[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

March 6




MALAWI:

Malawi Adopts Death Penalty Law for Killers of People with Albinism, Opposition 
Disapproves----The callous murder of Albinos for diabolical purposes in Malawi 
must stop, we hope this helps.



The increase in the number of cases involving the brutal and gruesome murder of 
people living with Albinism in Malawi for money rituals and other diabolical 
purposes is an issue of concern which has painted the beautiful South-East 
African country in negative colors.

The menace got to his peak after news made headlines that a group of men traced 
and murdered a 54-year-old albino man, identified as Yasin Phiri in front of 
his 9-year-old son at their home in Kande Trading Centre in Nkhata Bay on New 
Year’s Eve.

This prompted the United Nations to release a statement in January this year 
warning that if not checked, the about 10,000 albinos currently living in 
Malawi are at the risk of extinction.

The government of Malawi through its Minister of Justice and Constitutional 
Affairs, Samuel Tembenu has invoked the country’s Death penalty Law which 
hasn't been used since 1994 on any murder case including people found guilty of 
killing persons with albinism.

Speaking during an SDG debate organized by the Nation Publications Limited 
(NPL) in conjunction with Zodiak Broadcasting Station (ZBS) and United Nations 
Malawi; the minister said:

The debate focused on human rights in juxtaposition to the upcoming May 21 
elections.

Tembenu also disclosed during the debate’s Questions and Answers session that 
the government had set aside 30 cases for prosecution under the existing laws.

The false belief that body parts of people living with albinism can bring 
wealth and also help in making potent charms have made Albinos endangered 
species in Malawi.

In an interesting shift, however, the spokesman for the United Democratic Front 
(UDF), Ken Ndanda in his response during the debate said that imposing the 
death penalty for murder is a contentious one.

On her part, UTM Party’s representative Hellen Chabunya said:

“An Eye for an eye will make us all blind but we need to stop the silencing of 
the people who are about, to tell the truth on the killings and abductions.”

Malawi Congress Party (MCP) representative Edgar Chimanjira concurred with 
Chabunya and said:

“What is disheartening is that people are being arrested but when they want to 
reveal the truth they are being killed right inside police custody.” (source: 
africanexponent.com)








SAUDI ARABIA:

Bishop objects to death sentence for Filipino woman in Saudi Arabia



A bishop in the Philippines is speaking out against the death penalty of a 
Filipino woman who has been condemned to death in Saudi Arabia.

“We turn to God in prayers that He may move the [Saudi] government to be 
merciful and grant clemency,” said Bishop Ruperto Santos of Balanga, head of 
the Filipino bishops’ Commission on Migrants and Itinerant People, in a 
statement this week.

“She has to be helped and assisted. Let us try everything to save her,” he 
said, according to the Manila Bulletin.

On Feb. 28, the Saudi Court of Appeals upheld the death sentence of an unnamed 
Filipino woman, who was convicted in 2017 for killing her employer. The woman 
claimed to have acted in self-defense against an abusive employer.

Santos encouraged the Philippine government to do whatever it can to save the 
woman and conduct a “thorough investigation” behind the woman’s arrival in 
Saudi Arabia. Reports suggest that she arrived in the country as a minor.

“Placement agencies should be made accountable for whatever happens to 
[Filipino workers] sent to other countries,” the bishop said, according to the 
Manila Bulletin.

He stressed that agencies and recruiters should be held liable for abuse of the 
employees they place.

ABS-CBN News reported that the case has also been directed to the chair of the 
Inter-Agency Committee Against Trafficking, which is part of the Philippine 
Department of Justice.

The Department of Foreign Affairs said Friday it would do all it could to save 
the woman, who has so far been assisted by Consul General Edgar Badajos.

The department released a statement saying it “will exhaust all diplomatic 
avenues and legal remedies to save a Filipina in Saudi Arabia after the Saudi 
Court of Appeals affirmed her death sentence on Thursday.”

The case followed an execution in January, when a 39-year-old maid from the 
Philippines received the death penalty for a murder that took place in 2015. 
Details about the case were not released.

About 500,000 Filipinos are believed to be working in Saudi Arabia, a country 
that has long been accused of poor work conditions and inadequate religious 
freedoms.

In 2016, Bishop Santos had encouraged the Philippine embassy in the country to 
protect Filipino workers. That year, a Filipino woman had died as result of the 
injuries she received from rape, allegedly at the hands of her employer.

That same year, a mass execution of 47 men was carried out in Saudi Arabia in 
January. One of the men was Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a Shi’a cleric and long-time 
activist for Shi’a rights in the country.

Princeton Professor Robert George, then-chairman of the U.S. Commission on 
International Religious Freedom, said the execution of Sheik al-Nimr raised 
religious freedom concerns and did not meet capital punishment standards set by 
the international human rights law.

(source: Catholic News Agency)








IRAN:

Release 8 wildlife conservationists following unfair trial on trumped-up spying 
charges



Wildlife conservationists in Iran who have been accused of espionage after 
using cameras to track endangered species could face the death penalty or more 
than a decade in prison, said Amnesty International, ahead of a verdict in 
their case in the coming days.

The 8 scientists, who are linked to the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation, 
were arrested at the end of January 2018. They had been conducting research 
into Iran’s endangered animals, including the Asiatic cheetah and Persian 
leopard. There is evidence that they were subjected to torture and other 
ill-treatment including through prolonged solitary confinement in order to 
extract forced “confessions”.

“Protecting endangered wildlife is not a crime. These conservationists are 
scientists who were carrying out legitimate research. It is absurd that they 
have been prosecuted without any evidence and are being treated as criminals,” 
said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Research and Advocacy Director 
at Amnesty International.

“Iran’s authorities should release them immediately and unconditionally and 
drop the outrageous espionage-related charges against them.”

The authorities have accused the conservationists of using scientific and 
environmental projects, such as tracking the Asiatic cheetah with cameras, as a 
cover to collect classified military information. The use of cameras is a 
standard tool used by conservationists to monitor rare and endangered species.

The 8 conservationists are among 9 scientists who were arrested by the 
Revolutionary Guards on 24 and 25 January 2018. One of them, Kavous 
Seyed-Emami, a Canadian-Iranian scientist and academic, died under suspicious 
circumstances in Evin prison 2 weeks after his arrest. The authorities claimed 
that he had committed suicide and refused to release his body unless his family 
agreed to an immediate burial without an independent autopsy. Amnesty 
International has previously called on the Iranian authorities to conduct an 
impartial investigation into his death.

In October 2018, the conservationists were formally charged. Four of them, 
Niloufar Bayani, Houman Jowkar, Morad Tahbaz and Taher Ghadirian, were charged 
with “corruption on earth” (efsad f’il arz) and could be sentenced to death.

3 others, Amirhossein Khaleghi, Sepideh Kashani and Abdolreza Kouhpayeh, were 
charged with espionage and if convicted could face up to 10 years in prison. 
One other, Sam Rajabi, was charged with “co-operating with hostile states 
against the Islamic Republic” and “gathering and colluding to commit crimes 
against national security”. He could face up to 11 years in prison.

“The charges against these scientists are utterly baseless and stem solely from 
their peaceful conservation activities. If they are convicted it would be an 
outrageous mockery of justice and a devastating blow for Iran’s scientific 
community,” said Philip Luther.

