[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

February 27



BELARUS:

Death penalty: Filling Europe’s black hole



The 47-nation Council of Europe is co-organising a round table on capital 
punishment in Belarus on Thursday 28 February as part of the World Congress 
Against the Death Penalty in Brussels.

Belarus is the only country in Europe to still use the death penalty. 
Executions are usually carried out in secret and relatives may only be informed 
weeks or months later.

However, Belarus has made a number of positive statements on the death penalty 
in recent years and the number of executions in the country has fallen from 47 
in 1998 to 4 in 2018.

The round table will focus on historical aspects of capital punishment in 
Belarus, the current situation and future strategies to move towards abolition.

The event, which will take place from 11.30am to 1.30pm in the Orange Room of 
the Palais d’Egmont in Brussels, is being organised by the Council of Europe 
together with NGOs Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM), the International 
Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and Viasna.

Participants will include Anaïs Marin, the UN Special Rapporteur on human 
rights in Belarus and representatives of the Belarusian authorities.

Through the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe has 
created a death-penalty free zone covering more than 830 million people across 
47 countries.

(source: coe.int)








GLOBAL:

Death-penalty backlash - Support amassing against executions globally



At least 1 abolitionist is raising the alarm that there is increased scrutiny 
on countries seeking to reintroduce the death penalty.

Speaking at a forum in Brussels, Belgium, on Tuesday, Sandra Babcock, the 
founding director of the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, did not 
give ­further details but said that her organisation was committed to 
continuing to find creative methods in its fight against the death penalty.

Babcock is among 1,500 ­abolitionists gathered in Europe’s epicentre for the 
7th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, which officially opened this 
Wednesday morning at the European Union Parliament.

On Friday, they will take to the streets of Brussels to march for an end to the 
death penalty around the world.

In 2018, the United States alone carried out 25 executions. There were believed 
to have been hundreds more in China, but the figures are not disclosed by the 
government.

Many other countries, like Jamaica, did not impose the death penalty but kept 
it on their books. The last hanging here was in 1988.

At Tuesday’s panel discussion, attorneys championing the fight against the 
death penalty detailed their struggles in Indonesia, Nigeria, India and 
Pakistan.

“A part of the narrative in India is that we need to execute more to see if it 
is a deterrent,” said attorney Maitreyi Misra of the National Law University 
India, citing the problem of crime, particularly sexual offences, in India.

Some 396 people are now on death row in India, which carried out its last 
execution in 2015, when Yakub Memon was hanged following his conviction of 
financing the 1993 Mumbai bombing.

Misra said a major issue ­attorneys have identified are the prison conditions 
of death-row inmates, who are denied the opportunity to work and access to 
mental-health treatment.

“Sometimes the issue of justice becomes tied to the bureaucracy of access to 
resources,” she said.

Just outside the Brussels ­meeting room from which Misra spoke, a giant globe 
was suspended in the hallway, with Caribbean countries like Jamaica, The 
Bahamas, St Kitts and Nevis, Trinidad and Tobago, and St Vincent and the 
Grenadines painted in red, similar to other ­territories where the death 
penalty remains on the books.

“Mandatory death penalty erodes the principle of separation of powers,” argued 
Angela Uwandu, the head of Advocats Sans Frontières, Nigeria. She said the 
retention of the law compels judges to impose executions even when, based on 
discretion, they are inclined to do otherwise.

It is realities like these why Sarah Belal, the executive director of Justice 
Project Pakistan, says that at times, it becomes frustrating for abolitionists. 
“You just have to be shame-proof,” Belal said.

To compound things, she says donors do not fund litigation for death-row 
inmates and it can be an expensive process to keep their appeals in a court 
saddled with delays.

At the same time, Belal said that in the past 5 years, 85 % of death-penalty 
convictions in Pakistan have been overturned.

“You just don’t quit, you just have to exhaust the government and the justice 
system and the stakeholders,” she said.

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

1,500 to march against death penalty



More than 1,500 abolitionists will take to the streets of Brussels, Belgium on 
Friday to march for an end to the death penalty in several countries.

The anti-death penalty advocates are in the European capital for the 7th World 
Congress Against the Death Penalty.

They say there continues to progress in the death penalty battle, but the job 
is far from over with 52 states or territories still carrying out capital 
punishment.

DEATH PENALTY BY THE NUMBERS:

106 abolitionist States for all crimes----States or territories where the death 
penalty is abolished

8 abolitionist states for ordinary crimes----States or territories where the 
death penalty is abolished unless there are exceptional circumstances

32 states with a moratorium on executions----States or territories where the 
death penalty is implemented but no executions have been carried out for at 
least 10 years and which did not oppose the latest UN resolution for a 
universal moratorium on executions

52 retentionist states----States or territories where the death penalty is 
implemented.

At a panel discussion Tuesday evening, attorneys championing the fight against 
the death penalty detailed their struggles in Indonesia, Nigeria, India and 
Pakistan.

"Sometimes the issue of justice becomes tied to the bureaucracy of access to 
resources," said attorney Maitreyi Misra of the National Law University in 
India.

She said some 396 people are now on death row in India, which carried out its 
last execution in 2015.

According to Misra, although there have been no executions in the past three 
years, prison conditions for death row inmates continue to pose a big problem 
as the convicts are denied the opportunity to work as well as access to mental 
health treatment.

Pakistan has also been seeing consistent reductions in the number of executions 
dropping from 322 in 2016 to 14 last year.

In addition, in the past 5 years, 85 % of death penalty convictions have been 
overturned.

However, that is little comfort for Sarah Belal, the executive director of 
Justice Project Pakistan.

"It doesn’t mean anything until there is policy change on the books to reduce 
the number of crimes where there is the death penalty," she said.

