July 24
IRAN----executions
5 Prisoners Hanged in Kermanshah Prison
On Friday, July 20, 5 prisoners were executed at Dizel Abad Prison in
Kermanshah.
Iran Human Rights sources identified 1 of the prisoners as Alireza Ashouri, 57.
The names of the 4 other prisoners will be announced as soon as they are
confirmed by IHR.
According to Iran Human Rights annual report on the death penalty, 240
prisoners have been sentenced to death on the charge of murder in Iran in 2017,
which 10 of those were carried out in Kermanshah. The statistics show a
significant increase in the number of executions compared to that of 2016. In
2016, 142 prisoners were executed on murder charges.
(source: Iran Human Rights)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:
Indian walks free 12 years after getting death sentence in UAE----The Sharjah
Police had arrested Sandeep for murdering his compatriot, Mandeep Singh, on
November 11, 2007.
An Indian man, who was on death row for murdering a compatriot over bootlegging
will travel back to his home country a free man, later today. Thanks to the
efforts of a Dubai-based philanthropist, Punjab native Sandeep Singh was
released 12 years after he was jailed.
All odds were stacked against Sandeep, as the Sharjah courts had sentenced him
to death and the Federal Supreme Court upheld it after the victim's family
refused blood money initially. But Dr S.P. Singh Oberoi, head of Sarbat Da
Bhala charitable trust, managed to convince the family to accept the blood
money and pardon the convict. But due to some documentation problems, it took 6
more years to get Sandeep released.
The Sharjah Police had arrested Sandeep for murdering his compatriot, Mandeep
Singh, on November 11, 2007. After standing trial, the Sharjah Court of First
Instance awarded him the death penalty. Sandeep appealed the verdict and the
Sharjah Appeals Court commuted the sentence to life in jail. However, the
Sharjah Public Prosecution referred the case to the Federal Supreme Court,
which sentenced him to death.
Dr Oberoi approached the Sharjah Appeals Court and asked for a grace period to
negotiate with the victim's family as they were not ready to accept the blood
money at the time.
In December 2012, Dr Oberoi managed to convince the family and paid them the
blood money. In 2013, he submitted the attested documents of the compromise at
the Sharjah courts and at the Supreme Court.
In April 2018, the Supreme Court asked for amendments to be made to the
compromise papers, which were done and submitted again.
In the same month, the Sharjah Appeals Court judges commuted the death penalty
to 3 years in jail. Since he had completed more than 10 years in jail, Sandeep
was ordered to be released. However, as 1 clause was missing from the
compromise document, the court asked for a fresh set of papers.
After this was done, the court issued his release order on July 22. The Indian
Consulate issued travel documents for Sandeep and he will fly back to India on
Tuesday.
(source: Khaleej Times)
JORDAN:
Amman Court Upholds Death Penalty of Man Rape, Murder of 70-Year-Old
The Court of Cassation has upheld a January Criminal Court ruling sentencing a
man to death after convicting him of robbing, sexually assaulting and murdering
a 70-year-old woman in her home in east Amman in February 2017.
The court declared the 25-year-old defendant guilty of murdering the elderly
women with a gas cylinder while at her apartment in the 5-story building in
Jabal Akhdar and handed him the maximum punishment.
The court also convicted the defendant of sexual assault and robbery.
Court documents said the defendant knew the victim because he was her son's
friend.
"The defendant decided to rob the victim so he climbed some iron bars to reach
her house around mid-night, took a gas cylinder and a television set," court
papers said.
The defendant then headed to the victim's room where he sexually assaulted her,
then struck her with her own gas cylinder, stole her mobile and left, according
to court transcripts.
In the meantime, the victim's son heard noises and became suspicious because it
was late at night so he rushed from his apartment and saw a man running in the
street with a TV set and a gas cylinder, the court added.
(source: albawaba.com)
KENYA:
Life in Prison is Enough Punishment, Millie Odhiambo Sympathizes With Ruth
Kamande
Following the capital punishment meted out to Ruth Kamande for the cold-blooded
homicide of her boyfriend in 2015, High Court Judge Jessie Lesiit has come
under fire from some sections for the retrogressive ruling.
The Judge held that Kamande acted in malice and showed no remorse for the
murder in the course of the trial, thereby deserving of a death sentence.
Human rights activists have since protested the sentencing and have been joined
by vocal lawmaker Millie Odhiambo in calling for an end to the death penalty.
According to the Suba North MP, life in prison is enough punishment for Ruth
Kamane.