“The fact that Iran’s authorities are harassing and intimidating wildlife 
conservationists with fabricated charges is another chilling example of how 
peaceful activities are considered ‘criminal’ by the Iranian authorities. The 
international community must speak out to call for these scientists’ immediate 
release.”

Evidence of torture and unfair trial

The 8 scientists’ closed trial before Branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court in 
Tehran began on 30 January 2019 and was grossly unfair. Following their 
arrests, the conservationists were held incommunicado in Section 2-A of Evin 
prison, under the control of the Revolutionary Guards, without access to a 
lawyer and with very limited family contact.

According to reliable sources, during one family prison visit, some of the 
conservationists displayed signs of physical torture, with broken teeth and 
bruising on their bodies.

According to reliable sources, the court has relied almost entirely on 
“confessions” allegedly made under torture by the defendants, and later 
retracted, as the main evidence against them.

Niloufar Bayani told the court that she only made a “confession” after she was 
“broken” through physical and psychological torture and that she later 
retracted her “confession”. She said interrogators threatened to beat her, 
inject her with hallucinogenic drugs, pull out her fingernails and arrest her 
parents; they also showed her a piece of paper saying it was her death sentence 
and pictures of the dead body of Kavous Seyed-Emami, implying that she would 
meet a similar fate.

During 1 of the trial sessions, the judge told her to leave the courtroom for 
being “too disruptive” after she repeatedly objected to the fact that her 
retracted forced “confessions” were being used against her and the other 
conservationists. Consequently, she was not allowed to appear in court for the 
final 3 trial sessions.

“These shocking allegations of torture and other ill-treatment must be 
investigated immediately. It is appalling that the conservationists have been 
forced to face a deeply flawed trial on bogus charges,” said Philip Luther.

The conservationists have been denied access to a lawyer of their choosing 
throughout their entire detention and trial. Even in court, they were not 
allowed to speak with their lawyers. Sam Rajabi’s repeated requests to be 
represented by his own independently chosen lawyer were rejected by the judge, 
leaving him without legal representation in court.

In May 2018, a governmental committee consisting of the ministers of 
intelligence, interior and justice and the president’s legal deputy looked into 
detention of the conservationists and concluded that there was no evidence to 
suggest they were spies. A number of senior officials in the Iranian 
government, including from the department of the environment, have called for 
the scientists’ release citing a lack of evidence against them.

(source: Amnesty International)

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

Death Penalty in Iran: Legislations and procedures



A part of the 11th Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Iran, by Iran Human 
Rights (IHR), deal with International treaties ratified by Iran, Islamic Penal 
Code & offences punishable by death, as well as procedures.

International treaties ratified by Iran

Iran has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(ICCPR) in 1975, the International Covenant on the rights of Child (CRC) in 
1994 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 
2009.

Iran has nor signed neither ratified any other international human rights 
convention including the International Covenant against Torture and Other 
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the Second Optional 
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at 
the abolition of the death penalty.

Article 6§2 of the ICCPR states: “In countries which have not abolished the 
death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious 
crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the 
crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This 
penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a 
competent court.

Art 6§5 of ICCPR states: Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes 
committed by persons below eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out 
on pregnant women.

Art 6§6 states: “Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to 
prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present 
Covenant.”

Art 7 of ICCPR bans torture and cruel, degrading and inhumane punishments, and 
Art 14 provides a fair trial and due process and specifically mentions the 
importance of an impartial judicial system, access to a lawyer and a fair 
trial, and not compelling individuals to testify against themselves or to 
confess guilt.

Iran has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming for the abolition of the death 
penalty (OP2).

In a recent General Comment on the Article 6 of the ICCPR, the United Nations 
Human Rights Committee stated that “The term “the most serious crimes” must be 
read restrictively [151] and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, [152] 
involving intentional killing. [153] Crimes not resulting directly and 
intentionally in death, [154] such as attempted murder, [155] corruption and 
other economic and political crimes, [156] armed robbery, [157] piracy, [158] 
abduction, [159] drug [160] and sexual offences, although serious in nature, 
can never serve as the basis, within the framework of article 6, for the 
imposition of the death penalty. In the same vein, a limited degree of 
involvement or of complicity in the commission of even the most serious crimes, 
such as providing the physical means for the commission of murder, cannot 
justify the imposition of the death penalty. States parties are under an 
obligation to review their criminal laws so as to ensure that the death penalty 
is not imposed for crimes which do not qualify as the most serious crimes. 
[161] They should also revoke death sentences issued for crimes not qualifying 
as the most serious crimes and pursue the necessary legal procedures to 
re-sentence those convicted for such crimes.”

The UN Human rights Committee also stated that “Under no circumstances can the 
death penalty ever be applied as a sanction against conduct whose very 
criminalization violates the Covenant, including adultery, homosexuality, 
apostasy, [162] establishing political opposition groups, [163] or offending a 
head of state. [164] States parties that retain the death penalty for such 
offences commit a violation of their obligations under article 6 read alone and 
in conjunction with article 2, paragraph 2 of the Covenant, as well as of other 
provisions of the Covenant.”

The HRC also highlighted that States parties that have not abolished the death 
penalty must respect article 7 of the Covenant, which bars certain methods of 
execution including public executions.”

Art 37a of the CRC states: “No child shall be subjected to torture or other 
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment 
nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for 
offences committed by persons below 18 years of age”.

However, upon ratification, Iran made the following reservation: "If the text 
of the Convention is or becomes incompatible with the domestic laws and Islamic 
standards at any time or in any case, the Government of the Islamic Republic 
shall not abide by it”.[MRA1]

Since 2007, Iran has been voting against the Resolution of United Nations 
General Assembly calling for a universal moratorium on the use of the death 
penalty. In December 2018, Iran voted against the Resolution once again.

Death Penalty According to the Iranian Law

Chapter III of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran contain 
provisions relating to the rights of the people. In this Chapter, Article 22 
states: «The dignity, life, property, rights, domicile, and occupations of 
people may not be violated, unless sanctioned by law.”

However, the number of crimes carrying the possibility of the death penalty in 
Iran is among the highest in the world.

Charges such as “adultery, incest, rape, sodomy, insulting the Prophet Mohammad 
and other great Prophets, possessing or selling illicit drugs, theft for the 
fourth time, premeditated murder, moharebeh (waging war against God), 
ifsad-fil-arz (corruption on earth), fraud and human trafficking” are capital 
offences.[6]

Many of as the charges punishable by the death penalty cannot be considered as 
“most serious crime” and do not meet the ICCPR standards .[7] Murder, drug 
possession and trafficking, rape/sexual assault, moharebeh (waging war against 
God) and Corruption on earth are the most common charges resulting in the death 
penalty in Iran.

Most of the charges punishable by death are described in the Islamic Penal Code 
(IPC). Drug-related offences are described in other legislation.

1. Islamic Penal Code & Offences Punishable by Death

In April 2013, the Iranian Parliament finally passed the new Islamic Penal Code 
(IPC). On May 1, 2013 the IPC was ratified by the Guardian Council - and was 
communicated to the government for enforcement on May 29, 2013.