Meanwhile, Sandra Babcock, the founding director of the Cornell Center on the 
Death Penalty say advocates are now seeing engage donors to fund litigation for 
their people on death row.

Babcock, and other advocates say it is very costly to keep bring challenges 
against the death penalty on behalf of convicts.

(source for both: Jamaica Gleaner)

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

Human Rights Council holds high-level panel on the death penalty, in particular 
with respect to the rights to non-discrimination and equality



The Human Rights Council this morning held its biennial high-level panel 
discussion on the question of the death penalty, with a focus on human rights 
violations in the context of the death penalty, in particular with respect to 
the rights to non-discrimination and equality.

Coly Seck, President of the Human Rights Council, reminded that the Council was 
holding the biennial high-level panel on the question of the death penalty in 
line with its resolutions 26/2 and 36/17, when it decided to focus the 
discussion on the violations of human rights in the context of the death 
penalty, particularly when it concerned the rights to non-discrimination and 
equality.

In her opening statement, Michelle Bachelet, United Nations High Commissioner 
for Human Rights, reminded that death rows were disproportionately populated by 
the poor and economically vulnerable; members of ethnic minorities; people with 
psychosocial or intellectual disabilities; foreign nationals; indigenous 
persons; and other marginalized members of society. Condemning people to death 
for conduct that should not be criminalized in the first place was never 
compatible with a State’s human rights obligations. The High Commissioner 
encouraged all States to take a stand on the right side of history and join the 
international trend towards abolition.

Didier Reynders, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European 
Affairs, and Defence of Belgium, speaking on behalf of a group of States that 
co-sponsored the resolution to hold this panel, regretted that the death 
penalty continued to be applied in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or 
consensual relations between people of the same sex. Poverty and the death 
penalty were linked, including due to financial access to legal recourse. 
Maintaining the death penalty had no impact on the crime rate and it was time 
to unilaterally turn the page on that practice.

The panellists were Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Minister of Foreign Affairs of 
Nepal; Melinda Janki, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana; and Fatimata 
M’Baye, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights Association. 
Yuval Shany, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, acted as the discussion 
moderator.

Mr. Shany drew attention to the adoption by the Human Rights Committee of the 
General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, according to which the death 
penalty could not be “reconciled with full respect for the right to life.” The 
General Comment made particular reference to the problem of inequality in the 
application of the death penalty.

Pradeep Kumar Gyawali, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, said that in Nepal 
the abolition of the death penalty had been possible through a long and 
conscious effort of all stakeholders, including political leaders, civil 
society, human rights defenders, and the media. It was a conscious national 
choice and a reflection of shared values.

Melinda Janki, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana, noted that the death 
penalty, like slavery, sent a message that some lives were worth less than 
others. It disproportionately affected the poor, the marginalized, the 
illiterate and the mentally challenged, whereas the rich were able to pay 
lawyers or get a non-guilty verdict.

Fatimata M’Baye, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights 
Association, drew attention to the case of a blogger who had posted an article 
about social discrimination in Mauritania and been accused of blasphemy, then 
sentenced to death. The United Nations could play a role in ending the death 
penalty by asking those States that still practiced it to abandon that 
punishment in the name of the right to life.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers expressed belief that the abolition of the 
death penalty and torture had elevated human dignity and advanced human rights. 
The death penalty was a human right violation. They hailed the adoption in the 
United Nations General Assembly of a resolution on a moratorium on the death 
penalty in December 2018, but noted that around the world capital punishment 
continued to be imposed in violation of major international standards. Speakers 
expressed deep concern that the death penalty was imposed in a disproportionate 
and discriminatory manner to juvenile offenders, women victims of domestic 
violence, minorities, foreign nationals, persons with disabilities, and poor 
and economically vulnerable populations. Some, however, noted that every State 
had the right to choose its legal and criminal justice systems, without 
external interference, and that the rights of defendants always had to be 
weighed against the rights of victims and their families, and the broader 
rights of the community and society.

Speaking were Iceland on behalf of a group of countries, Montenegro, 
Luxembourg, Italy, Mexico, Singapore on behalf of a group of countries, Chile 
on behalf of a group of countries, Brazil on behalf of a group of countries, 
European Union, New Zealand, Pakistan, Australia, Malaysia, Fiji, Slovenia, 
Ecuador, France, Iraq, Iran, Bangladesh, Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, and 
Greece.

Also taking the floor were the following civil society organizations: Friends 
World Committee for Consultation, Centre for Global Nonkilling, International 
Lesbian and Gay Association, Together against the death penalty, and 
International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of 
Torture), and the National Human Rights Institution: Commission on Human Rights 
of the Philippines.

The Council will next continue with its high-level segment.

Opening Statement by the President of the Council

COLY SECK, President of the Human Rights Council, reminded that the Council was 
holding its biennial high-level panel on the question of the death penalty in 
line with resolutions 26/2 and 36/17 of the Human Rights Council, where the 
latter decided to hold at the fortieth session a high-level biennial panel 
discussion on the violations of human rights in the context of the death 
penalty, particularly when it concerned the rights to non-discrimination and 
equality.

Keynote Statements

MICHELLE BACHELET, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that 
the United Nations opposed the use of the death penalty everywhere and in all 
circumstances. Worldwide, some 170 States had either abolished the death 
penalty in law, or did not carry out executions in practice. At the end of 
2018, 121 States had voted in favour of the General Assembly resolution for a 
moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The theme of the high-level panel 
was particularly well chosen because nowhere was discrimination more evident 
than when one looked at the people on death row – the people who society had 
decided were beyond rehabilitation and should be killed. The Office of the High 
Commissioner for Human Rights conducted visits around the globe and 
consistently reported that death rows were disproportionately populated by the 
poor and economically vulnerable; members of ethnic minorities; people with 
psychosocial or intellectual disabilities; foreign nationals; indigenous 
persons; and other marginalized members of society. Often illiteracy or 
language barriers meant that the right to effective legal representation of 
defendants facing the death penalty was not respected. One of the breaches of 
due process rendered the application of the most severe and irreversible 
punishment arbitrary, as the Human Rights Committee had reiterated in its 
recent General Comment on the right to life. In some countries, discrimination 
extended even to provisions of the criminal code itself.