"When we were discussing it at Bomas, I was one amongst very few who were
calling for the abolition of the death penalty.
"I am the Chairperson of the Parliamentarians for Global Action in Kenya and we
believe in the rule of law and human rights. And one of the things we're
working on this term is the abolition of the death penalty and we're going to
bring amendments to remove the death penalty in our books."
Speaking during a TV interview, Millie added: "This girl is so beautiful...
she's so young... she has lost her entire life; that is enough punishment."
The outspoken legislator further advised young people to walk away from toxic
relationships.
"I would want to encourage young people; if you're in a bad relationship... if
someone is cheating on you, he's not the only man on earth, walk away, other
men will come; she's still too young and beautiful, she would have found many
more men," remarked Millie.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International-Kenya last week issued a statement of Ruth
Kamande's death sentence terming it as "cruel and inhumane."
"We are concerned that Kenya continues to use this cruel, inhumane and outdated
mode of punishment. This sentence is a blow to Kenya's progressive record in
commuting death sentences to terms of imprisonment," AIK Executive Director
Irungu Houghton said.
Despite the lack of executions, death sentences are still passed in Kenya. No
executions have been carried out in Kenya since 1987 when Hezekiah Ochuka and
Pancras Oteyo Okumu were hanged for treason.
(source: nairobiwire.com)
UNITED KINGDOM:
Is the UK government's stance on the death penalty shifting?----Questions
raised by Sajid Javid's decision not to oppose it potential use in the US in
the case of 2 Isis suspects
Sajid Javid's letter to the US attorney general, in which the home secretary
says the UK government will not seek assurances over the use of the death
penalty against 2 former British citizens and alleged terrorist murderers has
renewed concerns the government is loosening its stance on the abolition of the
death penalty.
The UK abolished the death penalty for murder in 1965. Looking overseas, there
has been a long-held opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances as a
matter of principle.
The coalition government published a death penalty strategy in 2011, setting
out its approach to the issue. The current government decided not to publish an
updated strategy. Pressed on the issue since 2015, the it has said it has not
changed its policy.
Under its goals, the strategy states the UK aims to increase the number of
countries that have abolished the death penalty.
Why is the UK's stance under fresh scrutiny?
Javid has told the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, that the UK will not
seek assurances that the death penalty will not be used against 2 former
British citizens if they were put on trial and convicted in the US for alleged
crimes committed in Syria as members of an Islamic State (Isis) cell.
Who are the 2 former British citizens? Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh
are alleged to have been members of a 4-man cell of Isis executioners in Syria
and Iraq responsible for killing a series of high-profile western captives.
The two men, who are understood to have been stripped of their British
citizenship, were captured in January, sparking a row over whether they should
be returned to the UK for trial or face justice in another jurisdiction.
When does the UK seek a death penalty assurance?
The Extradition Act 2003 allows the UK to extradite individuals to certain
countries, including the US, but removing someone to the authority of a foreign
state is prohibited by statute if that person could face the death penalty -
unless the home secretary gets adequate written assurance that it will not be
imposed.
Kotey and Elsheikh, however, were not captured on British soil, and so have not
been subject to extradition proceedings.
In his letter to Sessions, Javid agrees to the US request for "mutual legal
assistance" (MLA). MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining
assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences.
He reveals that SO15, the counter-terrorism command of the Metropolitan police,
has worked with the FBI in investigating Kotey and Elsheikh. They have compiled
more than 600 witness statements, he says. Intelligence implicating the 2 men
in kidnap and murder has been gathered.
Official guidelines for the granting of MLA state that if death is a possible
sentence or penalty for the offence under investigation, an "assurance that
such a sentence will not be carried out or will be commuted" is required.
In this case, however, Javid has decided not to seek a death penalty assurance.
What are the implications of this shift?
In his letter, Javid says that the decision does not reflect the UK
government's policy on assistance in US death penalty cases generally nor its
stance on the global abolition of the death penalty.
Human rights campaigners are concerned, however, thatthe decision not to seek
assurance from the US over the use of the death penalty is unprecedented. They
say it could pave the way for further assurances to be abandoned in cases with
less overwhelming evidenceand in which the accused might be innocent.
