March 3
INDONESIA:
Death sentence of Bali 9 pair a stance taken by Indonesia?
We accept that other countries follow different laws to Australia. Considering
Andrew Chan's and and Myuran Sukumaran's 9-year plight on death row, questions
about an arbitrary nature within the Indonesian justice system and if the
draconian decision carries a message beg to be reflected upon, writes Chris
Townsend.
The death penalty is one of the most controversial sentences that can be
imposed, sparking debate globally. Human Rights activists consistently campaign
against its imposition, with Amnesty International often at the forefront of
the same.
(...) we can now reflect on the past 9 years and really question whether they
have been afforded justice, as we know and accept that concept to be.
Every day, all over the world, prisoners face execution. Men, women, children
are faced with this cruel, inhumane method of punishment that has often been
cited as ineffective as a deterrent. In Australia, by virtue of the Death
Penalty Abolition Act 1973, such a punishment cannot be imposed.
Further, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death
Penalty Abolition) Act 2010, made it so Australia cannot reintroduce such a
penalty. We, as a people, as a community, made our stance clear.
This however, does not stop our people, whilst abroad, from being subject to
the laws of a country that does support the imposition of the death penalty.
Indonesia is 1 of them. 2 of Indonesia's most currently publicised Australian
prisoners are Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Well known in Australia, as members of the Bali Nine, in 2005, they were both
arrested for attempting to traffic over 8kg of Heroin into Australia.
Despite intelligence of Chan's and Sukumaran's plans being available to
Australian authorities and the Australian Federal Police having had the
opportunity, should they have chosen, to arrest them both upon returning to
Australia, the AFP chose to give the intelligence to the Indonesian Police, and
subsequently the pair was sentenced, in February 2006, to death.
Both Chan and Sukumaran are now facing the firing squad, having had almost
every legal avenue exhauste, including but not limited to, a request for
clemency from the President Joko Widodo. After that was rejected we can now
reflect on the past 9 years and really question whether they have been afforded
justice, as we know and accept that concept to be.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty
adopted by the United Nations, in force since 1976, commits parties to respect
the right to life, freedom of religion and speech amongst other fundamental
rights.
Particularly Article 6 of the ICCPR states: "Every human being has the inherent
right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life. 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 [...]"
Indonesia became a party to this treaty, in February 2006. Australia signed the
treaty in 1972, ratifying it in 1980.
Article 28A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia aligns with
such a right in stating: "Every person shall have the right to live and to
defend his/her life and existence."
Around the same time as Chan and Sukumaran received the decision of the Supreme
Court of Jakarta (2011) reaffirming their fate, an Indonesian national had been
through the same process.
Hanky Gunawan, had been found guilty of mass producing the drug ice, having
been found in possession of 11kg of the same. He had originally been, at first
instance, sentenced to 18 years, however this was increased to the death
penalty.
In the same court that reaffirmed Chan and Sukumaran's penalty, Gunawan
remarkably had a much different outcome. His death penalty was reduced to 15
years imprisonment, with Chief Justice Imron Anwari, citing the ICCPR, and the
Indonesian Constitution.
All 3 judges agreed on this point. Gunawan's appeal decision, handed down by
the Supreme Court was published as No. 39 of 2011. Chan and Sukumaran's appeal
decisions were No. 37 and 38 respectively.
One can only wonder, what changed between the decision handed down in July
2011, and the 1 only a month later in August 2011. Ultimately Chan and
Sukumaran will likely be executed. For what purpose, remains to be seen.
Australia seeks to rehabilitate those convicted, and WA, by virtue of the
Prisoners Review Board and the Sentence Administration Act 2003, reviews
prisoners with the ultimate goal to return to the community, functioning and
rehabilitated citizens.
Had Chan and Sukumaran been imprisoned in Australia, and shown the extent of
personal growth and rehabilitation they have in Kerobokan Prison, we as a
community, represented by the appropriate authorities, would likely deem them
fit to re-enter society.
Alas, that is not the case in Indonesia. Australia as a country enjoys
transparency in the conduct of judicial proceedings. Other countries are rife
with corruption. Acknowledging that in order for justice to be done, it needs
to be seen to be done, this principle is something embedded in our criminal
justice system, and something that Australia ought to be thankful we adhere to
where possible.
