April 2
TRINIDAD:
Hanging in disbelief
The Privy Council decided in 1993 in the case of Pratt and Morgan that
execution could not lawfully take place more than 5 years after sentence. It
was recommended that a capital appeal should be heard within 12 months of
conviction and the entire domestic appeal process completed within 2 years.
I remain hanging in disbelief at any suggestion that the death penalty can be
resumed simply by returning to case management that makes our murder cases
Pratt and Morgan compliant.
On several previous occasions when the resumption of hanging ole talk has
appeared I have written to explain that there are existing hindrances to the
implementation of the death penalty in addition to Pratt and Morgan.
On this occasion, I emphasise that 2 of these hindrances arose out of a
decision of the Privy Council given shortly after the execution of Dole Chadee
and his associates.
The additional hindrances to the implementation of the death penalty are
potential challenges to test the fairness of the Mercy Committee process and
the state of conditions in prison. They are contained in Lewis and others v The
Attorney General for Jamaica decided on September 12, 2000, referred to below
as Lewis.
In addition, condemned persons have continued to petition international human
rights bodies in order to obtain a recommendation that their sentences be
commuted.
In The Attorney General for Barbados v Joseph and Boyce, the Caribbean Court of
Justice (the CCJ) in a decision dated November 8 2006, agreed with an earlier
decision of the Privy Council, although on different grounds, that a condemned
person had a right to petition the relevant international human rights bodies
and to have the reports of those bodies received and considered by the State
prior to execution.
The Privy Council to whose jurisdiction our country has remained subject, has
resisted any change in the Pratt and Morgan timetable to permit execution later
than five years after sentence in order to accommodate delays in the
determination of appeals to international bodies.
It did so even though the Board acknowledged that it might have been
over-optimistic to expect that petitions to international human rights bodies
could be dealt with in 18 months, particularly where petitions may be made to 2
international bodies.
The CCJ has disagreed and said that the time for receiving the decision of the
international bodies should not be open-ended.
Access to the international bodies was not an impediment in the case of Dole
Chadee. He had already accessed the international bodies and they had rejected
his petitions by the time of his 2 additional last-ditch appeals to the Privy
Council in 1999 heard 0n May 10 and May 29, 1999, which were unsuccessful and
followed by his execution on June 4, 1999.
At that time, challenges to the Mercy Committee process and prison conditions
were not impediments, but the Privy Council then changed its mind in the Lewis
case and departed from previous decisions that precluded matters concerning the
Mercy Committee and prison conditions from being a hindrance to implementation.
It was acknowledged by Purseglove SC in an interview in this newspaper, last
week, that "the Privy Council is looking all the time for reasons to stop a
country executing".
In the 1st of Chadee's appeals, when the Privy Council gave its reasons it
expressly stated that it had held in Thomas and Hilaire in March 1999 that
prison conditions were not a constitutional ground, without more, for
commutation of a death sentence. 18 months later, the Board changed direction
in the Lewis case.
Regarding the change of direction by the Privy Council in Lewis, in a pungent
dissent, Lord Hoffman said: "If the Board feels able to depart from a previous
decision simply because its members on a given occasion have a 'doctrinal
disposition to come out differently', the rule of law itself will be damaged
and there will be no stability in the administration of justice in the
Caribbean".
It is also worth repeating the following words of the Privy Council, per Lord
Nicholls, which indicate that nothing short of a constitutional amendment can
revive the death penalty for implementation: "If the requisite legislative
support for a change in the constitution is forthcoming, a deliberate departure
from fundamental human rights may be made, profoundly regrettable although this
may be. That is the prerogative of the legislature. If departure from
fundamental human rights is desired, that is the way it should be done. The
constitution should be amended explicitly."
In response to the above realities our political leaders have, as is common,
ducked confronting the real issues. On the death penalty question there has
been little attempt at consultation with the country followed by genuine
bi-partisan constitutional reform, if desired.
Political focus remains on periodic electoral battles to get their hands on the
national cash register and sometimes to put their friends and allies in line
for the spoils.
(source: Editorial, Trinidad Express)
PAKISTAN:
Court awards death penalty to 2 in murder case
A court awarded death sentences to 2 accused for their involvement in a murder
case in Dera Ghazi Khan on Friday.
The judgment was announced by Additional District and Sessions Judge Khizar
Hayat.