(soruce: The Guardian)
**************************************
The Guardian view on the death penalty: barbarism by jihadists is no
justification----Sajid Javid's decision to reverse decades of British
government policy is wrongheaded and reckless
Nearly all western democracies, as well as dozens of other countries, have
abandoned capital punishment. There is good reason for this: none of the
arguments made in its favour stand up to scrutiny. It does not deter others,
nor save innocent lives by ensuring that murderers cannot kill again. It is
wrong to suggest there is a moral claim for retribution. The United States is
an exception, wrongly persisting with the death penalty. So it is appalling to
learn that a British cabinet minister would see fit to send 2 men to stand
trial in America on charges that could see them executed.
Yet this is the chain of events that the home secretary, Sajid Javid, has set
in motion with a letter to the US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, published in
a newspaper on Monday. In it he states that the British government is prepared
to waive its usual insistence that the death penalty should not be applied in
the case of two men alleged to have been part of an Islamic State execution
squad, Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh. They are being held by US-backed
Syrian Democratic Forces, and appear likely to be tried in the US with the
cooperation of the UK. The murders these men are alleged to have committed
alongside 2 other British men - Mohammed Emwazi, known as Jihadi John, and Aine
Davis - were barbaric. The victims included 2 British aid workers, Alan Henning
and David Haines, as well as three Americans, the journalists James Foley and
Steven Sotloff and humanitarian worker Peter Kassig. Other westerners were held
hostage and tortured. It is not an exaggeration to say the videos that the
killers made, in which their captives gave statements before being beheaded,
shocked the world. No doubt some people will feel that the sheer horror of such
deeds means we need not worry too much about due process. Emwazi was killed by
a drone strike in Raqqa in 2015, while Davis is in prison in Turkey. Kotey and
Elsheikh have been stripped of their British citizenship, and since the men
they are alleged to have killed included Americans, there is a case for trying
them in the US.
It's not hard to see why this is Mr Javid's preferred outcome. There is no
doubt that dealing with the hundreds of British fighters for Islamic State is
extremely challenging. But it is deeply concerning that Mr Javid apparently
believes a successful prosecution is more likely to take place in the US than
in the UK, even if this includes the violation of human rights norms to which
the UK has adhered for decades. It is well known that such violations, and the
existence of facilities such as Guantanamo Bay, can aid and facilitate
terrorists. The UK government's blanket opposition to the death penalty is a
longstanding point of principle. Its abolition has been an objective of foreign
policy. However heinous the crimes thought to have been committed by Kotey and
Elsheikh, assurances that the death penalty would not be applied should have
been sought from the US government in the usual way.
(source: Editorial, The Guardian)
***********************
Equality and Human Rights Commission statement on death penalty
Opposing the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles that underpins
our country's commitment to human rights, says David Isaac, EHRC Chair.
Opposing the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles that underpins
our country's commitment to human rights. There is no conflict between these
values and ensuring that justice is served. We believe the Home Secretary
should first have sought assurances that the death penalty will not be used in
this case. The same basic human rights should apply to everyone and they must
be exercised without exception. Failing to do so risks setting a dangerous
precedent and jeopardises our ability to hold other countries to account for
human rights breaches.
(source: politicshome.com)
***********************
ULTIMATE SANCTION ----Death penalty UK - when was it abolished, was treason
punishable by death and when was the last execution?
Britain is one of the 141 countries that has abolished the death sentence in
law or practice
The UK's stance on the death penalty was brought into focus after the British
government did not get assurances that 2 Isis members dubbed "The Beatles"
would escape execution in the US.
Here is a brief summary of our death penalty policy.
It has been a long time since a death sentence was handed down in the UK
When was the death penalty abolished in the UK?
The death penalty was scrapped by parliament in 1969.
This came after public anger led to the suspensions of executions in 1965.
The UK is one of 141 countries that Human rights group Amnesty International,
which has been campaigning on the issue since 1977, says has abolished the
death sentence in law or practice
Was treason punishable by death?
Technically the death penalty could be handed down in high treason cases until
1998.
But the last person to be executed for treason was 39-year-old William Joyce
Better known as Lord Haw-Haw, he was a notorious broadcaster of Nazi propaganda
to the UK during World War 2.
He was hanged in at Wandsworth Prison, London, on January 3, 1946, for
betraying Britain.
The last people to be hanged in Britain, Peter Allen, left, and Gwynne Evans
When was the last execution?
The last people to be sentenced to death in Britain were Peter Anthony Allen
and Gwynne Owen Evans - real name John Robson Walby - in 1964.
They had knifed a friend to death for money.
The last woman to be executed was Ruth Ellis, a peroxide-blonde club hostess
with film-star looks, who shot dead her posh racing-driver lover David Blakely
outside a London pub in 1955.