Some people were sentenced to the death penalty only for being part of the 
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community or for having 
expressed an opinion, for membership of a political group, or for having 
exercised their freedom of religion. Condemning people to death for conduct 
that should not be criminalized in the first place was never compatible with a 
State’s human rights obligations. Discussions of capital punishment often 
neglected women. They were indeed executed at much lower rates than men, and in 
some cases were even exempted from the death penalty. But gender discrimination 
remained an important aspect of the death penalty. A study published in 2018 by 
the Cornell Centre showed that women who had been sentenced to death across the 
world were often judged not only on the basis of their crime, but because they 
were perceived to have betrayed traditional gender roles. Some women were 
sentenced to death for perceived moral transgressions such as adultery, or even 
witchcraft. Other women who were sentenced to death for murdering their partner 
had been victims of severe and repeated domestic abuse for years, and had lived 
in fear for their lives, but the law in their country only recognized 
self-defence as a legal defence in the case of direct and imminent lethal 
threat. Human rights were not monoliths; they developed as societies became 
more inclusive, integrating the voices and experiences of people who had 
previously been marginalized, the High Commissioner noted. She encouraged all 
States to take a stand on the right side of history and join the international 
trend towards abolition.

DIDIER REYDERS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign and European 
Affairs, and Defence, in charge of Beliris and of the Federal Cultural 
Institutions of Belgium, speaking on behalf of a group of States - Benin, Costa 
Rica, France, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, and Switzerland, as well as Belgium – 
that had sponsored the resolution that decided to hold this panel, 
congratulated the Gambia for ratifying the second Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as Malaysia for 
recently abolishing the death penalty, which brought the number of States that 
had abolished or suspended the use of the death penalty for more than 10 years 
to 170. He regretted, however, that the death penalty continued to be applied 
in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or consensual relations between 
people of the same sex. These rules only targeted certain segments of society 
as they exercised their unalienable rights. Poverty and the death penalty were 
linked, including due to financial access to legal recourse. The death penalty 
was disproportionately applied to racial and ethnic minorities, foreigners, 
sexual minorities and women and there was discrimination in the application of 
the law. He hoped the panel would focus on the rights of non-discrimination and 
equality. Finally, the Minister said he wished to share two messages, first 
that the death penalty was a violation of a basic human right, that to life, 
and that it was not a question of culture, as human rights were universal, but 
one of political will. He categorically opposed the death penalty in all 
circumstances. His second message was that maintaining the death penalty had no 
impact on the crime rate and it was time to unilaterally turn the page on this 
practice. Belgium would host the seventh international congress against the 
death penalty with the non-governmental organization Ensemble Contre la Peine 
de Mort. In September, the group of States would present a new resolution 
regarding the death penalty.

Statement by the Moderator of the Panel

YUVAL SHANY, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, noted that, in resolution 
36/17, the Council had decided that the 2019 biennial high-level panel 
discussion would address human rights violations related to the use of the 
death penalty, in particular with respect to the rights to non-discrimination 
and equality. The resolution called upon States to ensure that the death 
penalty was not imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as 
apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and consensual same-sex relationships. Mr. Shany 
drew attention to the adoption by the Human Rights Committee of General Comment 
36 on the right to life, which was adopted by all 18 experts on the Committee 
in October 2018. According to the Committee, the death penalty could not be 
“reconciled with full respect for the right to life”. It was emphasized that 
the General Comment considered the most serious crimes only as serious crimes 
involving intentional killing and that such crimes did not include offenses 
whose very criminalization violated the freedom of expression, freedom of 
religion and other civil and political freedoms. The General Comment made 
particular reference to the problem of inequality in the application of the 
death penalty, and noted in particular the challenges of age, parenthood, 
disability and past victimhood, as factors that should normally militate 
against the application of the death penalty.

Statements by the Panellists

PRADEEP KUMAR GYAWALI, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, noted that the 
right to life was sacred and inviolable in Nepal. The faith in personal 
liberty, integrity and dignity of human life, and respect for human rights lay 
at the heart of Nepal’s choice to go for the complete abolition of the death 
penalty. It was a conscious national choice, and a reflection of shared values. 
There was a long background of how Nepal had come to the stage of complete 
abolition of the death penalty. The first moratorium on the death penalty had 
been made in 1931, with some exceptions related to the army and sedition. Even 
at times when the death penalty was not abolished, it had been used in the 
“rarest of the rarest cases” only. The amendment to the National Code in 1964 
had abolished the death penalty in general. However, its remnants had still 
been there for serious military and sedition crimes governed by a separate law. 
Death penalty provisions had been introduced in certain grave crimes under a 
law in 1985, but within five years that law had been repealed. The Constitution 
of 1990 had explicitly prohibited capital punishment. Thus, it had taken almost 
59 years for Nepal to reach full abolition of the death penalty. The 
Constitution of 2015 considered the right to life as the bedrock of all human 
rights and prohibited the death penalty in all cases. The abolition had been 
possible through a long and conscious effort of all stakeholders, including 
political leaders, civil society, human rights defenders, and the media.

