[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 18




INDIA:

Odisha: Death penalty for Salipur rape & murder accused



A POCSO court today awarded death penalty to accused youth convicted in 2018 
Salipur minor girl rape and murder case.

Yesterday, the special POCSO Court, Cuttack, had convicted accused Mohammed 
Mustaque under sections 302, 363, 376 a-b of IPC and section 6 of Protection of 
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The accused had raped a 6-year-old girl near a school under Salipur police 
limits on April 21, 2018. He had crushed her head with a stone following rape. 
The girl was rushed to the SCB Medical College & Hospital in critical 
condition, where she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on April 
29 last year.

This is the 5th case in Odisha where the accused persons were sentenced to 
death for the heinous crime.

(source: Odisha Sun Times)








MALAYSIA:

Nov 27 death penalty appeal for Banting man who sold medicinal cannabis



The Court of Appeal has set November 27 to hear the appeal by a 30-year-old 
father who was sentenced to death for trafficking cannabis which he claimed was 
used for medicinal purposes.

A 3-man panel comprising Justices Datuk Yaacob Md Sam, Datuk Zabariah Mohd 
Yusof and Datuk Lau Bee Lan fixed the hearing date when the matter came up 
before the court today.

Earlier, Justice Yaacob granted an application by Muhammad Lukman Mohamad’s 
lawyer Hisyam Teh Poh Teik to include two additional grounds in the petition of 
appeal.

Deputy public prosecutor Datuk Nazran Mohd Sham did not object to the 
application.

On August 30 last year, the Shah Alam High Court found Muhammad Lukman guilty 
on 3 charges of trafficking 3,010mm of delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis 
extract), 1,422g of delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol and 279.81g of cannabis.

He was accused of committing the offences at a house in Bandar Mahkota, Banting 
at 6.45pm on December 7, 2015.

(source: malaymail.com)








SRI LANKA:

2 Indian drug peddlers sentenced to life term in Sri Lanka



2 Indian nationals have been sentenced to life terms in Sri Lanka for drug 
peddling, police said on Wednesday.

The 2 named Dhanivel Mani and Lebbai Jalaluddin Mohifeen Mohadeem have been 
held in Sri Lanka since 2016.

They were sentenced by the Negombo High Court on Tuesday after they admitted to 
pedaling heroin, police spokesman Ruwan Gunasekera said.

They were arrested by the Sri Lanka Customs and handed over to the Police 
Narcotics Bureau.

The sentencing came as President Maithripala Sirisena was contemplating action 
to renew the capital punishment for a drug-related crime. Sirisena's move was 
halted by the apex court in response to a petition filed by public interest 
activists.

The President had signed 4 death warrants when the Supreme Court stayed the 
executions till October 30.

Sirisena's decision came in spite of a UN moratorium on the death penalty which 
Sri Lanka has been a part of.

All Sirisena's presidential predecessors since 1978 had declined to sign death 
warrants for capital punishment. The death sentence is commuted to life terms.

Sirisena said he was compelled to reintroduce the death penalty related to drug 
crimes due to the growing menace of drugs.

(source: Press Trust of India)








PAKISTAN:

SC converts death sentence of 7 accused into imprisonment



The Supreme Court on Wednesday converted the death sentence of 7 murder accused 
into 10-year imprisonment. A trial court awarded capital punishment to 7 
accused while 6 accused were awarded life sentence over murder of 2 brothers in 
Sialkot in 2010. The high court also maintained the trial court verdict. The 
incident took place in Sialkot in 2010 where an angry mob shot and killed 2 
brothers Hafiz Muneeb and Hafiz Mughez by terming them bandits. The apex court 
also took suo moto notice over the incident. A 3-member Bench of the apex court 
headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa comprising Justice Mazhar Alam 
Khan Miankhel and Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmad heard the case through video 
link from SC Lahore Registry. During the course of proceedings, the Chief 
Justice said that two stories were made in this case and 2 FIRs were 
registered. In first FIR injured persons were mentioned but in the second FIR 
no injured person was mentioned, he added. He said that these are disadvantages 
of the suo moto notices. He said that the State had the power to punish in case 
of any crime. If people had captured the robbers, they did not have authority 
to punish them, he added. He said that violence could not be allowed at all in 
society. If courts released accused, people would get a licence to torture, he 
added. The court after hearing the arguments converted death sentence of 7 
accused and life imprisonment of 5 to 10 years imprisonment. Detailed judgment 
of the case will be issued later.

(source: nation.com.pk)

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

Shahid Afridi calls for public hanging of rapists



Former Pakistani cricketing star Shahid Afridi demanded on Wednesday the state 
publicly hang people who have raped children to set an example for others.

He was speaking at a ceremony in Karachi. His comments came in response to a 
question about the recent horrifying incident pertaining to child abuse and 
murder in Punjab’s Kasur district.

Protests broke out in Kasur’s Chunian early Wednesday, a day after bodies of 
three missing children were found. The protest was held outside the City 
Chunian police station, where the demonstrators demanded the arrest of the 
murderers.