The new IPC has retained the death penalty in almost all the instances that 
were already punishable by death under the previous IPC. Moreover, it appears 
that its scope has been expanded in some cases. As in the previous draft of 
IPC, the new version explicitly states (Article 220) that Article 167 of the 
Constitution can be invoked by the judge to pronounce hudud punishments that 
the law has not addressed: “the judge is bound to endeavour to judge each case 
on the basis of the codified law. In case of the absence of any such law, he 
has to deliver his judgment on the basis of authoritative Islamic sources and 
authentic fatwa. He, on the pretext of the silence of or deficiency of law in 
the matter, or its brevity or contradictory nature, cannot refrain from 
admitting and examining cases and delivering his judgment.”

According to the IPC the following offences are punishable by death penalty:

a) Sexual Offences

Incest and fornication A death sentence shall be imposed on the male party in 
cases of incest, fornication with stepmother, fornication of a non-Muslim man 
with a Muslim woman and fornication by force or reluctance. The punishment for 
the female party shall be decided by other provisions concerning fornication 
(Article 224 of the IPC).

Adultery

Adultery between married parties is punishable by stoning (see below for more 
details).

Same sex relations Lavat (Penetrative male homosexual sex)A death sentence 
shall be imposed on the ‘active party’ only if he is married or has forced the 
sexual act, but the ‘passive party’ shall receive the death penalty regardless 
of marital status.

A non-Muslim ‘active party’ in a sexual act with a Muslim party shall also 
receive the death sentence (Article 234 of the IPC). The non-Muslim ‘active 
party’ in same-sex relations not involving penetration shall also be sentenced 
to death.

Lesbianism shall be punished on the 4th occasion if ‘offenders’ are sentenced 
and receive the lashing punishment on the first 3 occasions. This has not been 
specifically stated in the law, but can be inferred from the provisions of 
Article 136 of the IPC on Repeat Offenders (see below).

b) Moharebeh

Article 279 of the IPC defines mohareb (a person who fights God) as someone who 
takes up arms in specific cases. This includes bandits, robbers and smugglers 
who take up arms (Article 281 of the IPC).

Article 282 of the IPC delivers a death sentence in the case of moharebeh 
However, the judge has the option of imposing an alternative punishment of 
crucifixion, amputation of the right hand and left foot or internal exile away 
from the defendant’s home town.

Under the previous IPC, which was in force until 2013, the charge of moharebeh 
was frequently used against political dissidents and people with relations to 
the opposition groups abroad, even if they were non-violent. The new penal code 
has provided for their punishment under the notion of “corruption on earth and 
rebellion.”

c) “Corruption on Earth” & Rebellion

The new IPC has introduced a new concept of “rebellion” that did not exist in 
the previous Code. This chapter has expanded the scope of the death penalty for 
all those who are convicted of “corruption on earth.”

Article 286 of the IPC defines “corruption on earth” as “a person who commits a 
crime on an extensive level against the physical integrity of others, the 
domestic or external security, spreads lies, disrupts the national economic 
system, undertakes arson and destruction, disseminates poisonous, 
microbiological and dangerous substances, establishes corruption and 
prostitution centres or assists in establishing them.”

However this article does not give concrete definitions of the term “crime” and 
the scope of “extensive;” therefore, this gives the judges more power to 
interpret the law at their own will.

Article 287 of the IPC defines “rebels” as the members of any group that stage 
armed uprisings against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and stipulates that they 
shall be sentenced to death.

d) Murder and Qisas

Qisas refers to retribution in kind. The qisas death sentence has been retained 
for murder in the new IPC. As in the previous IPC, it exempts the following 
situations or people from qisas ; - Father and paternal grandfather of the 
victim (Article 301 of the IPC) - A man who kills his wife and her lover in the 
act of adultery (Article 302), ;

- Muslims, followers of recognised religions, and “protected persons” who kill 
followers of unrecognised religions or “non-protected persons” (Article 310).

- Killing of a person who has committed a ‘hudud’ offence punishable by death 
(Article 302 of the IPC),

- Killing a rapist (Article 302 of the IPC),

The law indirectly encourages arbitrary killings by private individuals. 
Experts believe, for instance, that article 301 and 302 might be contributing 
to the increased number of honor killings in Iran (REF). The law also 
discriminates against followers of “unrecognised” religions. Article 301 says: 
“qisas shall be established...if the victim is sane and has the same religion 
as the culprit. Note: If the victim is Muslim, the non-Muslim status of the 
culprit shall not prevent qisas.” This concerns, in particular, members of the 
Bahai faith, which is not recognised as a religion, according to the Iranian 
law. If a Bahai follower is murdered, the family does not receive blood money 
(Diyeh), and the offender is exempted from qisas.[8] In 2013, there were two 
reported Baha’is murder cases. On April 23rd, Saeedollah Aqdasi was murdered in 
his house in Miandoab (Northwestern Iran)[9] and Ataollah Rezvani was shot in 
Bandar Abbas (Southern Iran) on August 24th;[10]] none of these cases have been 
properly investigated.[11]

e) Other Religious “Offences”

Article 262 stipulates the death sentence for cursing the Prophet of Islam, any 
of the other grand prophets or for accusing the infallible Imams and the 
Prophet Mohammad’s daughter, Fatima Zahra, of sodomy or fornication. Apostasy, 
sorcery, witchcraft and other such issues have not been explicitly mentioned in 
the new IPC, although apostasy has been specifically referred to in the Press 
Code (Article 26). Under sharia law, the punishment for apostasy is death, 
which a judge can impose by invoking Article 167 of the Constitution.

f) Repeat Offenders

Article 136 stipulates that repeat offenders who commit an offence punishable 
by hudud, and who are punished for each offence, shall be sentenced to death on 
the fourth occasion. This article has failed to specify the hudud offences and 
has only mentioned the death sentence for fourth-occasion theft in Article 278. 
Nevertheless, articles 220-288 have defined the hudud offences as follows: 
fornication and adultery, sodomy, lesbianism, pimping, cursing the prophets, 
theft, drinking alcohol, qadf (false accusation of sodomy or fornication), 
moharebeh, corruption on earth and rebellion.

g) Stoning

The IPC has retained the punishment of stoning for those charged with adultery 
while married (Article 225). Nevertheless, the courts have been provided with 
the alternative to impose the death sentence upon the approval from the Chief 
Justice “if it is not possible to perform stoning.”

h) Juveniles & Death Penalty

The new IPC retains death sentence for juveniles. Although Articles 89-95 
suggest corrective measures and alternative punishments for children and 
juveniles, Article 91 is very clear that the offences punishable by hudud or 
qisas are exceptions to this rule. It is important to note that almost all 
juvenile offenders executed in the past 7 years were sentenced to death based 
on qisas and hudud paragraphs.

Article 91: For offences punishable by hudud or qisas, mature persons younger 
than 18 shall be sentenced to the punishments stipulated in this chapter 
(articles 89-95) if they do not understand the nature of the offence committed 
or its prohibition or if there are doubts about their maturity or development 
of their reasoning.

The Article leaves it to the discretion of the judge to decide if a juvenile 
offender had understood the nature of the offence and was mature at the time of 
committing the offence and thus to impose the death sentence on them. The Note 
to Article 91 authorises but does not require, the court to seek the opinion of 
the Forensic Medical Department or to use any other means to reach a verdict.

