is a 
violation of the right to life.

(source: Amnesty International)

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

UN rights experts urge Iran to halt execution of childhood offender



A group of UN human rights experts on Thursday urged Iran to halt the execution 
of a man who committed a crime when he was 15 years old.

Mohammad Kalhori, “was sentenced to death for killing his teacher when he was 
15 years old.” Recently, it has been reported that his family was told to visit 
him for the last time, which has been “taken as a strong indication that his 
execution is imminent.”

UN human rights experts have urged Iran to both halt this execution and to 
annul the death sentence. The experts stressed that Iran has ratified both the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the 
Rights of the Child. By making these ratifications, Iran “has committed itself 
to prohibiting the use of the death penalty” for anybody under eighteen who has 
committed a crime. The experts also noted that this case goes against an 
amendment that Iran made to its Penal Code. This amendment allowed “judges to 
provide alternative sentences for child offenders if there was uncertainty 
about their ‘mental development’ at the time of the crime or if they had not 
realised the nature of the crime.” A forensic report on Kalhori “found he was 
not mentally mature at the time of the crime.”

Previously, the UN experts have communicated these concerns to the government 
of Iran.

(source: jurist.org)

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

Juvenile Offender at Imminent Danger of Execution Despite Being Mentally Unfit



Juvenile offender Mohammad Kalhor who is sentenced to death for murdering his 
teacher at the age of 15, is at imminent danger of execution. His death 
sentence can be carried out in the coming days despite several reports by 
medical experts testifying that Mohammad was mentally unfit and suffered from 
depression at the time of the crime. IHR calls on the international community 
to make all the effort they can to save Mohammad's life. Mahmood 
Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR said: "International reactions can 
still save Mohammad's life. We especially call on Iran's European dialogue 
partners to put pressure on the Iranian authorities to stop Mohammad Kalhor's 
execution".

According to the Iranian daily newspaper Shargh Daily, Mohammad’s lawyer Hassan 
Aghakhani declared that his client’s family members have been told to visit the 
juvenile death row prisoner for the last time.

Mohammad Kalhor was a 15-year-old schoolboy from Boroujerd (western Iran) when 
he stabbed his 43-year-old physics teacher, Mohsen Khashkhashi, on November 22, 
2014. Despite several reports by the state medical experts testifying that 
Mohammad was mentally unfit and suffered from depression at the time of the 
crime, the criminal court of Lorestan Province sentenced him to death and the 
verdict was ultimately upheld by Iranian Supreme Court.

Under Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code which was added to the law 5 years 
ago, judges are allowed to issue alternative verdicts for the minors. The 
juvenile offenders whom a judge considers not mature enough to realize the 
nature of the crime committed can face imprisonment instead of qisas 
(retribution) death sentence. However, it is up to the presiding judge’s 
discretion to deem the juvenile mature enough to understand the nature of the 
offense. Otherwise, the Islamic Penal Code puts the age of criminal 
responsibility 15 lunar years for boys and 9 lunar years for girls. In 
Mohammad’s case, Article 91 was not considered at all.

Lawyer Aghakhani emphasised that his client was immature at the time of the 
crime and according to official testimonies by medical experts and forensics, 
should not be executed. His last request for a review of the case under Article 
91 was rejected. “Several efforts to win the plaintiffs’ consent has failed. A 
few days ago, Mohammad’s family members have been told to do their last 
efforts, otherwise, he will be executed soon,” the lawyer said.

According to the Iranian Islamic Penal Code (IPC) murder is punishable by qisas 
which means “retribution in kind” or retaliation. In qisas cases, the plaintiff 
has the possibility to forgive or demand Diya (blood money). Therefore, if the 
murdered teacher’s family members do not forgive Mohammad, he will be hanged to 
death soon.

It is worth mentioning that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which 
Iran has ratified, clearly bans execution and life imprisonment of juveniles. 
According to IHR statistic department, at least 6 juvenile offenders were 
executed in Iran in 2018.

(source: Iran Human Rights)








MALAWI:

‘The hangman was too tired to hang me – 3 times’



On death row in Malawi, Byson Kaula was nearly executed three times - but on 
each occasion the hangman stopped work before hanging all the prisoners on his 
list. So he survived… until the country stopped executing people altogether.

Byson Kaula says jealous neighbours were responsible for him being found guilty 
of murder. It was 1992 and murder in those days carried a mandatory death 
sentence.

Brought up in a small village in southern Malawi, Byson had made enough money 
working in the gas industry in Johannesburg, South Africa, to return home and 
buy land. He employed five people and grew fruit, wheat, maize, and cassava. 
"That is when my sad times began," he says.