Afridi said there lies a huge responsibility on the state in this regard, 
demanding the public hanging of the perpetrators behind such heinous incidents.

He also said that no human rights group should object to capital punishment for 
child abusers.

“An example should be set for others and no human rights [group] should have 
any problem with it,” the former cricketer said.

According to police, 5 children have gone missing from various areas of Kasur 
in the last 3 months, 1 of whom was identified as the boy whose body was found 
on Tuesday. The 2 other children have yet to be identified.

Their remains have been sent to a lab for testing, according to the police. A 
blood sample for DNA testing will be taken from the parents of all the missing 
children to determine if the skeletal remains are of any of the 5 missing 
children.

Kasur has long been at the centre stage of child abuse in Pakistan, with 
several cases surfacing from across the district over the past years.

In January 2018, the body of a minor girl was found from a garbage heap. She 
was raped and murdered. The incident had sent shock waves across the country 
drawing calls for the arrest of and stern punishment to the perpetrator.

Police arrested Zainab’s murderer, Imran Ali, with the help of DNA testing. He 
was subsequently sentenced to death and executed in October, 2018.

However, the recent discovery of the bodies of children has once again reminded 
people of the deep-seating problem that needs to be addressed.

(source: samaa.tv)








IRAQ:

Condemned to Death Abroad: The Case of French ISIS Members in Iraq



Iraq reportedly intends to carry out the execution of 7 French nationals who 
are currently charged with being members of the Islamic State. The Iraqi 
government has denied reports that it would reconsider the imposition of the 
death sentences if France pays millions of euros in exchange.

The decision to carry out such executions has been criticized by Agnes 
Callamard, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary 
executions at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She has 
expressed serious concerns for the situation of the French nationals and has 
urged the French government to press for their return home. The death penalty 
has been abolished in France, as well as in all other European Union member 
countries.

News of these executions generates a series of questions about what obligations 
States that abolished the death penalty have when their citizens have been 
sentenced to death in a foreign country. This is especially relevant in cases 
where capital punishment is imposed without the presence of important 
safeguards, such as access to a fair trial, an obligation that is enshrined in 
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6.2), to 
which Iraq is a Party.

So far, E.U. Countries, like France and Britain, have repeatedly refused to 
repatriate their citizens who joined the Islamic State (or ISIS) in Iraq and 
Syria, arguing that they should face trials before domestic Iraqi and Syrian 
courts. But do States have an obligation to prevent the execution of their own 
nationals abroad, when fair trial guarantees are not ensured?

This dilemma is likely to recur for many European countries whose citizens left 
home to fight for the Islamic State. Iraq is, in fact, conducting trials of 
thousands of suspected ISIS fighters and ranks among the world’s top 
executioners, according to Amnesty International. The presence of foreign 
fighters on death row in Iraq is also likely to increase: Among those currently 
detained, there are hundreds of foreign nationals from Europe.

France’s possible involvement in the transfer of its citizens to Iraq

The circumstances of the case in question cast serious shadows on France’s 
compliance with international law.

It appears that the accused men were arrested by the Syrian Democratic Forces 
(SDF) and subsequently transferred to Iraq in February “at the alleged request 
of the French Government or with its suspected involvement,” according to 
Callamard. Allegedly, the transfer of these individuals from Syria to Iraq 
happened after France refused to allow them to return home, an attempt at 
avoiding the burden of transferring and trying a number of French individuals 
who joined ISIS.

If France’s involvement in the transfer of these men is proven, it would be in 
clear violation of its human rights obligations. France abolished the death 
penalty in 1981 and it has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of 
the death penalty (Optional Protocol). France is also a party to the European 
Convention on Human Rights and its 6th Protocol Concerning the Abolition of 
Death Penalty.

While these instruments merely prohibit the imposition of the death penalty 
within the jurisdiction of the State (article 1 of the Optional Protocol, and 
article 5 of the European Protocol), consistent jurisprudence from 
international tribunals have long established that the extradition of 
individuals to a country where it is foreseeable that the death penalty may be 
used, violates the right to life of individuals (See, inter alia Judge v. 
Canada, Human Rights Committee, para 10.6).

An express prohibition of extraditions towards non-abolishing countries is 
found in in Article 11 of the European Convention on Extradition. European law 
does not limit its protection to formal extraditions, but it extends this ban 
to all acts entailing the removal or expulsion of the individual “to a State 
where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death 
penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” as 
recognised in Article 19.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union.

France’s involvement in the transfer of its citizens to Iraq would therefore 
constitute a violation of the obligations it took when it ratified these 
international treaties.

However, France is claiming that it was not involved in the decision to 
transfer the men to Iraq. France’s position, so far, has been to oppose to the 
death penalty for them, while at the same time, reiterating its respect for 
Iraq’s sovereignty, implying that it would not intervene in judicial 
proceedings. As I detail below, in the absence of France’s clear involvement in 
the transfer, France’s reaction, which consists of merely issuing a statement, 
is in line with its international law obligations.