Moreover, while article 146 provides that immature persons do not have criminal 
responsibility, article 147 repeats the provisions of the previous law and the 
Civil Code regarding maturity and the age of criminal responsibility. Girls are 
mature at the age of 9 lunar years and boys at the age of 15 lunar years. 
Therefore, a girl older than 8.7 years and a boy older than 14.6 years can be 
sentenced to death.

Former MP and deputy chairperson of the Laws Review Committee of Parliament, 
Mussa Qorbani, who was involved in drafting and editing the new IPC, confirmed 
that children and juveniles will continue to be sentenced to death under the 
new IPC: "This law is based on the implementation of the qisas and hudud except 
in cases where a juvenile does not know about the criminal nature of the 
action. On the other hand, if a juvenile knowingly commits murder, he/she shall 
remain in the correctional facility if he/she is younger than 18 and shall 
receive the qisas after reaching the legal age, as has been the procedure 
before."[12]

The juveniles’ offenders executed in 2018 stayed in prison or correctional 
facilities until they reached the age of 18 and were then executed (see the 
“Juvenile Offenders” part of report).

2. The Anti-Narcotics Law

The Iranian Anti-Narcotics Law was drafted in 1988 and previously amended in 
1997 and 2011. Both amendments were aiming to counteract Iran’s growing drugs 
problem by expanding the scope of the law and introducing harsher sentences. 
The 2011 amendments introduced the death penalty for the possession of as 
little as 30 grams of heroin and included new categories of drugs in the law. 
All together the Anti-Narcotics Law, including the 1997 and 2011 amendments, 
imposed the death penalty for 17 drug-related offences[13], including: a fourth 
conviction for drug-related offences in several instances; planting opium 
poppies, coca plants or cannabis seeds with the intent to produce drugs; 
smuggling more than five kilograms of opium or cannabis into Iran; buying, 
possessing, carrying or hiding more than five kilograms of opium and the other 
aforementioned drugs (punishable upon a third conviction); smuggling into Iran, 
dealing, producing, distributing and exporting more than 30 grams of heroin, 
morphine, cocaine or their derivatives.

The new amendment to Iranian Anti-drug law which was enforced on November 14, 
2017, includes a mechanism to limit the use of the death penalty and reduce the 
sentences of those sentenced to death or life imprisonment. The new amendment 
increases the minimum amounts of illegal drugs that would subject convicted 
producers and distributors to a death sentence, raising the level of synthetic 
substances, such as heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, from 30 grams to two 
kilos and that of natural substances, such as opium and marijuana, from five 
kilos to 50 kilos (Amendment, art. 45(d).) The punishment for those already 
sentenced to death or life in prison for drug-related offenses should be 
commuted to up to 30 years in prison and a fine[14] . Death sentences should be 
restricted to those convicted of carrying or drawing weapons, acting as the 
ringleader, providing financial support, or using minors below the age of 18 or 
the mentally ill in a drug crime, and to those previously sentenced to death, 
life imprisonment, or imprisonment for more than 15 years for related crimes.

The complete translation of the new amendments to the Anti-Narcotic law is 
available in the Annual Report on the Death Penalty 2017.

Procedures

A broader discussion on the legal procedures and the due process in Iran is 
beyond the scope of this report and can be found elsewhere[18]. The ICCPR which 
Iran has ratified promotes the rule of law and underlines equal legal rights 
for all individuals regardless of sex, ethnicity, opinion or belief and ban 
many forms of discrimination. Article 14 specifically mentions the importance 
of an impartial judicial system, access to a lawyer and a fair trial, and not 
compelling individuals to testify against themselves or to confess guilt. 
However, lack of due process is probably the biggest obstacle to significant 
improvements in the human rights situation, and the situation of the death 
penalty in particular. Perhaps lack of an impartial Judiciary, and inequality 
in front of the law are the most important structural reasons for the lack of 
due process in Iran. Head of the Judiciary who is directly selected by the 
country’s highest political authority, the Supreme leader and must report to 
him. The Chief of the Supreme Court and all judges are selected by the head of 
Judiciary based on their ideological affiliation and political background, 
converting the Judiciary to a political organ which is neither impartial nor 
independent. Citizens are not equal in front of law; men have more rights than 
women, Muslims have more rights than non-Muslims, and Shia Muslims have more 
rights than Sunni Muslims.

In this section, we will briefly address the typical legal procedures from the 
arrest to a death sentence. Due to the arbitrary nature of the judicial system, 
not all the procedures are necessarily followed in every death penalty case.

>From arrest to the proof of guilt

Access to lawyer

Article 35 of the Iranian Constitution grants access to lawyer. The Criminal 
Procedure Code drafted in 2013 and the amendments of 2015 address among others, 
a suspect's access to lawyer in the pre-trial phase.[19] Article 48 of the 
Criminal Procedure Code states: “When a suspect is arrested, he or she can 
request the presence of an attorney. The attorney, observing the secret nature 
of the investigation and the negotiations between the parties, should meet with 
the suspect. At the end of the meeting, which should not last more than one 
hour, the attorney may submit his or her written notes to be included in the 
case file”. However, a note added in the final draft puts limitations on the 
suspect’s rights to choose a lawyer. The amended note says: “In cases of crimes 
against internal or external security, and in cases involving organized crime, 
where Article 302 of this code is applicable, during the investigation phase, 
the parties to the dispute are to select their attorneys from a list approved 
by the head of the judiciary. The names of the approved attorneys will be 
announced by the head of the judiciary». The note effectively states that in 
serious criminal cases and those involving charges commonly used against 
political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, during the pre-trial 
investigation phase defendants may only select attorneys from a list approved 
by the head of the judiciary. In June 2018, the Judiciary announced a list of 
20 attorneys who are allowed to defend citizens with security and political 
cases.[20]

However, none of the people sentenced to death regardless of charges, which IHR 
has acquired information about, have had access to a lawyer in the initial 
phase after their arrest.

Torture under detention

Article 38 of the Iranian Constitution bans all forms of torture and forced 
confessions. However, reports gathered by IHR and other human rights NGOs 
indicate that torture is widely used against the suspects after their arrest 
and in the pre-trial phase in order of extract a confession. All death row 
prisoners IHR has been in contact with have witnessed that they were subjected 
to torture in order to confess to the crime they were charged with. This is not 
limited only to those with political or security-related charges. Almost all 
prisoners who are arrested for drug offences have been kept in solitary 
confinement and subjected to physical torture in the investigation phase 
following their detention, while being denied access to a lawyer. In many cases 
confessions given during detention have been the only evidence available for 
the judge to base his verdict upon. Torture is also used in other criminal 
cases involving rape or murder where there is not enough evidence against the 
suspect. In 2014 a man who had confessed to the crime but was absolved of all 
charges 48 hours before his execution was to be carried out, was asked as to 
why he had confessed to a murder he had not committed? He answered: “They beat 
me up so much that I thought if I falsely do not confess, I would die during 
the interrogation”. [JB2]

Courts and Trials

Among the charges punishable by death penalty, murder and rape charges are 
tried by the Criminal Courts, while all security-related charges, corruption, 
and drug trafficking are processed by the Revolutionary Courts.