MELINDA JANKI, Director of the Justice Institute Guyana, said the mere 
existence of the death penalty was a form of discrimination. The death penalty, 
like slavery, said that some lives were worth less than others and robbed the 
criminal of his dignity. The death penalty disproportionately affected the 
poor, the marginalised, the illiterate and the mentally challenged whereas the 
rich were able to pay lawyers or get a non-guilty verdict. In Guyana, some 
citizens did not speak English as a fist language and needed a translator that 
they might not get. Ms. Janki said she opposed the death penalty in all 
circumstances. The Justice Institute of Guyana had linked up with Greater 
Caribbean for Life, Amnesty and the Death Penalty Project and grass roots 
projects, sending a memorandum on the death penalty to the President of Guyana 
and high level ministers. She celebrated the success in December 2018 when 
Guyana abstained on the vote for a moratorium on the death penalty.

FATIMATA M’BAYE, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights 
Association, said that there had been a moratorium on the death penalty in 
Mauritania since 1987, though there were still death penalty rulings handed 
down. She drew attention to the case of Mohamed Ould Mkheitir, a blogger who 
had posted an article about social discrimination in Mauritania, which meant he 
was accused of blasphemy. When he was arrested, he was asked to repent and 
quickly withdraw the article, but unfortunately, he was still prosecuted 
quickly by the police. This case had given rise to a great deal of violence and 
hatred within the local community. Mohamed was sentenced to death in 2015 by 
the penal court of the country, which was confirmed in 2016. There was an 
appeal launched, and a two-year sentence was later handed down. Ms. M’Baye said 
that the blogger was currently being held in a secret location. The source of 
law in Mauritania was Islamic law, and women were often sentenced to the death 
penalty, many times accused of infanticide. The death penalty was an egregious 
practice that was humiliating and degrading. The United Nations could play a 
role in ending the death penalty by asking those States that still practiced it 
to abandon this punishment in the name of the right to life.

Discussion

Iceland, speaking on behalf of a group of Nordic and Baltic countries, voiced 
alarm over the evidence of the discriminatory use of the death penalty against 
persons belonging to racial and ethnic minorities, or based on their gender or 
sexual orientation. Could the panellists share best practices in addressing the 
discriminatory use of the death penalty against women, especially when linked 
to adultery? Montenegro was deeply concerned that the death penalty was imposed 
in a disproportionate and discriminatory manner to juvenile offenders, women 
victims of domestic violence, minorities, foreign nationals, persons with 
disabilities, and poor and economically vulnerable populations. Luxembourg 
reminded that it was marking the fortieth anniversary of the abolition of the 
death penalty for all crimes. It was a real source of hope that the list of 
countries abolishing the death penalty was growing longer, but concerns 
remained about the risk of backlash in all parts of the world.

Italy hailed the adoption in the United Nations General Assembly of a 
resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty in December 2018, but noted 
that around the world capital punishment continued to be imposed in violation 
of major international standards. Mexico stated that the death penalty was a 
basic human rights violation, which could result in very seriously damaged 
legal guarantees. Mexico shared its experience of using its diplomatic and 
consular network to assist its nationals condemned to the death penalty abroad. 
Singapore, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, noted that the rights of 
defendants always had to be weighed against the rights of victims and their 
families, and the broader rights of the community and society to be able to 
live in peace and security. Every State had the right to choose its legal and 
criminal justice systems, without external interference.

Chile, speaking on behalf of a group of States, re-stated the importance of 
protecting the right to life, adding that the death penalty had a 
disproportionate impact on people in vulnerable situations due to limited 
access. It rejected the death penalty against all persons in all contexts but 
particularly against women and children. Brazil, speaking on behalf of a group 
of States, stated that they were firmly and unequivocally against the death 
penalty. The death penalty was a human rights violation that was incompatible 
with the prevention of torture and contradictory with social rehabilitation. 
The group called on all States to sign a moratorium on the death penalty and to 
adhere to the second Optional Protocol of the International Covenant on Civil 
and Political Rights. European Union held an unambiguous and absolute 
opposition to capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, 
stating that it was inhumane and unnecessary, and called for States still using 
the death penalty to comply with international standards that guaranteed 
equality before and by the law. It asked for the panel’s recommendations on how 
to effectively address gender bias in the application of the death penalty.

New Zealand, speaking on behalf of a group of States, said they remained 
against the death penalty and urged States to abolish this penalty. They were 
deeply concerned about laws that provided the death penalty in cases of 
apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same sex relationships, as well as 
for drugs offenses. The group asked the panel how legal systems could prevent 
discrimination against women and girls in capital sentencing. Pakistan said it 
lifted the moratorium on the death penalty after a large terrorist attack on a 
school in Peshawar and stated that the death penalty was awarded to terrorists 
after the due process of law. It reminded the Council that every State had the 
inalienable sovereign right to choose its legal and criminal judicial systems 
in pursuit of its people’s welfare, peace and security. Australia opposed the 
death penalty in all circumstances against all people and regretted that some 
countries continued to see the death penalty as an acceptable form of 
punishment. Australia urged all States to heed the call for abolition. It 
counselled that transparency around the use of the death penalty was critical 
to ensure that human rights standards were upheld.

Friends World Committee for Consultation highlighted the impact of 
discrimination in the use of the death penalty on children of parents sentenced 
to death, and the discrimination they experienced because of the execution of 
their parents. Friends World Committee asked the panel: pending abolition, what 
support or guidance could be given so that the best interest of the child was 
always taken into account when sentencing a parent? Centre for Global 
Nonkilling emphasized that the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals 
left no place for discrimination. Sustainable development was also seen to 
include a right for personal development, including personal amendment and 
rehabilitation, even in the worst cases. International Lesbian and Gay 
Association noted that globally, there were still six States where the death 
penalty was implemented for consensual same-sex relations. The formal and 
informal persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons remained 
unchallenged in too many States, and laws that imposed the death penalty for 
sexual conduct violated the right to life.