Neighbours attacked one of his employees, Byson says, leaving him badly 
injured. The man couldn't walk without assistance, and while helping him get to 
the toilet - navigating steps that were slippery after heavy rain - Byson fell 
and dropped him. The man died later in hospital, and Byson - then in his 40s - 
was charged with murder.

In court, Byson's neighbours testified against him.

His mother, Lucy, sitting at the back of the courtroom, couldn't hear the 
sentence being read out and had to ask what was happening. When she was told he 
had been sentenced to death, "tears rolled from my eyes down my chest," she 
says.

This was towards the end of the totalitarian government of Hastings Banda, 
which had controlled the country since 1964. Byson vividly remembers the horror 
of waiting for his turn at what he calls "the killing machine".

"When I was told: 'You can go now to the condemned section waiting for your 
time to be hanged' - oh, I felt as if I was already dead."

At that time, there was just one executioner - a South African who travelled 
between several countries in the region, carrying out hangings. When he arrived 
in Malawi, once every couple of months, the prisoners on death row knew that 
time, for some of them, had run out.

One day Byson remembers being told that his name was on the list of 21 people 
to be hanged within hours. A guard told him that executions would begin at 1300 
and that he should "just start praying".

They continued until 1500, when the executioner stopped work. But he had not 
reached the end of the list. Three people, including Byson, would have to wait 
until he returned.

"He was the only one operating that machine. And on that day, I understand he 
said: 'No it's too much, I'll come again next month,'" Byson says.

The same thing happened twice more, Byson says. The list was drawn up, but the 
hangman didn't finish it - and each time, by chance, Byson was among those left 
alive at the end of the day. On the third occasion, all the prisoners on the 
list were executed except him, he says.

In a way he was lucky, but the experience took its toll on him and he attempted 
suicide twice - only to survive this too.

After the establishment of multi-party democracy in Malawi in 1994, all 
executions came to a halt. The death sentence is still given out, even today, 
but no president has signed a death warrant for 25 years. Prisoners either 
languish on death row for years or have their sentences commuted to life 
imprisonment.

In time, Byson was moved from death row to the main part of Zomba Central 
Prison, and it looked as though he would spend the rest of his life there. He 
became heavily involved in the prison education programme, both studying and 
teaching. But he had no hope of ever being released.

Then, in 2007, roughly a quarter of a century after Byson was jailed, a 
historic case changed everything.

A drug user who admitted killing his stepson, but argued that he had been 
temporarily insane, went to court to challenge the mandatory death sentence for 
murder. He argued that this breached the right to a fair trial, and the right 
to protection from "inhuman and degrading treatment" - both guaranteed by 
Malawi's constitution - and the court agreed. In some cases of murder the 
perpetrator was more culpable than others, it ruled, and there should therefore 
be different levels of punishment.

This meant that all mandatory death sentences had to be reviewed.

Of nearly 170 prisoners eligible for resentencing, 139 have so far been 
released. According to the legal charity Reprieve, many had mental health 
problems or were intellectually disabled. More than 1/2 of those entitled to a 
new hearing turned out to have no court record at all - it was unclear why they 
were even in prison.

When lawyers said that they wanted to take Byson back to court he initially 
resisted, as he had been so terrified by his first experience. But he gave in, 
and when the judge told him he was free to leave immediately, he was stunned.

"The prison warders said can you get out of the accused box. But I couldn't 
stand up. I was just shivering, all my body was so weak… It was just as if I 
was dreaming. I could not believe what the judge had said."

Byson wasn't the only person whose life had been changed by his sentence.

His mother Lucy had visited every year during his incarceration. She would save 
her earnings from a year's work farming cotton to make the journey to the 
prison in Zomba, bringing Byson as many provisions as she could carry.

On the day of Byson's resentencing, she wasn't there, but her younger son was. 
When he rang to tell her the news, she took a while to believe what he was 
saying. Then, she says, she "jumped around like a lamb - a young lamb… my heart 
was filled with joy".

Byson was taken to a halfway house to help him learn new skills and make the 
transition back to normal life. Already in his 60s, he was the oldest person 
they'd ever had there.

He now goes back as a volunteer at weekends, to advise other ex-prisoners who 
are going through the same experience..

The land Byson used to farm is now overgrown. His wife died during the long 
years he was in prison and his 6 children have grown up and moved away. He 
lives alone, but takes good care of his mother, now in her 80s.

"During my imprisonment, all I was worrying about was my mother… Being her 
first-born, I would do everything possible for her. Now that I'm back, I don't 
let her go farming or do hard jobs. I have got other people to do the jobs for 
her. She doesn't go to the field. I do it myself."

His next project is to build her a new brick house.

(source: BBC News)