Revolutionary Courts

The Revolutionary Courts were established in 1979 by the first Supreme leader, 
Ayatollah Khomeini. They were temporary courts designed to deal with the 
officials of the former regime. However, they continue to operate and are 
responsible for the vast majority of the death sentences issued and carried out 
over the last 38 years in Iran.[22] The Revolutionary Courts are not 
transparent and Revolutionary Court judges are known for greater abuse of their 
legal powers than other judges.[23] Revolutionary Court judges routinely deny 
attorneys’ access to individuals who are subjected to extensive interrogations 
under severe conditions. According to the former UN Special Rapporteur on the 
situation of human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, who interviewed 133 people 
facing trial in the country for a 2014 report focused on Iran’s juridical 
system, 45% of those interviewed reported that they were not permitted to 
present a defense; in 43% of cases trials lasted only minutes and 70% of 
interviewees reported that coerced information or confessions had been 
reportedly used by the judge or made up at least part of the evidence presented 
by the prosecution. Some 65% of interviewees reported that the judge displayed 
signs of bias such as by reproaching or interrogating defendants and limiting 
their ability to speak and present a defense.[24][JB3]

In a series of interviews with the IHR bi-weekly Farsi law journal 
“Hoghogh-e-ma”, several prominent Iranian lawyers and jurists in the country 
questioned the constitutionality of Iran’s Revolutionary Courts and called for 
their dissolution.[26]

Asma Jahangir, a prominent Pakistani human rights defender and the Special 
Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, stated in an interview that 
“the Revolutionary Courts” have forced Iran into a critical situation and added 
that “without reforming the judicial system, improving the human rights 
situation in Iran will be impossible[28].” In her last report[29], the former 
Special Rapporteur stated that she was also “deeply concerned by the ongoing, 
numerous, and consistent reports received of due process violations, including 
but not limited to the use of prolonged solitary confinement and significant 
limitations placed upon the ability of the accused to access a lawyer. In 
particular she calls upon the Government to strictly limit the use of solitary 
confinement and ensure full access to their choice of lawyer. She further 
reiterates her recommendation to abolish the revolutionary tribunals and 
religious courts in line with the recommendations made by the Working Group on 
Arbitrary Detention following its visit to the country.

All cases regarded as security-related, such as cases involving political and 
civil activists and others allegedly involved in corruption and drug-related 
charges, are processed by the Revolutionary Courts.

Ways of proving the guilt

Confession is the most common way of proving guilt in the death penalty cases. 
As mentioned previously, confessions are often extracted under torture. In 
security-related cases mainly used against political dissidents televised 
confessions are broadcasted even before a final verdict is made.[30] Other ways 
of proving the guilt include testimony by eyewitness (by two just men; a 
woman’s testimony is worth half of the man’s). Witness testimonies are also 
used to prove the guilt in the absence of confession. In addition, according to 
the Islamic Penal Code, when confessions or testimony by eyewitnesses are 
missing in a case, the judge can make a decision based on his exclusive 
opinion, without any reference to laws and codes.[6] This phenomenon is known 
as ‘knowledge of the judge’, or elm-e qazi.[31] The law requires that rulings 
based on a judge’s ‘knowledge’ derive from evidence, including circumstantial 
evidence, and not merely personal belief that the defendant is guilty of the 
crime.[32] However, there have been cases where ‘knowledge of the judge’ has 
been applied rather arbitrarily. For instance, in December 2007, Makwan 
Moloudzadeh was executed for sodomy charges based on the ‘knowledge of the 
judge.[33] Qassameh, or sworn oath is another way to prove a crime (murder or 
injury) in the Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) which is practiced in Iran.[34] 
Qassameh is based on swearing an oath on the Quran by a certain number of 
people and is performed when the judge decides that there is not enough 
evidence of guilt to prove the crime but the judge still thinks that the 
defender is most probably guilty. It must be noted that the people who swear in 
Qassameh are not usually direct witnesses to the crime. In 2017 at least two 
people were executed for murder without any hard evidence or a confession. They 
were sentenced to death only based on Qassameh by members of the plaintiff’s 
family members. In one of the cases, the defendant insisted that he was 
innocent and that he could prove that he was in another city at the time of the 
offence. However, 50 male members of the plaintiff’s family gave an oath that 
the defendant was guilty. He was sentenced to death and executed in Mashhad on 
May 23, 2017.[35]

In 2017, IHR dedicated a full issue of its legal journal “Hoghogh-e-ma” to 
Qassameh and interviewed several lawyers and religious scholars on the issue. 
Since then, there have been increasing debate around the issue of Qassameh 
inside Iran[36] and in the Farsi media outside the country.[37]

Procedures of the Death Penalty

After being sentenced to death, the prisoners are held in the prison. It might 
takes years, months and sometimes weeks from receiving the final verdict to 
implementation of the death sentence. All death sentences must be approved by 
the Supreme Court, whose chief is appointed by the head of the Judiciary. In 
addition, head of the Judiciary must give his permission (Estizan) before 
implementation of all qisas executions.

According to the Iranian law, the defendant’s lawyer must be informed about the 
scheduled execution 48 hours before the implementation. However, it is not 
always followed, especially in in political and security related cases. 
Prisoners are transferred to solitary confinement several days before the 
execution, where their hands are cuffed. The prisoner is normally granted a 
last visit with the family the day before the execution. IHR has published a 
short report based on witness interviews about the death row conditions and the 
prisoners’ last hours.

Methods of execution

The Iranian Penal Code has described several execution methods, including 
hanging, fire squads, crucifixion, and stoning. However, hanging has been the 
main method of execution and the only method used since 2010.

Majority of the executions are carried out inside the prisons. In some 
prisoners there are specific rooms designated for the executions, while in 
other prisons the executions are carried out in the prison yard. The picture 
above is a rare display of an execution room in Vakilabad Prison of Mashhad 
published by the Iranian media in 2018. Six prisoners were hanged charged with 
Moharebeh for armed robbery.

In murder cases where the defendant is sentenced to qisas, the plaintiff must 
be present at the scene of execution. Since the Iranian authorities consider 
qisas as the right of the plaintiff, family members of the murder victim are 
encouraged to carry out the actual execution. IHR has received several reports 
where the plaintiff’s family members have actually conducted the execution.

Presence of the judge issuing the death sentence, and in case of qisas death 
sentence, presence of the plaintiff (family members of the victim) in addition 
to the judge, is mandatory under the execution.

When carried out in public spaces, the executions are carried out using cranes. 
The prisoners are either pulled up or the object they are standing on is 
removed from underneath them. In this case, the prisoners die of suffocation 
and strangulation and it often takes several minutes until death occurs.

No implemented stoning punishments have been reported since 2010. It is mainly 
due to the increasing international pressure during the last decade reaching a 
peek following the campaign to save Sakineh Ashtiani in 2010.

(source: Iran Human Rights)








AUSTRALIA:

The last hanged man



50 years ago, Australia carried out its final execution amid a swirl of protest 
and political pressure. But as Jamie Duncan reports, capital punishment remains 
firmly in the nation‘s consciousness despite the abolition of the death 
penalty.

Ronald Joseph Ryan was a robber with a long criminal record.

On 3 February 1967, Ryan was hanged for the murder of prison warder George 
Hodson as he escaped Pentridge Jail, in the Melbourne suburb of Coburg.

As the guards took turns to attend a staff room Christmas party on 19 December 
1965, Ryan and accomplice Peter John Walker scaled a 5m (16ft) wall, with 
blankets attached to a hook.