The prosecution told the court that accused Kashif and Muhammad Usman,
residents of Dera Ghazi Khan, had murdered Shabbir Qureshi, an accountant of a
private firm, in June 2006 over money matters. The victim had gone to collect
money from the accused when they killed him and threw his body in a canal.
However, the police recovered the body and arrested the accused. The police
registered a case against the accused and presented the challan before the
court. After hearing the arguments, the judge handed down death sentence to
Kashif and Usman along with a fine of Rs0.9 million as compensation money. The
accused were sent to District Jail Dera Ghazi Khan.
Meanwhile, an anti-terrorism court handed down 4 year jail imprisonment to two
accused for possessing explosives and weapons. ATC Judge Wajahat Hussain Khan
announced the verdict.
The prosecution told the court accused Hakim and Asad were arrested by CTD
police while huge quantity of weapons and explosives were also confiscated from
them.
(source: The Express Tribune)
BANGLADESH:
Death penalty upheld for 2 Bangladeshi militants over blogger murder
Death sentences awarded to 2 Bangladeshi militants were upheld on Sunday over a
blogger murder in 2013.
The High Court Division bench also ordered life imprisonment to 6 others
including Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani, chief of the banned Islamist outfit
Ansarullah Bangla Team.
All the militants were reportedly affiliated with the banned Islamist outfit.
A special tribunal in Bangladesh capital Dhaka in December 2015 handed death
penalty to 2 and various jail terms to 6 others for killing the secular blogger
Ahmed Rajib Haider, 35, in February 2013.
1 of the death row convicts is on the run.
According to case details, Haider was hacked to death on Feb. 15, 2013 and his
body was brutally mutilated.
The brutality also irked protests from various quarters across the country.
Razib was the 1st of 6 bloggers killed in Bangladesh in a series of deadly
attacks against writers in the country.
(source: xinhuanet.com)
IRAN:
Death Sentence for Man for 'insulting Islam' through messaging app
Iranian authorities have sentenced a 21 year old man to death for "insulting
Islam" through messages he sent on an instant messenger app, when he was only
19.
Human rights lawyers claim that Sina Dehghan, was tricked into confessing to
the breach of Islamic law by a promise of release. The Centre for Human Rights
in Iran says that once they obtained his confession, prosecutors dropped the
agreement and sentenced Dehghan to death in January this year.
The content of the messages is unknown.
A source claims: "During his interrogation, Sina was told that if he signed a
confession and repented, he would be pardoned and let go. Unfortunately, he
made a childish decision and accepted the charges. Then they sentenced him to
death."
Allegedly, his family were told to keep quiet and he would likely to go free.
Prosecutors asked that Dehghan be sentenced to death for "insulting the
prophet" as well as to 16 months in prison for 'insulting the supreme leader'.
The sentence has been upheld by the country's Supreme Court, but a request for
a judicial review has given his family hope that his life might be spared.
His mother said, "According to Sina's lawyer, steps have been taken for a
judicial review, and with the good news we're hearing from him, God willing
this case will come to end positively as soon as possible."
Co-defendants Sahar Eliasi and Mohammad Nouri were also convicted of posting
anti-Islamic material on social media. Nouri was issued a death sentence, the
final ruling of is the Supreme Court remains unknown. Eliasi appealed his
7-year sentence, which was reduced to 3 years.
The Japanese-based messaging app, Line, has since added end-to-end encryption
to its messages.
Dehghan is struggling to cope with the incarceration in Arak Prison, the source
said, adding, "Sina is not feeling well. He's depressed and cried constantly.
He's being held in a ward with drug convicts and murderers who broke his jaw a
while ago. He was a 19-year-old boy at the time (of his arrest) and had never
done anything wrong in his life."
Despite signing the UN convention on the rights of the child, Iran still
attracts condemnation for carrying out executions of minors.
Iran's Islamic penal code makes insulting the prophet a crime punishable by
death. Although there is a clause that states that if the insults were made by
mistake, or were made in anger, the sentence may be reduced to 74 lashes.
Regarding Dehghan, Human Rights Organisation Article 19 said, "He is now on
death row, yet the imminence of the execution of Sina is an affront both to
international standards and Iran's own criminal code. "It is also clear that
Sina was only given access to a court-appointed lawyer, who failed to
adequately defend him in trial." And said further that Dehghan's case
illustrates how the Iranian people are "at the mercy of a system where forced
confessions, false promises, and threats to family members undermine not only
national judicial processes, but the international standards Iran has signed up
to."