(source: The Sun)
************************
British readiness to allow death penalty for IS 'Beatles' suspects shows the
need to strengthen the law
The British home secretary's decision to assist authorities in the US with the
prosecution of 2 Islamic State terrorist suspects, without first seeking
assurances that they will not face the death penalty, has attracted criticism
from human rights activists, other MPs, and legal commentators. While some have
suggested that Sajid Javid's actions contradict long-standing British law and
policy, I believe they reveal the need to reform British law and policy
regarding the death penalty.
Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, from West London, are accused of being
the last surviving members of the so-called "Beatles" gang of British IS
fighters. They were arrested in February by Syrian Kurdish fighters. They are
currently detained in Syria on suspicion of committing some horrific
atrocities, including the beheadings of US and UK nationals. Britain could seek
custody of the 2 men, given their links to Britain, but Javid has instead
assured his American counterpart that the UK will permit their extradition to
the US, and will hand over intelligence to help prosecute them over there on
charges that are punishable by death.
In his letter to Jeff Sessions, the US attorney general, which was leaked to
the Daily Telegraph, Javid also stated that the UK would not demand assurances
that the US would not seek or impose the death penalty on the 2 men. It is this
statement that has inflamed politicians of all parties, lawyers, and activists:
they claim that the UK not only has a strong tradition of seeking "no death
penalty" assurances, but is also legally obliged to seek such assurances.
It's certainly true that UK law, European law, and international law all
prohibit states which have abolished the death penalty from extraditing
individuals within their jurisdiction if there is a risk that the receiving
state will impose a death sentence or carry out an execution. This much is made
clear in Article 7 of the 2003 extradition treaty between the UK and the US; a
decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 2010; and in multiple reports
of various UN bodies (see paragraph 57).
And it's true that the UK has traditionally sought such assurances in
extradition cases, including in the notorious Jens Soering case in the late
1980s. US authorities requested the extradition of Soering and his girlfriend
to stand trial for murdering her parents in Virginia, and the UK duly sought
assurances that Soering would not face a death sentence (his girlfriend pleaded
guilty and avoided capital charges).
Rules on 'mutual legal assistance'
But when Ben Wallace, a security minister, was pressed in parliament on the
alleged incompatibility of Javid's letter with the law and policy on
extradition in capital cases, which could involve a death penalty, he revealed
that the present case is not an extradition one. Kotey and Elsheikh used to be
British citizens, but Wallace confirmed that their citizenship had been
revoked. They are not within the custody of British officials either, so they
are not within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of extradition law.
Instead, this is a case about aiding another country with a prosecution,
referred to as mutual legal assistance, and the law in this field is not quite
the same. The UK's Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Guidance makes it
clear that "no death penalty" assurances should be sought before providing
intelligence and other assistance. The guidance also makes clear that, on
occasion, officials may decide, with ministerial approval, that "there are
strong reasons not to seek assurances" and that "given the specific
circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance".
In 2017, the National Crime Agency was rebuked by the High Court for providing
assistance to Thai authorities in a case that resulted in the death penalty,
but only because the agency didn't seek ministerial approval first. In the case
involving Kotey and El-Sheikh, ministerial authorisation has been given, in the
shape of Javid's letter.
Strengthen the law
The problem, then, is not so much the content of Javid's letter, but the law
and policy that has enabled him to take this step. British law and policy is
currently premised on a belief that the extradition of a person is
qualitatively different to the provision of mutual legal assistance. However,
in capital cases, it's arguable that both extradition and the provision of
assistance constitute complicity with the death penalty, and it is unacceptable
for an abolitionist state to ever be complicit in a practice that it has
roundly condemned.
Up until Javid's letter emerged, it looked like the UK was aligning its mutual
legal assistance policy with its extradition policy. In 2013, the UK followed
the likes of Ireland, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Norway in refusing
to provide assistance to anti-drug trafficking initiatives in Iran when it
became clear that this assistance was contributing to the execution of drug
traffickers. The British government, like the European Union, has also enacted
export controls to ensure that private companies cannot export the drugs that
are needed for lethal injections. Again, this recognises that the UK must not
in any way contribute to the use of capital punishment elsewhere, regardless of
whether or not the person facing death is in our jurisdiction.
Those who have expressed disgust with Javid's letter are right to do so - it
flies in the face of British moral opposition to state-sanctioned killings, and
it hinders the UK's ability to promote abolition worldwide. But their anger
would be better directed towards strengthening British law and policy against
complicity with the death penalty.