Malaysia noted that the decision to abolish the death penalty and a moratorium 
on all pending sentences was a significant development in the context of human 
rights promotion and protection in Malaysia. Malaysia emphasized that its 
Government was engaging in active deliberations with various stakeholders on 
the issue. Fiji noted that it abolished the death penalty in 2015, following 
the adoption of the 2013 Fijian Constitution. Fiji called on States that still 
used the death penalty to apply it in a non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary 
manner. Slovenia said it strongly opposed the death penalty in all 
circumstances and for all cases. Where abolition was not immediately possible, 
Slovenia strongly supported establishing a moratorium on capital punishment 
with a view of abolishing it in the future.

Ecuador highlighted that the death penalty was incompatible with the right to 
life. Historically, Ecuador had been opposed to capital punishment, which for 
the first time was abolished in its constitution of 1906. France opposed the 
death penalty in all circumstances and everywhere, noting that certain groups 
were affected disproportionately by capital punishment due to their 
marginalization and lack of resources. Iraq stated that every country had the 
sovereign right to choose its judicial system, as a reflection of its society 
and culture. It stressed that very serious crimes had been committed by 
terrorist organizations in Iraq.

Iran respected those who had abolished the death penalty, but it could not 
accept any universal prescription to that effect. Iran remained committed to 
observing the rule of law and due process in the criminal justice system, while 
continuing to study the best ways to serve justice. Bangladesh stressed that 
its application of the death penalty was restricted to very selective cases of 
the most heinous crimes. No child or pregnant woman could be sentenced to 
death. Argentina believed that the abolition of the death penalty and torture 
had elevated human dignity and advanced human rights. The death penalty was a 
human rights violation.

India reiterated its stance that it was a simplistic approach to characterize 
the death penalty as a human rights issue in the context of the right to life 
of the convicted prisoner. This approach was deeply flawed and controversial. 
There should be no external interference in the criminal justice system of any 
sovereign State. India had specific provisions for the suspension of the death 
penalty in exceptional cases, like for pregnant women. Saudi Arabia stated that 
it used the death penalty for only for most serious crimes and in the most 
serious circumstances, after a fair trial had been guaranteed. All procedures 
were in accordance with international standards as Islamic Sharia lay down the 
provisions of the punishments to guarantee the supreme rights of the people. 
All States had the sovereign right to bring justice through their own 
procedures. Greece opposed the death penalty in all cases and circumstances and 
highlighted the death penalty’s negation of the reformative function that any 
punishment should bare. It was particularly concerned that the death penalty 
disproportionately affected women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and 
intersex persons, and human rights defenders and therefore urged States to do 
their utmost to ensure a fair trial.

Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, via video transmission, stated 
it was working towards redressing the public misconception that the death 
penalty deterred crime. It addressed criminality through a human rights-based 
approach, including proposals on restorative justice. Together against the 
death penalty was deeply concerned that the death penalty continued to be used 
in cases of apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, and sexual orientation or gender 
identity, stating that this was not compliant with non-discriminatory law. It 
called on all countries to sign a moratorium. International Federation of ACAT 
(Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture) stated that the poor and 
economically vulnerable were overrepresented on death rows due to their lack of 
access to finance and knowledge of their rights, opining that even when legal 
aid was offered it was not appropriate nor effective. The Federation was 
particularly concerned that women were discriminated against following domestic 
violence and during detention, as prisons did not meet their needs.

Concluding Remarks

YUVAL SHANY, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, noted that many delegates had 
commended the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty. However, a 
concern around what some had termed as a backlash against abolition in this 
field was also noted. A number of representatives had also noted the 
irreversibility of the death penalty. It was also noted that there was an 
increasing consensus that the death penalty if applied should only be applied 
for the most serious crimes. There was also a strong concern from all corners 
of the room about the problem of discrimination in regard to poverty, sexual 
orientation, women, psychosocial disability and other issues. The panel was 
asked: how could all address biases, racial biases, gender biases and other 
biases in the application of the death penalty, and identify good practices so 
the death penalty was applied in a non-discriminatory fashion?

PRADEEP KUMAR GYAWALI, Minister of Foreign Affairs for Nepal, expressed 
optimism that the world would soon reach the goal of complete abolition of the 
death penalty. Mr. Gyawali noted the importance of respecting the sovereign 
rights of nations, but he emphasized that the right to life was a cornerstone 
to all human rights. All States were called upon to comply their national 
justice systems with the universal values of human rights. No judicial system 
was immune to human errors, and the death penalty was highlighted as an error 
which could not be reversed.

MELINDA JANKI, Director of Justice Institute Guyana, said that the bias against 
women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons and poor people 
in the justice system, first needed to be identified and then quantified. In 
order to counter that bias, it was necessary to foster international 
cooperation, and train judges, lawyers and police officers so that they knew 
what was happening in the criminal justice system. As for the argument on 
sovereignty, Ms. Janki found it difficult to follow. A State was made up of 
citizens and it had the duty to protect all of them. The sovereignty argument 
was meant to say that judges and lawyers decided who should live or die. The 
death penalty was an act of revenge rather than justice. Lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, transgender and intersex persons had the right to decide whom they 
loved; the world needed more love.

FATIMATA M’BAYE, Lawyer and Co-Founder of the Mauritanian Human Rights 
Association, noted that no individual deserved the death penalty. Society 
needed to enter into conciliation and forgiveness. The death penalty was one of 
the most serious forms of violence, which only bred more violence and 
vengeance. Women were often penalized in light of social behavioural norms, and 
adultery was the most important manifestation of that phenomenon. The 
international community must provide assistance to States to ensure follow-up 
on any adopted laws.

Distributed by APO Group on behalf of Office of the UN High Commissioner for 
Human Rights (OHCHR).

(source: africanews.com)








VATICAN CITY:

Pope on death penalty: offer the condemned the possibility to change life



The Pope, in a video message, exhorts rulers and all those who have the 
responsibility in their countries to take the necessary steps towards the total 
abolition of the death penalty.

