[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
February 17 PAKISTAN: Pakistan submits reply before ICJ in Kulbhushan Jadhav case Pakistan on Saturday submitted its reply in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) before the Monday’s hearing where India will contest the convicted spy’s death row. Kulbhushan, who India says was kidnapped from Iran, has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. Kulbhushan, 46, was charged convicted of espionage and sentenced to death in April 2017, following which India moved The Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ). A 10-member bench of the ICJ had in May 2017, restrained Pakistan from executing Kulbhushan till adjudication of the case. Pakistan claims its security forces arrested Kulbhushan from Balochistan on March 3, 2016, after he allegedly “entered Pakistan from Iran”. India, however, maintains that Kulbhushan was kidnapped from Iran where he had business interests after retiring from the Indian Navy. India’s lawyers will present their arguments on Monday to the top UN court, which was set up after World War II to resolve international disputes. This will be followed by Pakistan’s lawyers presenting their case on Tuesday. Islamabad reacted to the ICJ’s urgent order to stay Kulbhushan Jadhav’s execution at the time, but said it “has not changed the status” of Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case “in any manner”. The case comes at a time when the already-strained ties between India and Pakistan took a further plunge following the terror attack in Kashmir’s Pulwama. More than 44 paramilitary troops were killed as explosives (RDX) packed in a car ripped through a convoy bringing 2,500 soldiers back from leave. The terror attack happened less than 25 kilometres from Srinagar. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that the public hearing of Kulbhushan Jadhav will commence from Monday. However, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar declined to go into the details of it. WHAT INDIA NEEDS TO ANSWER: According to sources, Pakistan has submitted 6 key points which India will need to answer. These include: India says Commander Jadhav was an innocent Indian national who was kidnapped from Iran to make him confess to being an Indian RAW agent. Why has India failed to make good this allegation despite repeated requests for evidence that he was kidnapped? India says Commander Jadhav retired from the Indian Navy. Why has India failed to explain when/why he retired as he was only 47 years old when arrested? India refuses to explain how Commander Jadhav was in possession of an authentic Indian passport issued in a false ‘cover’ Muslim name ‘Hussein Mubarak Patel’ which he had used at least 17 times to enter/exit India. India has been asked this question many times (even by highly respected Indian senior journalists such as Praveen Swami and Karan Thapar) but simply says this is “irrelevant” or “mischievous propaganda”. India eventually said the passport was “clearly a forgery” but refuses to explain this statement, or why a highly credible independent UK expert is wrong when he says it is an authentic Indian passport issued by the Indian authorities. Why not? India demands that the ICJ orders the “return” of Commander Jadhav to India. However, the ICJ has repeatedly stated it is not a criminal court of appeal. It has always so far made it clear in all its decisions that, even if consular access was denied, the proper order is for there to be effective review and reconsideration by the local Courts. Commander Jadhav and his family have been able to seek this at any time since 10th April 2017 in accordance with Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Instead, India launched proceedings in the ICJ 14 months after he was arrested and a month after he was convicted to seek a ‘stay’ order without a hearing. Why is India asking for an order for “return” in the face of the ICJ’s decision and the independent expert evidence confirming Pakistan has effective review and reconsideration before the high court and Supreme Court? India has failed to explain why the Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan dated 21 May 2008 (which India drafted), and which provides (at Article (vi)) for either State to be entitled to consider a request for consular access “on its merits” where it involves a person implicated in national security matters, does not apply in this case? India fails to explain why highly respected UK-based military law experts are wrong when they say that Pakistan’s high court and Supreme Court provide an effective review and reconsideration of the military court process. BACKGROUND: The salient aspects of the case are: On 3rd March 2016, Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, having illegally and clandestinely entered Pakistan from Iranian territory. India has said that Commander Jadhav was “kidnapped” from Iran – but has
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., GA., LA., CALIF.