(source: theconversation.com)
**********************
UK facing legal action over 'unlawful' decision not to protect Isis 'Beatles'
from death penalty----Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, who were stripped
of their British citizenship, could face execution in the US
Legal action could be launched against the government over its failure to
demand that two members of a British Isis cell known as "the Beatles" will not
be executed in the US.
MPs are in uproar over the fact that they were not consulted about the reversal
of a long-held policy barring extradition or intelligence sharing in cases
where the death penalty may be used.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is now examining the possibility of legal
action against home secretary Sajid Javid over the fate of Alexanda Kotey and
El Shafee Elsheikh, who were stripped of their British citizenship before they
were captured in Syria earlier this year.
The charity's chief executive Frances Crook said: "We are committed to
upholding the rule of law and the total abolition of capital punishment. We
have been advised that legal action is feasible. We are consulting with senior
legal figures on the precise details and we will make an announcement shortly."
Ben Emmerson QC, a former United Nations (UN) special rapporteur on human
rights and counter-terrorism, said the decision was "unprincipled, incompetent
and almost certainly unlawful".
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the British government's historic
position of opposing the death penalty in all circumstances "has translated to
an absolute rule, which is legally enforceable, not to extradite an individual
to a country where they are at serious risk of the death penalty without an
assurance in advance that the penalty will not be carried out".
Kotey and Elsheikh are currently being held by the Syrian Democratic Forces
(SDF), a non-state coalition backed by the US.
This, along with the fact that they are no longer British citizens, means the
transfer will not technically be an extradition but a "mutual legal assistance"
arrangement.
A leaked letter from the home secretary told the US Attorney General that the
government was not requesting the pair to be transferred to Britain for trial
or seeking assurances that the death penalty would not be used.
"We believe that a successful federal prosecution in the US is more likely to
be possible because of differences in your statute book and the restrictions on
challenges to the route by which defendants appear in US courts," Mr Javid
wrote.
He also promised to hand over material from a four-year investigation by
counterterror police to be used in a federal criminal investigation.
UK 'should not let Isis men be made martyrs through death penalty'
Mr Emmerson said the decision could "absolutely" be challenged in court and
violated government guidance published by David Cameron in 2010 which
"prohibits any cooperation of this kind".
The lawyer said that although the deprivation of UK nationality means Kotey and
Elsheikh cannot assert some of their previous rights, it is "immaterial to the
legality of the British government passing information to a foreign power where
they know the consequence is going to be a fundamental human rights abuse of
this kind".
Ben Wallace, the security minister, argued that seeking an assurance against
the death penalty might "get in the way" of a US trial in the House of Commons
last week.
He was jeered for suggesting the alternative was letting Kotey and Elsheikh
"roam free' and used Isis' horrendous crimes to bat away questions from MPs
over why the government had not followed normal policy.
"The crimes that we are talking about include the videoed beheading of dozens
of innocent people by one of the most abhorrent organisations walking this
earth," Mr Wallace said.
(source: The Independent)
SOUTH AFRICA:
Should SA bring back the death penalty? IFP believes it may be time
On 19 July, the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) issued an official statement,
penned by party MP, Narend Singh, stating that the time had come to discuss the
possibility of reinstating the death penalty in South Africa.
The IFP's Chief Whip in Parliament addressed the letterhead: Let's talk about
the death penalty. In the statement, Singh argues the importance of an open and
fair discussion regarding capital punishment within the South African context.
He also mentions that he has written to Parliament's Joint Constitutional
Review Committee, requesting that the death penalty debate be placed on the
Committee's agenda for urgent public input and discussion.
Opening his address, Singh states:
"An open and frank discussion must be had in our country about this matter as
South Africans are becoming more and more fed-up with the scourge of violent
and sexual crimes particularly against women and children."
The Chief Whip expressed his political party's dismay and concern regarding
current crimes plaguing the country, saying:
"The IFP remains extremely concerned as crime levels have drastically increased
over recent years, this despite the latest SAPS Crime Statistics of which its
proponents would claim figures to the contrary."
Should South African bring back the death penalty?
While Singh was careful not to propagate his political party's preferences
relating to the reinstatement of capital punishment - it's quite clear that the
statement is aimed at creating debate around the matter, specifically calling
for those in support to speak up.