Pope Francis sent a video message to the “World Congress Against the Death 
Penalty” organized by the association, “Together against the Death Penalty” ( 
ECPM) that is holding a meeting in Brussels, Belgium, from February 26 to March 
1.

ECPM acts to fight against the death penalty around the world. The association 
promotes the universal abolition through the creation and dissemination of 
publications and teaching tools, as part of public campaigns and lobbies 
governments at both national and international levels.

(source: vaticannews.va)








IRAN:

Annual report on the death penalty 2018



The 11th Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Iran, by Iran Human Rights (IHR) 
and ECPM, coincides with the 40th anniversary of the Islamic revolution of 
1979. The Islamic revolution marks the start of an era where the death penalty 
became a “normal” part of the people’s everyday lives. The first death 
sentences were carried out only three days after the victory of the revolution, 
as four of the Shah’s generals were executed by firing squads on the roof of 
“Rafah School”, which was Ayatollah Khomeini’s headquarters at that time. The 
death sentences were issued, and the executions carried out on the night of 
February 15, 1979, after a session, only a few hours long, of a newly 
established Revolutionary Court, without the presence of a defense lawyer and 
lacking a process with even a minimum resemblance to a fair trial. Pictures of 
the dead generals covered the front pages of the main Iranian newspapers the 
next morning. Lack of due process, unfair trials and arbitrary executions 
continue now, four decades after that February night. IHR has documented close 
to 6000 executions in the 4th decade of the Islamic Republic’s life.

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

2018 Annual Report at a Glance

At least 273 people were executed in 2018, 48% decrease compared to 2017

93 executions (34%) were announced by official sources. In 2017, 21 % had been 
announced by the authorities

Approximately 66% of all executions included in the 2018 report, i.e. 180 
executions, were not announced by the authorities

At least 188 executions (66% of all executions) were for murder charges

At least 24 people (8,7% of all executions) were executed for drug-related 
charges- 207 less than in 2017

None of the drug-related executions were announced by the official sources

13 executions were conducted in public spaces

At least 6 juvenile offenders were among those executed

At least 5 women were executed

At least 62 executions in 2018 and more than 3,526 executions since 2010 have 
been based on death sentences issued by the Revolutionary Courts

At least 272 death row prisoners were forgiven by the families of the murder 
victims

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

The present report shows, however, that 2018 distinguishes itself from the 
previous years. The report shows that in 2018 at least 273 people were executed 
in Iran. This is the lowest number documented since 2007 and represents a 47% 
reduction from execution numbers in 2017. More importantly, the reduction is 
mainly due to a decline in the number of drug-related executions, following 
enforcement of new amendments to the Anti-Narcotic law which aim at restricting 
the use of the death penalty for such offenses. The number of drug-related 
executions declined from 230 in 2017 to 24 in 2018.

Commenting on the reduction in the execution numbers in the 2018 report, 
Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR said, “This is probably the 
most significant step towards limitation in the use of the death penalty in the 
history of the Islamic Republic, and probably 2018’s most significant change in 
death penalty trends worldwide. We hope it is the first step of many that the 
Iranian authorities must take in order to improve their dark human rights 
record”.

Iranian authorities have admitted on several occasions that the political cost 
of drug-related executions has become too high. In a recent meeting with the 
General Secretary and other high ranking officers of Iran’s Drug Control 
Headquarters, the head of the Iranian Parliament, Ali Larijani, said, : ”Death 
penalty must be the last way of combating the drug problems”, and continued, 
“the costs of the executions is very high, you must not underestimate the 
costs”. This refers to the increasing international pressure on the Iranian 
authorities for the high number of drug-related executions in the past.

Due to the lack of transparency, it is not known how many death sentences have 
been commuted due to the new legislation, but the execution of 20 drug 
offenders in the last 3 months of the year gives reason to fear that the few 
months’ halt in implementation of drug-related death sentences might have come 
to an end.

IHR and ECPM welcome the significant reduction in the use of the death penalty 
due to the enforcement of the new amendments to the Anti-Narcotic law and hope 
that this trend will continue towards complete abolition. However main 
challenges remain relating to the death penalty in Iran; lack of due process, 
provisions of laws contradictory to international human rights treaties, public 
executions, juvenile executions, harassment of human rights defenders, and lack 
of transparency on the use of the death penalty remain major issues.

In violation of their international obligations, Iranian authorities continue 
executions of juvenile offenders. At least six juvenile offenders were executed 
in 2018, one more than the previous year, and several juveniles are in danger 
of execution. Commenting on the juvenile executions Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan, the 
Executive Director of ECPM said: “Iran must end its shameful practice of child 
execution. We call on the international community, especially the EU, to put 
the issue of the death penalty in general and juvenile execution in particular 
at the top of their demands in their dialogue with the Iranian authorities”.

In 2018, Iranian authorities once again displayed their systematic violations 
of due process and the rule of law. Televised confessions, unfair trials and 
reports of torture, are reminders of the fact that sustainable improvements in 
the status of human rights, and serious steps towards abolition of the death 
penalty, are not possible without fundamental changes in Iran’s judicial 
system.

Iranian authorities have, moreover, demonstrated their willingness to use the 
death penalty as a means to intimidate civil society and to counteract public 
protests. Execution of the Gonabadi dervish Mohammad Salas as a response to the 
weeks-long protests by the Gonabadi dervish community; execution of the Kurdish 
political prisoners Zanyar Moradi, Loghman Moradi and Ramin Hossein Panahi, as 
a mean to intimidate the growing Kurdish civil movements; and threatening the 
striking truck drivers and shopkeepers with death penalty, are just a few 
examples of how the Iranian authorities use the death penalty as an instrument 
of oppression of the people.