February 17 TEXAS: Wilkins-Dember, champion of racial justice, dies at 89 Jean Wilkins-Dember, a fierce champion for racial justice and passionate Third Ward community organizer, died last week at the age of 89. Wilkins-Dember served a founding member of the National Black United Front, a grassroots organization advocating for people of African descent, and passionately pushed back against racial inequality, police brutality and the death penalty. Commonly known as “Mother Dember,” the New York native often donned her signature hat festooned with buttons signifying her chosen causes, which centered on African-American advancement following centuries of discrimination. Wilkins-Dember began her advocacy in the 1950s following the killing of a teenage boy in New York City’s Long Island, pursing justice through “confrontational therapy” that forced the public to acknowledge the rights and plight of black Americans. Wilkins-Dember held several positions tailed toward multiculturalism, mental health and racial equity in the New York City, including a brief stint as an adjunct professor at Nassau Community College. She also raised 5 daughters and 1 son with her husband, Clarence, who died in 2011. After moving to Houston in the 1990s, Wilkins-Dember became deeply involved in S.H.A.P.E. Community Center, a Third Ward nonprofit dedicated to improving lives of individuals of African descent, and founded the grassroots group Afrikans United For Sanity Now. Wilkins-Dember has been a frequent presence during many of Houston’s most tense chapters of racial divide, standing alongside many of the city’s most prominent black activists. “People have said this to me: Get over it. How can you get over it when so many people don’t acknowledge that anything is going on?” Wilkins-Dember said during a 2016 interview published by the Texas Christian University Mary Couts Burnett Library. “The inequity is there, and is there every day. And you don’t want to analyze it so it can be expunged? You want it to be ignored?” During the 2016 interview, Wilkins-Dember recalled how her persistent reinforcement of workplace and policing discrimination during her upbringing in the Brooklyn area prompted her advocacy. Decades later, Wilkins-Dember said, she continues to raise her voice in the face of institutional inequality — even when others are afraid to join her. “It’s too much (for some) to cope with, and so they just don’t look at me at all,” Wilkins-Dember said. “And that’s OK, because I’m not invisible. They will remember somebody was doing something.” (source: Houston Chronicle) PENNSYLVANIA: Carlisle American Legion Murder Trial: Arguments begin to determine death penalty or life in prison for Robert Anderson Jurors in the murder trial of Robert “Rocky” Anderson heard sentencing arguments Saturday that will determine whether Anderson receives the death penalty. The jury found Anderson, 41, guilty of 1st-degree murder on Friday after a week-long trial regarding the fatal shooting of Daniel “D.J.” Harris on June 11, 2016, at the Haines Stackfield American Legion in Carlisle. Under Pennsylvania law, jurors then determine the sentencing penalty in such a case, with a first-degree murder verdict presenting a choice between life in prison without parole or the death penalty. The prosecution is allowed to argue certain aggravating circumstances that would call for a harsher sentence, while the defense may argue mitigating circumstances in support of a lighter one. Given the jury’s binary choice, Michael Palermo, one of Anderson’s defense attorneys, said in his opening argument that the jury had already decided on an effective death penalty by finding Anderson guilty — he will either be put to death, or die in prison. “It’s a question of how soon,” Palermo said, framing the jury’s decision. Prosecutors from the Cumberland County District Attorney’s office had submitted 2 aggravating factors, the jury was told, which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The first of these was that the murder was done “in commission of felony,” that felony being the possession of a firearm by Anderson. Given that the jury believes Anderson committed murder, he must then also have committed the firearm felony, as it is undisputed that Harris was shot 7 times. Similarly, the 2nd aggravating factor was that the crime committed “put another person in grave danger.” Prosecutors called only one witness during the Saturday sentencing hearing, that being Harris’ mother, who testified to the adverse effect her son’s death had on his two children and his father, as well as herself. She also disputed the characterization of Harris, who during the trial was depicted as having a long-running street feud with Anderson prior to his death. “I don’t know the D.J. you guys are talking about,” Harris’ mother said. Mitigating circumstances, Judge Edward Guido noted