According to the IFP, the current punishment reserved for brutal crimes is not
enough of a deterrent. Singh says:
"Current deterrents to violent crime particularly murder, rape and aggravated
robbery are to some extent ineffective and a debate about finding alternative
solutions at this juncture is a necessary one."
Singh has also directed his request for debate to the Speaker of Parliament, Ms
Baleka Mbete.
The death sentence, in South Africa, was abolished on 6 June 1995, by the
ruling of the Constitutional Court.
A national survey, conducted in 2012, found that 76% of young South Africans,
between 18 and 34 years old, thought capital punishment should be reinstated.
Reporting on the outcomes of the findings, News24 related that:
"80 % of all respondents also believed that having the death penalty would
deter criminals and reduce crime. The survey also found that a similar
proportion of respondents felt crime in South Africa was becoming progressively
worse."
(source: thesouthafrican.com)
INDIA:
Migrant Workers, the Death Penalty and Human Trafficking
India's Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill
2018 is not consistent with international human rights standards. The Bill
fails to identify and protect Indian migrant workers trafficked out of the
country. It fails to incorporate the non-punishment principle and allows for
criminalization of victims of human trafficking for crimes that they were
compelled to commit. In some cases, these victims risk being executed for
crimes they were forced to commit by their traffickers. Click here for our full
submissions.
Reprieve's work indicates that South Asian migrant workers may be
disproportionately sentenced to death in the Gulf following patently unfair
trials, in violation of international law and domestic safeguards. For
instance, since 2014, 37% of the persons executed in Saudi Arabia were foreign
nationals, a large number of who were South Asian nationals.
There are indicators suggesting that a number of foreign nationals either
executed or facing execution may have been victims of human trafficking, who
were compelled to commit crimes. There is consensus in the international
community that victims of human trafficking should not be punished in any form
- including prosecution, detention or imprisonment - for crimes related to
their trafficking, i.e., the non-punishment principle. However, despite wide
recognition of the non-punishment principle, the status of these foreign
nationals as victims of human trafficking has not been investigated into by the
sending or the detaining state, leading to arbitrary deprivation of life and
imposition of capital punishment on individuals who have reduced moral
culpability and penalizing a victim for crimes related to their status as a
trafficked person.
"We are gravely concerned about the Bill as presented by the Government to the
Indian Parliament on 18 July. Its focus on addressing trafficking from a
criminal law perspective is not sufficiently complemented by a human-rights
based and victim-centred approach, and this risks further harming already
vulnerable individuals,"----Statement of UN Special Rapporteurs
Our work in the region suggests that migrant workers are disproportionately
targeted in the application of the death penalty for drug offences in several
jurisdictions. For instance, since 2014, 67% of the persons executed for drug
offences in Saudi Arabia have been foreign nationals. As on September 2017, 20
of the 25 Indian nationals on death row in Kuwait had been convicted for drug
trafficking.
First, there is widespread consensus that drug offences do not meet the "most
serious crimes" threshold mandated under international law.1 Further, it
appears that there is a nexus between human trafficking practices, the
exploitation of persons as forced drugs mules, and the application of the death
penalty for drug offences. There are indicators to suggest that a number of
migrant workers facing the death penalty for drug offences may have been
victims of human trafficking, who were vulnerable people who were forced to act
as 'drug mules' to transport drugs across the border.
In some cases, people were forced into smuggling drugs in their intestines. In
at least 10 cases identified by Reprieve in 2017, South Asian nationals were
executed for smuggling narcotics or psychotropic substances that were ingested.
In similar cases, the UN has raised concerns with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
that such practices may be indicators that the defendants were subject to human
trafficking, calling on the Kingdom to immediately conduct a review of such
death sentences.
There have also been a number of cases where domestic workers have been
sentenced to death for committing murders of their employer or employer's
family members. We are concerned that in some instances, these domestic workers
might have been victims of human trafficking, who were compelled to commit the
crime under deeply abusive and exploitative working conditions that amount to
forced labour. There are indicators that some of these women were unwitting
victims of recruitment agencies who act as a front for human trafficking.
In light of these concerns, , it is imperative for the Indian law to clearly
enunciate the non- punishment principle for victims of human trafficking and
introduce mechanisms to identify and protect victims of human trafficking, in
consonance with international human rights standards. The Trafficking of
Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, in its current
form, falls short of these obligations and lacks provisions to prevent
trafficking, identify and protect victims, and ensure that they are not
punished in any form for crimes related to their trafficking.
(source: reprieve.org.uk)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