Is that any consolation for Chan and Sukumaran, probably not. But we can all
learn something from what will likely be their unnecessary deaths.
(source: Commentary; Chris Townsend is a solicitor at Lewis Blyth and Hooper in
Perth----The Age)
IRAN:
Executions top long U.N. list of human rights concerns in Iran
Iran had a "deeply troubling" number of executions last year and did not keep a
promise to protect ethnic and religious minorities, the United Nations said on
Tuesday in its annual report on Tehran's human rights record.
The report from the office of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the U.N. Human
Rights Council cataloged U.N. concerns about rights violations in Iran against
women, religious minorities, journalists and activists.
The report was published as a deadline nears for Iran and major powers to agree
a deal on its nuclear program, which Tehran says would end sanctions against
it.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif complained to the Council on
Monday about "double standards" and an "almost uncontrollable compulsion" to
politicize issues.
Iran was believed to have executed at least 500 people between January and
November 2014 and possibly many more, the report said. Most victims did not get
a fair trial and over 80 % of those executed were drug offenders, it said.
"The Secretary-General remains deeply troubled by the continuing large number
of executions, including of political prisoners and juveniles," it said,
repeating a U.N. call for a death penalty moratorium and a ban on executing
youths.
It said Iran had not kept President Hassan Rouhani's promise to "extend
protection to all religious groups and to amend legislation that discriminates
against minority groups".
"The above-mentioned commitments have not ... been translated into results,"
the report said. "Individuals seeking greater recognition for their cultural
and linguistic rights risk facing harsh penalties, including capital
punishment."
Tehran also continued a crackdown on freedom of expression, having blocked 5
million websites and jailed journalists. A professional ban on human rights
lawyers and harassment of activists were "a setback for the country as a
whole", it said.
Suspects were allegedly tortured, ill-treated, held for months in solitary
confinement with no access to a lawyer and risked the death penalty for crimes
such as "corruption on earth" and "enmity against God".
The report said Iran was cooperating more on U.N. human rights treaties and had
invited U.N. High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al-Hussein to visit. But it had not
invited the U.N. investigator on Iranian human rights, and 24 of 29 U.N.
inquiries on specific cases had gone unanswered.
2/3 of women reportedly suffer domestic violence, the report said. Girls are
forced to marry young, with about 48,450 between the age of 10 and 14 married
in 2011, and at least 1,537 under 10 were married in 2012, the report said.
(source: Reuters)
*********************
6 Kurdish Sunni Prisoners at Imminent Danger of Execution
6 death row Kurdish Sunni prisoners have been transferred to an unknown
location. Families of prisoners have been asked visit met their loved ones for
the last time. Right groups believe the prisoners might be executed within the
coming 24 hours. Iran Human Rights (IHR) calls for immediate reaction of the
international community and urges the Western leaders meeting with the Iranian
Foreign minister today, to put pressure on Iran to stop these unlawful
executions.
Unofficial sources from Iran report that 6 Sunni Muslim prisoners, Jamshid and
Jahangir Dehgani (brothers), Hamed Ahmadi and Kamal Molayee, Sedigh Mohammadi
and Hadi Hosseini belonging to the Kurdish ethnic minority in Iran have been
transferred out of their prison wards in Rajaishahr prison of Karaj to an
unknown location. According to these reports the prisoners were brutally beaten
and taken away while their hands and feet were tied and eyes were blindfolded.
Some family members of the prisoners have confirmed to IHR that they have been
asked by the prison officials to urgently visit death row family members. 1 of
the family members has been told to come for the last visit.
IHR is strongly concerned that the execution of the 6 Sunni Kurdish prisoners
could be imminent.
Hamed Ahmadi, Jamshid Dehghani and his younger brother Jahangir Dehghani, Kamal
Mosunni-kordlayee, Hadi Hosseini and Sedigh Mohammadi are among 6 Sunni Muslim
men from Iran's Kurdish minority who were sentenced to death after being
convicted of vaguely-worded offences including Moharebeh (enmity against God)
and "corruption on earth".