They overpowered a guard, stole guns and forced the guard to open a gate.

Mr Hodson was shot in the chest and died in the middle of a busy road outside 
the jail while trying to grab Walker.

Ryan and Walker escaped but were re-captured in Sydney on 6 January 1966.

Eleven witnesses said they saw Ryan fire the fatal shot, but a warder testified 
that the only shot he heard was his own. He said he was aiming for Ryan but 
fired over Ryan‘s head to avoid a woman who blundered into the way.

After 12 days of deliberation, a jury found Ryan guilty of Mr Hodson‘s murder 
and the judge, Justice John Starke, who was opposed to capital punishment, 
pronounced the mandatory death sentence for the crime.

Walker was found guilty of two counts of manslaughter – that of Mr Hodson and 
the shooting death of acquaintance Arthur Henderson while on the run.

At the time in the state of Victoria, the government‘s cabinet determined the 
fate of condemned prisoners.

The last executions in Victoria occurred in 1951, when Jean Lee – the last 
woman hanged in Australia – and her 2 male accomplices were executed for 
torturing and murdering a 73-year-old illegal bookmaker.

Between then and 1967, Liberal and Labor cabinets commuted all but 1 of 35 
death sentences to life imprisonment.

The exception was Robert Tait, who murdered an 82-year-old woman. The 
government‘s refusal of clemency was overturned in the nation‘s High Court.

Members of Victorian Premier Sir Henry Bolte‘s cabinet were known to be 
opponents of capital punishment, but Sir Henry ensured his team refused to 
commute Ryan‘s sentence.

Years later, juror Tom Gildea said while the jury was convinced of Ryan‘s 
guilt, none believed he would hang, and seven later wrote to cabinet seeking 
clemency for Ryan.

The conservative-leaning Melbourne Herald campaigned for Ryan‘s life. In a 
January 1967 editorial, it said: “The state government‘s insistence on this 
final solution is causing the deepest revulsion. It is punishment in its most 
barbarous form. And experience has shown it gains nothing but dishonour for the 
community which inflicts it.”

Mass protests in sizes never before seen in Melbourne had no effect on Sir 
Henry. Ryan, almost 42, was hanged at Pentridge at 08:00 with hundreds of 
protesters outside the jail.

Queensland was the 1st Australian state to outlaw the death penalty, in 1922. 
Victoria followed in 1975 and New South Wales (NSW) was last, in 1985.

But whenever egregious crimes have shocked Australians, the question of a 
return to capital punishment is raised.

It happened after Martin Bryant shot dead 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania 
in 1996; the fire-bombing of Brisbane‘s Whiskey Au Go Go nightclub by James 
Finch and John Stuart in 1973, which killed 15; and the 2012 rape and 
strangulation of , 29, by Adrian Ernest Bailey.

The death penalty was raised over the 2003 kidnapping and murder of Daniel 
Morcombe, 13, on Queensland‘s Sunshine Coast, by Brett Peter Cowan; Julian 
Knight‘s 1987 Hoddle Street massacre in Melbourne; and Ivan Milat‘s 
“backpacker” murders in NSW in the 1980s and ‘90s.

Even this year, talk has resurfaced after a car was allegedly deliberately 
driven down a Melbourne pedestrian mall, . Dimitrious “Jimmy” Gargasoulas, 26, 
faces murder and other charges.

Crusading commentator-turned-politician Derryn Hinch opposed capital punishment 
for decades before the horrific rape and murder of Sydney nurse, Anita Cobby, 
by 5 men, including 3 brothers, in 1986.

Hinch, a senator who heads his own Justice Party, says the death penalty should 
apply in cases such as Knight‘s, where no doubts exist.

“If Australia had the death penalty, a lot of young women could be alive 
today,” Hinch wrote in 2012.

“Mersina Halvagis (fatally stabbed as she tended her grandmother‘s grave in 
Melbourne in 1997) would be alive today. Her killer, Peter Dupas, would have 
been executed after his first murders. If sex offenders served their full term 
behind bars, Jill Meagher could be alive today,” he said.

“If our touchy-feely parole boards spent half as much time considering victims 
and their families as they do to rushing serial, violent criminals back on to 
the streets, this world would be a safer place. And if a federal government had 
the guts – or a state government had the independence and backbone – to hold a 
referendum on the return of capital punishment for some crimes, it would pass 
by a majority of about 75% to 25%.”

Maybe not. Polls from Roy Morgan Research between 1947 and 2009 suggest capital 
punishment supporters may be a vocal minority.

Respondents were asked whether they favoured the death penalty or imprisonment 
in murder cases.

In 1947, 1953 and 1962, a sample of 1,000 voters aged 21 and over found they 
favoured capital punishment 67% to 24%, 68-24% and 53-37% respectively, with 
the remainder undecided.

There was no poll around Ryan‘s 1967 execution. From the next survey in 1975 
until 2009, the sample of 1,000 included anyone aged 14-plus.

In 1975, support for capital punishment fell behind, at 40%, to 43% against, 
but by 1980 it was on top again at 43-40%.

The gap slowly widened. By February 1989, death penalty supporters had an 
absolute majority (52-34%) peaking at 54-36% in 1993.

But there was a dramatic swing in the decade between surveys in 1995 and 2005.

In 1995, there was still absolute majority support for the death penalty, with 
53% in favour and 36% against.

But in November 2005 – 7 months after the arrest in Indonesia of the Bali Nine 
heroin traffickers following an Australian Federal Police tip-off – only 27% 
supported it, with 66% opposed. A month later, support slipped further, to 25% 
v 69%. By August 2009, the last survey, it dropped yet again to 23-64%.

A 2014 text message poll of 1,307 people, asking whether anyone who commits a 
lethal act of terror in Australia should face the death penalty, showed narrow 
support for the proposition – 52.5%, with 47.5% against.

Dr Amy Maguire, lecturer in law at Australia‘s Newcastle University and capital 
punishment opponent, says the executions of Bali 9 drug smugglers may have 
changed Australian attitudes.

Prior to this, Ronald Ryan‘s execution was at best a dim memory.

“My sense is that the Chan and Sukumaran case enlightened some numbers of 
Australians who may previously been fairly unconcerned about the use of the 
death penalty overseas for people convicted of drug offences,” she told the .

“As well as having strong advocacy at government level, the families and 
friends of Sukumaran and Chan bravely conveyed their grief publicly and 
demonstrated that capital punishment is effectively torture not only for the 
person executed but also for their loved ones.

“The argument that Sukumaran and Chan had worked very hard to rehabilitate 
themselves and would be more fairly sentenced to life or many years in prison 
was, I think, fairly persuasive to many people.”

While there remains a significant proportion of Australians who support capital 
punishment, Dr Maguire believes no Australian government will ever re-introduce 
it.

“No, I believe Australia is very firmly committed to the abolition of capital 
punishment, and in fact the Bali executions galvanised the government into 
building a firmer platform on which to advocate for abolition globally. 
Australian law is unequivocally against the death penalty,” she said.

There are legal barriers, too. In 2010 the federal government passed laws 
banning the reintroduction of capital punishment, in line with a voluntary 
international treaty.

But 50 years on, Ronald Ryan‘s execution and tension over how best to deal with 
heinous acts that were once capital crimes, echoes through Australia‘s judicial 
system.