Finally, with the crisis in Iran’s economy, people's focus has been directed 
towards the massive corruption within the establishment. Iranian authorities 
fear for nationwide protests against the massive corruption within the Islamic 
Republic’s system and have been using corruption as an excuse to arrest, 
condemn to death and execute in order to spread fear in the society. In this 
context, three men charged with corruption and sentenced several others to 
death. These sentences and executions are regarded as a means to spread fear in 
the society rather than fighting corruption.

IHR and ECPM are concerned that with further deterioration of the economy and 
increasing frustration and anger among the people, the authorities will use 
more violence, and above all will increase the use of the death penalty as 
their only and most efficient weapon to face the unrest.

With the launch of this report, IHR and ECPM call upon the international 
community, and Iran’s European dialogue partners, to press for a moratorium on 
the use of the death penalty, and for major reforms in the country’s judicial 
system, which does not at this time meet minimum international standards. IHR 
and ECPM call on Iranian authorities to seriously consider the recommendations 
made in this report including to allow access to prisoners on death row and to 
impose a 5 years moratorium on the use of the death penalty.

In 2019, Iran will have its 3rd Universal Periodic Review (UPR). During the 
last UPR review in 2014, Iran accepted only one of the 41 recommendations 
relating to the death penalty. This year’s UPR is an important opportunity for 
the international community to put the issue of the death penalty on the agenda 
again. The positive experience of sustained pressure and focus on drug-related 
executions can and should be applied to other aspects of the death penalty.

(source: Iran Human Rights)

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

Iran executed 273 people in 2018, says human rights group



The news comes as around 1,500 delegates gathered in Brussels for the 7th World 
Congress Against the Death Penalty.

Speaking to the media at the conference, Mahmood Amiry Moghaddam of IHR said 
the deaths were confirmed through independent sources, but that two-thirds of 
them were not announced officially.

IHR verifies all unofficial reports by consulting 2 independent sources, often 
eye-witnesses, family members or lawyers.

Although the figure is high, IHR says it represents a 10-year low for the 
country.

The group says the four leading charges that result in execution in Iran are 
murder, moharebeh (corruption on earth), drug-related offences and rape.

"Corruption on earth" is the second most frequent charge for the death penalty. 
Broadly defined, it can be applied to a wide range of offences, including 
political affiliation, cooperation with the so-called Islamic State and 
economic corruption.

Moghaddam says it is largely up to the discretion of the Revolutionary Court to 
decide what crimes can be categorised as moharebeh.

“The due process, which is, in general, violated daily in Iran, is even worse 
in the Revolutionary Courts," Moghaddam said.

IHR says Iran also has the highest rate of juvenile executions in the world, 
with 6 confirmed executions of minors in 2018, including 2 child brides charged 
with the murders of their husbands.

In the annual report, IHR urges the international community to cooperate with 
Iran with the stipulation of “compliance with human rights standards.”

Due to a lack of transparency from the Iranian government, it is difficult for 
IHR to gauge the actual number of deaths by capital punishment.

This is especially prevalent in the ethnic minority regions of Iran where 
official reports of execution are lowest.

(source: euronews.com)








EGYPT:

Egypt activists condemn executions as illegal



Egyptian human rights activists have condemned the recent executions of 12 
political prisoners as a violation of the judiciary’s own procedural laws.

In a statement released today, Ahmed El-Attar of the Egyptian Commission for 
Rights and Freedoms (ECRF) highlighted that the death sentences carried out by 
Egyptian authorities this month were unconstitutional, as the punishments were 
carried out on the defendants even as they were appealing the ruling.

“The lawyers of the three defendants in the case of the [murder of the] son of 
the Chancellor and the nine [accused] in the case of the Attorney General, both 
submitted formal requests for a re-examination by the Public Prosecutor’s 
Office; the Egyptian authorities should have suspended execution orders until 
the petition was resolved,” the statement read. “They didn’t follow procedure 
and carried [out] the death sentences on all the defendants.”

“The authorities violated with their own procedural laws, Article 448 of the 
Egyptian Code of Criminal Procedure,” El-Attar added.

The execution of nine men accused of plotting the assassination of Egypt’s 
attorney general in 2015 warranted international condemnation last week, after 
videos circulated of the defendants declaring they had been forced to confess 
under torture.

“The defendants were subjected to the most severe forms of torture, and forced 
to confess to the murder under duress during interrogation. In court they 
denied the charges, citing the severity of their injuries and requested medical 
reports to prove their claim of duress,” El-Attar says. “Their judges, 
Counsellor Mohamed Allam and Counsellor Hassan Farid, ignored their legitimate 
right to request the medical examination or investigation.”

Rupert Colville, the spokesman for the UN Human Rights Office said last week 
that the UN has serious concerns about the conflicted process of fair trials in 
the cases and urged Egypt to properly investigate allegations of torture.

The death sentences were also condemned by Turkish President Recep Tayyip 
Erdogan, who vowed to not meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi 
until other prisoners were released.

“This is a crime against humanity,” Erdogan said, adding: “When you look at the 
figures, at least 42 people were executed since Al-Sisi took power and lately 9 
young people were executed.”

However, Al-Sisi responded to criticism and defended the death penalty at a 
summit between Arab and European states yesterday, saying the two regions had 
“2 different cultures”.

Rights defenders are concerned that European states focused on security have 
lent Al-Sisi international legitimacy at a time when his supporters are pushing 
through constitutional amendments that could allow him to stay in power until 
2034.

“It is distressing that the leaders at the summit have not addressed adequately 
the threats to freedom of expression and assembly, fundamental rights which are 
under threat in many places in the Arab world,” Oxfam’s Middle East and North 
Africa regional Director, Marta Lorenzo, said in a statement.