IHR calls for a reaction by the international community to save these
prisoners. Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR, said: These
prisoners have been subjected to ill-treatment, unfair trials and are possibly
sentenced to death as part of the Iranian authorities' crackdown of the Sunni
minority in Iran. They are being executed while the Iranian Foreign Minister is
meeting with the US Secretary of States and possibly other Western leaders in
Switzerland. We ask the international community to use all the channels in
order to stop the executions. The world must show that their dialogues with the
Iranian authorities also benefits the human rights".
Background: Jamshid and Jahangir Dehgani (brothers), Hamed Ahmadi and Kamal
Molayee were arrested in 2009. They were accused along with 6 others of
involvement in the assassination of a senior Sunni cleric with ties to the
Iranian authorities.
They have denied any involvement, saying that their arrest and detention
preceded the assassination by several months. They were sentenced to death by
the branch 28 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, convicted of "Moharebeh"
(enmity against God) and "acts against the nation's security". Their trial
lasted about 10 minutes and they haven't seen their lawyer, according to
sources who have been in contact with Iran Human Rights (IHR).
The 6 other prisoners were executed in December 2012, but the death sentences
of the 4 prisoners were postponed.
Their execution was scheduled to be carried out in on September 25, 2013, and
June 15, 2014, but it was postponed possibly due to the international
attention.
In 2014 more than 19 human rights group called on the Iranian authorities to
stop the execution of 33 Sunni prisoners.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
INDIA:
Mukesh Singh just made the case for death penalty stronger
Did Mukesh Singh just make the case against him stronger. The Supreme Court has
stayed his death penalty in connection with the Nirbhaya rape and murder case.
Singh who was awarded a death penalty had moved the Supreme Court which had
stayed the sentence. The Supreme Court while hearing cases in which capital
punishment takes a key aspect into account "is the accused beyond reformation
and is there any remorse."
Singh's statement to the BBC only goes on to show that he is beyond reformation
and there is no remorse left in him for the gruesome rape and murder which had
left a nation shocked.
What Mukesh Singh had said?
Singh in an interview for a BBC documentary blamed the victim (Nirbhaya) for
the fatal sexual assault on her. He went on to add that women who go out at
night had only themselves to blame if they attracted the attention of
molesters.
A girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy, he had also said in the
interview. Did he make his own case weaker?
The law of the land says life sentence is a rule while death an exception.
Courts are extremely cautious while awarding a death penalty and take into
consideration various factors before doing so. The nature of the crime and the
conduct of the accused whether he is remorseful and beyond reform are key
aspects while deciding a case of death penalty.
The statement made by Singh clearly indicates that he is trying to blame the
victim for the incident. Not once has he shown any sign of remorse or
reformation. The prosecution while arguing before the Supreme Court to uphold
his death sentence can well place before the court the statements he has made
in connection with this case.
Legal experts say that such statements have only made the case against him
stronger and are a clear indicator that he ought to be a recipient of the death
penalty as he has shown no signs of remorse or reformation.
The aspects considered before awaring death penalty: Personality of the convict
- Whether the convict is suffering from a mental disorder when committing the
offence? - Had the court expressed any doubt regarding the evidence when
handing out the sentence? - Has any fresh evidence cropped up to substantiate
the claim of the appellant? - Was evidence considered before the sentence was
handed out? - Was the death sentence given after a long delay in the trial and
investigation? - Is the convict beyond reformation? - Is there any sense of
remorse?
Can death row convicts give interviews?
The jail manuals in India clearly gives an option for convicts to give
interviews subject to permission from the government and the jail authorities.
Every prisoner shall be allowed reasonable facilities for seeing or
communicating with, his/her family members, relatives, friends and legal
advisers for the preparation of an appeal or for procuring bail or for
arranging the management of his/her property and family affairs.
He/she shall be allowed to have interviews with his/her family members,
relatives, friends and legal advisers once in a fortnight. The number of
letters a prisoner can write in a month shall be fixed by the Government under
the rules.
On admission, every prisoner should submit a list of persons who are likely to
interview him/her and the interview shall be restricted to such family members,
relatives and friends. The conversation at the interviews shall be limited to
private and domestic matters and there shall be no reference to prison
administration and discipline and to other prisoners or politics. The number of
persons who may interview a prisoner at one time shall ordinarily be limited to
3.
(source: One India)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