(source: jeffersonbusinessjournal.com)





MALAYSIA:

Putrajaya urged to halt hangings pending change in law



2 lawyers have called for a moratorium on the execution of death row inmates 
until Parliament votes on a bill seeking the abolition of the death penalty.

Kitson Foong and M Visvanathan, both of whom practise criminal law, said it 
wasn’t clear to the public whether a freeze had been imposed on all hangings or 
only on the execution of those convicted of drug trafficking.

They urged Putrajaya to make an announcement on the matter and on whether 
Parliament would be considering the abolition bill at its sitting that will 
begin this Monday, as Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Liew Vui 
Keong promised last October.

“As I understand it,” Foong told FMT, “there is an unofficial moratorium on the 
carrying out of death sentences and it is applicable only to drug trafficking 
cases.

“In the interest of justice, there ought to be an official statement to that 
effect.”

Both lawyers also called for a halt on appeals in capital punishment cases 
pending the vote on the bill.

Visvanathan said he would not be surprised if the government decided not to 
table the bill at the coming Parliament meeting.

“It looks too soon for the government to abolish the death penalty,” he said, 
noting that there were groups against such a change in the law.

He suggested that Putrajaya engage the public on the issue.

Another lawyer, Rafique Rashid Ali, said the government must tell at least the 
judiciary when it planned to table the bill. If it was imminent, he added, the 
courts should stay their hearings on death penalty cases.

In Malaysia, the death penalty is imposed on those guilty of murder, drug 
trafficking, kidnapping, treason and possession of firearms.

The previous government promised to review the provision for a mandatory death 
sentence under the Dangerous Drugs Act.

(source: Free Malaysia Today)

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

Abolishing death penalty in line with New Malaysia, says Bar



The government must table the bill to abolish the death penalty in the upcoming 
Parliament sitting to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law and protect 
the right to life, said the Malaysian Bar.

“This would be in tandem with the strides we have made to become a New Malaysia 
that abides by the federal constitution and upholds the rule of law, as has 
repeatedly been asserted by the prime minister,” said Bar president George 
Varughese in a statement today.

(source: themalaysianinsight.com)

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

'Mandatory death sentence for drug trafficking unconstitutional'



The 1983 amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act which imposes a mandatory death 
sentence on those convicted for drug trafficking is unconstitutional, the 
Federal Court heard today.

Lawyer Gopal Sri Ram said the amendment removed the court’s discretion to 
impose either life imprisonment or death sentence for the offence.

"The power to pass sentence and to determine the measure of punishment were 
both part of the judicial power.

"The judicial function must be exercised by the judiciary and not by 
Parliament," he told a 9-man bench in the appeals by three foreign nationals 
challenging the mandatory death sentence imposed by the High Court.

Sri Ram said the removal of the discretion by the legislature amounted to 
interference in judicial function and went against the doctrine of separation 
of powers.

He also argued the amendment to the act had reduced the court's discretion to a 
mere "rubber-stamping" exercise.

Peruvian Jorge Crespo Gomes and South Africans Letitia Bosman and Benjamin 
William Hawkes were separately convicted and sentenced to death by the High 
Court between 2015 and 2016 for trafficking in drugs.

All three lost their appeals at the Court of Appeal.

Between 1975 and 1983, judges were given the discretion to either impose the 
death penalty or life imprisonment after finding an accused person guilty of 
drug trafficking.

The government amended the law 2 years ago to give the court the option to 
either impose the death sentence or life imprisonment, but subject to certain 
conditions by the public prosecutor.

This new law came into effect on March 15 last year.

However, the 3 foreigners cannot benefit from the new law because it does not 
have retrospective effect.

At the hearing of the appeals today, Sri Ram, who represented the foreign 
nationals, also submitted that the Federal Constitution only allowed a court to 
take life in accordance with the law.

He said the death penalty was not a commensurate punishment for all drug cases.

Lawyer Abdul Rashid Ismail, who was also appearing for the foreign nationals, 
submitted that Malaysia is the only country in the Commonwealth still imposing 
the death sentence for drug trafficking offences.

Deputy public prosecutor Nik Suhaimi Nik Sulaiman said Parliament validly 
passed the law based on policy consideration of the executive branch then.

He said the reason for the mandatory death sentence being imposed was because 
the drug menace was serious and a threat to the security of the nation.

He said it was the duty of the court to pass sentence according to the law as 
it stood.

The bench chaired by Chief Justice Richard Malanjum reserved judgment to a date 
to be fixed.

(source: malaysiakini.com)








SRI LANKA:

President Sirisena must pause

Usually, when everyone is telling you that something is a bad idea, it is good 
advice to take a pause and reconsider.

This is precisely what the response to President Sirisena’s plans to resume 
executions in Sri Lanka after a 43-year hiatus should be. His plans to execute 
prisoners on death row for drug-related crimes have met with fierce opposition 
from all quarters. The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka has categorically 
recommended to “do away” with his plans to reinstate the death penalty. Leading 
Buddhist monks have highlighted the incompatibility of President Sirisena’s 
staunch Buddhism and the desire to hang prisoners. The Catholic Bishops’ 
Conference have signed a statement calling for rehabilitation, not death for 
defendants.

Amnesty International has made it clear that resuming executions will knock off 
Sri Lanka’s human rights leadership in the region. The International Commission 
on Jurists has called it an “egregious violation” of Sri Lanka’s international 
human rights commitments.

In the context of recent trade discussions, the European Union has also urged 
Sri Lanka to maintain its hiatus on executions with a view to abolish the death 
penalty entirely. Even Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Health correctly pointed out in 
billboards that the death penalty should be reserved for dengue mosquitos, and 
not human beings.

So why is President Maithripala listening to no one?

Perhaps he would do well to look at the death penalty itself. It is the 
ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is a lopsided and violent 
act that predicates itself on principles of vengeance – which can never be a 
precursor to justice.

Memories of executions in Sri Lanka are vague, if not completely non-existent. 
He would do well to not resuscitate them for those who do recall the horror.

The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international 
law and standards. That the death penalty does not have a unique deterrent 
effect is well-documented and well-recognized. The fact that the death penalty 
for drug-related crimes is even less effective is beginning to be reflected in 
criminal justice systems all over the world.

In Iran, ranked as one of the most prolific executioners in the world, Mohammad 
Baqer Olfat, Iran’s deputy head of judiciary for social affairs, conceded in 
2016, “The truth is the execution of drug smugglers has had no deterrent 
effect.”

Sri Lanka is no exception. Problems associated with the use of drugs will not 
diminish because of 13 executions. If President Maithripala’s intention really 
is to protect people in Sri Lanka from the risks of drugs, then he must 
recognize this. Responding to the health and public security challenges that 
drugs pose is a much more long-term process. It requires addressing the root 
causes that lead people to engage in the drug trade. It requires time and from 
the rapid pace with which the President is trying to resume executions, one can 
be forgiven for assuming he thinks he has none.

And perhaps in the year leading up to elections, he does not waste any. The 
results he wants need to be quick and loud.

President Sirisena has looked to the anti-drug policies of the Philippines to 
guide this vociferous support of the death penalty. The only inspiration that 
President Rodrigo Duterte’s model should draw is exactly what not to do.