However, there are other options that France could undertake to assist its own 
nationals. International law grants States some powers to intervene, giving 
France the chance to do much more than standby and watch its citizens undergo 
an unfair trial and be sentenced to death.

The soft powers granted by international law

States powers (and obligations) to assist their citizens abroad are very 
blurred. Human rights obligations generally apply within a State’s own 
jurisdiction (Art 1 ECHR, art 2.1 ICCPR), while their extraterritorial 
application is merely limited to cases when they exercise their control over 
another State’s territory or individuals. The protection granted by human 
rights treaties is not linked to the nationality of the individuals, meaning 
that a person committing a crime abroad, will usually be judged accordingly to 
the rules of the State where the crime is committed (or of the State where he 
or she is transferred, as in the case of the French ISIS members in Iraq). This 
framework ensures the preservation of States’ sovereignty as well as compliance 
with the principle of non-interference with the domestic affairs of another 
nation.

But, there have been some developments which expand the protection given to 
those facing human rights violations in countries abroad.

The 1st major development in international law is the establishment of 
Diplomatic Protection, which has been defined by the International Law 
Commission (ILC) as: “the invocation by a State, through diplomatic action or 
other means of peaceful settlement, of the responsibility of another State for 
an injury caused by an internationally wrongful act of that State to a natural 
or legal person that is a national of the former State with a view to the 
implementation of such responsibility” (Art 1, Draft Articles on Diplomatic 
Protection)

The exercise of the right to intervene on behalf of its citizens can be 
exercised by the State in a number of ways, such as consular assistance, 
diplomatic representations, negotiations, mediation, arbitration, judicial 
settlement and severance of diplomatic ties. However, the exercise of the 
State’s right to intervene is merely seen as discretionary, meaning that there 
are no obligations on States to intervene if their citizens experience a human 
rights violation abroad (ICJ, Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and 
Power Company (Belgium v. Spain) [1970] ICJ Rep 44, 78). Another weakness of 
this institute is that it relates to the commission of internationally wrongful 
acts, and, despite the efforts of the ILC Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic 
Protection J. Dugard’s, to include a specific provision relating to human 
rights violations, the ILC’s final draft articles on Diplomatic Protection 
discarded the incorporation of such a provision.

A 2nd avenue is detailed in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 
(VCCR), which creates a number of rights for individuals and States who find 
themselves in similar circumstances. In cases when foreign nationals are 
detained, they are entitled to be informed of their right to consular 
assistance and to communicate with their consulate. Moreover, the host State is 
obliged to notify the State of origin of the detention, should this be 
requested by the individual. Some States even go further and have included a 
legislative provision that enshrines the right to consular assistance for their 
nationals abroad. (See the case of Germany: Article 7, Consular Law, 11 
September 1974).

However, due to the prevailing role played by the principle of non-interference 
in the domestic affairs of the receiving State, consular assistance has not 
been interpreted to mean the State has the power to intervene in a judicial 
process. Moreover, practice shows that States tend to limit their obligation to 
consider the request for assistance of the individual, without finding an 
obligation to make specific representations on behalf of the individual.

The avenues analyzed so far provide little room for the participation of the 
country of origin in the legal proceedings concerning its citizens. As 
mentioned, this is a reflection of the traditional understanding of 
international law, a body of law which was shaped to safeguard States’ 
interests, and aspired to avoid any interference in the exercise of States’ 
sovereignty.

Still, States have demonstrated in some circumstances their will to enforce the 
VCCR and the right to consular assistance enshrined in that law. Since 1998, 
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has heard four cases of diplomatic 
protection in relation to individual human right violations (Paraguay v United 
States of America; Germany v United States of America; Mexico v United States 
of America; Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo.) 
Interestingly, the last three cases, involved individuals sentenced to death.

Conclusion

The death penalty is the ultimate punishment and denial of human rights. Over 
time, the international community, with the notable exception of the United 
States in the West, has adopted a moratorium on capital punishment, coming to 
recognize its cruel and inhuman nature. However, notwithstanding the abolition 
of capital punishment in 106 States, national sovereignty and the principle of 
non-interference in domestic affairs still play a prevailing role. This remains 
valid in cases relating to the imposition of death sentences to foreign 
citizens. Countries of origin are left with few instruments to ensure concrete 
safeguards for those who are in the death row, even when there are serious 
concerns about the fairness of the trial. However, international law does grant 
States with some minimum powers, and allows them to intrude in other State’s 
proceedings.

If States are serious about enforcing the abolishment of death penalty, they 
must show a genuine commitment and do everything that is in their power to 
avoid the execution of their citizens, even those who are responsible for the 
most heinous crimes. This means that they must ensure full assistance to them 
while they are detained in a foreign country. France’s refusal to assist its 
citizens abroad will leave an indelible stain on its record and it is likely to 
weaken its credibility as a human rights champion.

(source: justsecurity.org)