Since becoming president following a military coup in 2013, Al-Sisi has ruled 
Egypt with an iron fist. The government has launched a crackdown on anyone 
suspected of opposing Al-Sisi, with former Egyptian president Mohammad Morsi, 
the country’s first democratically elected leader, also imprisoned and facing a 
retrial after previously being sentenced to death.

El-Attar called on the international community to support efforts to pressure 
the authorities into abolishing the death penalty, which could save some 50 
prisoners set to be executed.

“The right to life is one of the most basic human rights. In all societies, 
religions, constitutions and in international law, each person has the right to 
be heard, and tried, in a just court of law. In Egypt no said justice exists, 
when all the legitimate authorities are focused on wiping out any challenge by 
murdering and imprisoning opponents.”

(source: middleeastmonitor.com)

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

Sorrow and confusion among Copts follow the death sentence imposed on two monks 
for the murder of a bishop



A court sentenced 2 monks to death over the murder of the abbot of the 
monastery of St Macarius in Wadi El Natrun. For Egyptian Christians and the 
leaders of the Coptic Orthodox Church, this is a sad day and represents a 
catastrophe that will be appealed as soon as possible.

The details of the case are still murky. Many of the pieces of the puzzle are 
missing, nor is it clear why the death penalty was imposed. Sources that spoke 
to AsiaNews, said that they will wait for further developments before 
commenting on the matter.

On Saturday, a court in Damanhur imposed the death penalty on Wael Saad, known 
by his monastic name Isaiah al-Makari, and Ramon Rasmi Mansour, known as 
Faltaous al-Makari, who wept at the ruling. Both were defrocked after the 
assassination.

"The defendants were led by the devil to the path of evil and vice,” said Judge 
Gamal Toson of the Damanhour court in his ruling. They committed “the greatest 
of the greatest sins and the greatest of crimes which the heavenly religions 
forbade".

For him, the 2 men are responsible for the murder on 29 July 2018 of Coptic 
Orthodox bishop Anba Epiphanios, abbot of the monastery of St Macarius, an 
event that shocked Egypt’s Coptic community and monastic circles.

Following the murder, the Church banned monks from using social media and 
suspended admissions into its seminaries for 1 year.

The disregard shown by the 2 men for the abbot’s advanced age and spiritual 
role played an important role in the sentencing and ruled out extenuating 
circumstances in the case.

Now the case goes for review. In Egypt, death sentences are reviewed by the 
country’s highest religious authority. The Grand Mufti of Egypt is now tasked 
with reviewing the court decision. His ruling is expected on 24 April.

Throughout the trial the 2 defendants proclaimed their innocence. For the 
prosecution however, the two were responsible for the murder, due to a 
financial dispute with the abbot.

The 2 men religious were also blamed for unspecified violations of monastic 
rules, which led to them being defrocked following a trial before a religious 
court.

For Bishop Anba Aghathon, the verdict a "catastrophe" and a "sad day" for the 
community. He urged believers to pray for the monks, hoping that an appeal will 
be launched as soon as possible.

Esam Ebaid, secretary of the European Union for Egyptians and a member of the 
Christian Union, a Dutch political party, slams the sentence, noting that the 
investigation was marred by corruption and political interests.

For him, the verdict is an offence against monasticism and leaves the door open 
to interference into the affairs of monasteries and land seizures.

Egypt has a population of about 95 million, mostly Muslims. Christians 
represent about 10 %, a majority of whom are members of the Coptic Orthodox 
Church.

In 2016 and 2017, a wave of deadly terrorist attacks swept over the country, 
with Christians among the targets.

(source: asianews.it)

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

Turkey says EU hypocritical for attending Egypt summit after executions



Turkey criticised European Union leaders on Tuesday for attending a summit 
hosted by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi days after 9 men were 
executed for killing Egypt's chief prosecutor.

Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said it was hypocritical for EU leaders, who 
have told Ankara that reinstating the death penalty in Turkey would finally 
crush its hopes of joining their bloc, to attend the meeting in Egypt.

"The whole EU leadership supporting Sisi and being in the same place as him on 
the days after these young saplings were martyred, executed is a photograph of 
exactly what we are saying," he said. "This is a double standard, it is 
hypocrisy."

Sisi defended the death penalty on Monday at the summit in the Red Sea resort 
of Sharm el-Sheikh between Arab and EU states, saying the two regions had "2 
different cultures".

Relations between Ankara and Cairo have been strained since the Egyptian army 
ousted President Mohamed Mursi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, following 
mass protests against his rule in 2013.

The Muslim Brotherhood has close ties with Turkey's ruling AK Party and many of 
its members have fled to Turkey since the group's activities were banned in 
Egypt.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan also criticised the EU on Tuesday for 
attending the summit in Egypt.

"Can you talk about democracy in these EU countries that attended Sisi's 
invitation? Can you talk about rights and freedoms there? Can you talk about 
human rights there?" he said at a rally in the northern province of Giresun.

Turkey aspires to join the EU but its accession negotiations, launched in 2005, 
are at a standstill amid concerns over its record on human rights and the rule 
of law.

Egypt says the Brotherhood, the world's oldest Islamist movement, is a 
terrorist organisation. Most of its senior members have been arrested, driven 
into exile or underground.

The Brotherhood says it is a peaceful organisation.

Rights groups strongly criticised the recent executions in Egypt, saying they 
and others were carried out after unfair trials.

(source: Reuters)








MALAYSIA:

Final decision on death penalty abolition next month



De facto law minister Liew Vui Keong says he has finished compiling 
stakeholders' views and the laws that need to be amended in the event that the 
death penalty is abolished. – The Malaysian Insight file pic, February 26, 
2019.

The government will make a final decision next month on abolishing the death 
penalty, de facto law minister Liew Vui Keong told The Star.

He said he has finished compiling stakeholders’ views and the laws that need to 
be amended in the event that capital punishment is done away with.

(source: malaysianinsight.com)