Perhaps then, the President should widen his gaze to include countries that do 
actually carry out the death penalty for drug-related crimes. A Malaysian 
citizen, Prabagaran Srivijayan was sentenced to death in Singapore in 2014 for 
drug trafficking.

Prabagaran Srivijayan’s legal team raised serious concerns about the fairness 
of his trial, including the authorities’ failure to follow up leads and call on 
key witnesses that would corroborate his version of events. Despite this, 
Prabagaran was executed in July 2017.

A Pakistani citizen, Zulfiqar Ali, languished on death row in Indonesia for 12 
years on drug charges. During his interrogation, he was denied the assistance 
of the lawyer and was kept in a house for three days and punched, kicked and 
threatened with death unless he signed a self-incriminating statement, which he 
later did. He required stomach and kidney surgery due to damage caused by the 
beatings. He received limited translation assistance throughout his detention 
and during the proceedings against him.

Despite that, execution warrants were issued for him in July 2016. He was saved 
at the last minute after the government ordered the review of his and nine 
other cases– but died waiting for the outcome of this review.

When President Maithripala signs those execution warrants, he must take time to 
consider the weight of what he’s doing. Sri Lanka is recovering from a 
debilitating war. She has seen mountains of corpses on her streets and shores. 
Adding 13 more will be the unnecessary death toll that will make few drug 
kingpins pause.

That is why President Sirisena must.

(source: dailymirror.lk)








PAKISTAN:

SC adjourns Mukhtar Mai rape case until March 27



The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned the hearing of a review petition 
challenging the acquittal of 13 suspects in the Mukhtar Mai gang rape case, 
reported ARY News.

A 3-judge bench headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed put off the hearing till March 
27 on a request by a suspect named in the case.

At the start of the hearing, suspect Rasool Buksh stated before the bench that 
he got a court notice in connection with the hearing yesterday and demanded 
that he be granted some time to hire the services of a lawyer to plead his 
case.

Granting his request, the court directed him to appear on the next hearing 
along with his counsel.

In 2002, a jirga [village council] ordered Mai to be gang-raped after her 
brother was accused of having extra-marital affair with a woman of a rival 
clan.

An anti-terrorism court had in Aug 2002 sentenced 6 men to death. 4 of the 
convicts were awarded capital punishment for raping Mai and 2 for being part of 
the jirga.

Later, the Lahore High Court Multan bench acquitted 5 of the convicts and 
converted the death sentence of accused Abdul Khaliq to life imprisonment.

Afterwards, Mai went to the apex court, challenging the acquittal of the 
accused. A 3-judge bench of the apex court had in April 2011 rejected her 
appeal by a majority of 2 to 1. Justice Nasirul Mulk had written a dissenting 
note, diverging from the majority opinion of Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan and 
Mian Saqib Nisar.

(source: arynews.tv)








CHINA:

Human traffickers should be punished with the death penalty to prevent child 
abduction, says Chinese politician



A politician has called for an amendment to the Chinese law to impose the death 
penalty on those convicted of trafficking women and children.

The proposal was initiated by Zhang Baoyan, a delegate to the 13th National 
People's Congress in an interview with the media during the annual meeting of 
China's top lawmakers and political advisers this week.

Zhang, who has been a long-time advocate for women's and children's rights in 
the country, said that the current penalty of five to 10 years' imprisonment is 
'relatively lenient' and not harsh enough to deter child kidnappers.

By adjusting the penalty to 10 years' imprisonment with the maximum punishment 
of the death sentence, Zhang stressed that it is time for authorities to 
demonstrate a 'zero-tolerance policy' on the violation of the rights of women 
and children. The 56 year-old politician, originally from Tonghua, Jilin 
province, is the founder of Chinese website Baby Back Home, or Baobeihuijia, a 
non-profit organisation established in 2007 that helps families track down 
missing or abducted children.

Child abduction and trafficking has long been a serious social problem in 
China, with an estimated 70,000 children going missing each year for forced 
labor, adoption or prostitution, according to a previous report by China Daily.

Zhang said in an earlier interview with the Global Times that the organisation 
receives around 1,000 requests every year and most of the missing children are 
aged between three and six. Over half of the cases involve child abduction.

The organisation said it has reunited more than 2,800 families over the past 12 
years. Just last year, 456 lost and abducted children were returned to their 
families, she added.

'The trafficking women and children is a crime that seriously violates the 
rights of citizens and obstructs social order,' Zhang said in a statement 
published Tuesday on Baby Back Home's official social media account.

'Trafficking cases often involve other crimes such as rape, ill-treatment, 
illegal detention, violent beatings, forced prostitution and even death, some 
of which many lead to suicide and mental disorders,' she added.

'However, due to the relatively light sentence, some criminals remain 
undeterred.'

She also called for a stiffer punishment for buyers, who fuel the trade but are 
seldom held accountable. Currently, convicted buyers of human trafficking 
victims face no more than 3 years in prison.

Zhang's proposal attracted widespread media coverage and approval from the 
public on social media.

The hashtag 'proposal to impose death penalty on women and children 
traffickers' has received more than 320 million views and 120,000 comments on 
Chinese microblogging site Weibo.

'100 % support!' one comment 'liked' more than 110,000 times read.

'Imagine your children being abducted and sold, imagine not ever seeing them 
again - the current sentence of five to 10 years is a joke,' another comment 
'liked' more than 30,000 times said.

'These criminals have caused so much grief to so many families. They should 
have gotten a harsher sentence a long time ago,' one person said.

'On the other hand, buyers should get life imprisonment for their crimes - 
there will be less human traffickers if there is no demand,' another user said.

'At the same time, authorities should approve and promote more adoption 
agencies and channels,' one user suggested.

Although authorities have not published exact figures on child abduction rates, 
Chinese courts ruled on 2,806 cases involving the abduction and trafficking of 
women and children between 2015 and 2018, according to the Supreme People's 
Court cited by Global Times.

DNA identification tests is currently the most common method used by Chinese 
police to help parents find their missing children. In 2014, the Ministry of 
Public Security said more than 3,500 children have been reunited with the 
families through the national DNA database since it was established in 2009.

Why is child abduction a serious problem in China?

Child abduction is a serious problem in China, especially in rural areas.

One major cause is that the Chinese families prefer sons to daughters, 
resulting in them buying baby boys.

In addition, the severe gender gap - a result of 3 decades of 1-child policy - 
has made it hard for Chinese men to find wives. As a result, teenager girls are 
sometimes kidnapped and sold as child brides.

Child abduction remains a sensitive topic to the Chinese authorities. No 
official figures have been released on how many children are kidnapped in China 
every year.

However according to a 2016 report on Chinese news site Caijing, around 200,000 
boys and girls are reported to be missing every year. Among them, only 200, or 
0.1 per cent, would be able to find their parents at some point of their lives.

The report also claimed that there are more than one million child beggars in 
China and most of them were abducted by human traffickers or forced to beg by 
their families.

Baobeihuijia, a website specialised in connecting families with their missing 
members, has conducted a survey on the kidnapped children in China based on 
8,861 cases listed on their website.

The survey shows that around 64 % of the kidnapped children are boys and more 
than 75 % of the kidnapped children are under the age of 6.

However, among those who are abducted over the age of 13, there are more girls 
than boys.

The survey also claims that children under the age of 4 are most likely to be 
abducted in China.

(source: dailymail.co.uk)