"Iranian authorities have an opportunity to act to stop the execution, and to
take visible steps to implement their own codes of practice. We ask simply that
a review of the case be undertaken immediately and the death penalty dropped."
(source: irannewsupdate.com)
PHILIPPINES:
UN panel reminds PH: treaty commitment bars enactment of death penalty law
Expressing concern over the House of Representatives passage of a bill
restoring capital punishment, a United Nations panel has reminded the
Philippines there is no mechanism for it to withdraw its commitment to abolish
the death penalty, under 2 international treaties to which it is a State Party.
The reminder, embodied in a letter by UN Human Rights Committee chair Yuji
Iwasawa to the Philippines' Deputy Permanent Representative Maria Teresa
Almojuela, was referring to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the Second Optional Protocol aimed at abolishing the death penalty.
"The committee is currently in session in Geneva. It expressed its grave
concern at information received aboout the passage of a bill through the Houses
of Congress to reintroduce the death penalty for drug-related offenses in the
Philippines. It understands that the Senate will consider this bill soon,"
Iwasawa wrote March 27.
The letter said the committee "reminds the State Party about denunciations of
the Second Optional Protocol as set out in its General Comment No. 26 on
Continuity of Obligations. The Optional Protocol excludes the possibility of
denunciation by omitting a denunciation clause to guarantee the permanent
re-introduction of the death penalty by States that have ratified it."
The UN panel also urged the Philippines "to take its obligations" under the
ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol "seriously, and refrain from taking
retrogressive measures which would only undermine human rights to date."
The human rights committee is the monitoring body of the ICCPR and the Optional
Protocols, which includes the Second Optional Protocol aimed at abolishing the
death penalty.
"The Philippines is a State Party to all these treaties. In ratifying the
Second Optional Protocol, States Parties guaranteed that no one will be
executed within their jurisdiction," the letter to Manila pointed out.
The Philippines, through Republic Act 9346, had abolished in June 2006 capital
punishment, during the term of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The latter,
now a member of member of Congress as 2nd district representative for Pampanga,
was 1 of the 54 who recently voted "no" against the bill reviving death
penalty, as pushed by allies of President Duterte.
Macapagal-Arroyo led the list of House leaders who were stripped of their posts
- she was Deputy Speaker - for voting "No" against the death penalty
restoration.
While the bill was carried by the super-majority in the House, it however faces
rough sailing in the Senate, with Senate President Koko Pimentel himself noting
that the vote was too close to call, and could even split the chamber right
down the middle.
Leaders of the new minority bloc, mostly from the Liberal Party, vowed to
oppose it. Among their key reasons for opposing the death penalty restoration
is precisely the need for the Philippines to adhere to its commitments as State
Party to the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol.
The senators reminded the Executive that there is no renunciation mechanism for
these treaties, and Manila stands the risk of sanctions if it impugns its
commitments. However, Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, who led the push for the bill
in the House, had scoffed at the notion that the Philippines cannot define or
alter its own policy simply on account of a global commitment.
During the first Senate hearing on the House-led initiative, senators got an
admission from government legal experts that, indeed, the commitments to
international law formed part of the law of the land. This prompted Justice
committee chair, Sen. Richard Gordon to raise the possibility that being in
breach of such international laws could constitute an impeachable offense for
the Executive.
Gordon decided to suspend further Senate hearings pending submission of a
formal legal opinion by the Department of Justice.
(source: IOnterAksyon.com)
****************************
Duterte, EU at war over death penalty
President Rodrigo Duterte has returned to a favorite topic and a favorite form
of discourse, and criticized the European Union with violent, threatening
language. "You fools. You sons of bitches. Stop interfering with us," he said
at a news conference. "No one will tell you, so I will tell you: You are all
fools."
Then followed the quote that was heard around the world: "I will just be happy
to hang you. If I have the preference, I'll hang all of you."
Would that our Fearless Leader indulged his sense of outrage and took to the
warpath against enemies deserving of the Filipino people's condemnation -
perhaps a country like Russia, which supports both the murderous Assad
government in Syria and the increasingly dictatorial Erdogan administration in
Turkey.
Or perhaps - much closer to home - a country like China, which has buried its
policy of a "peaceful rise" in the world and replaced it with a policy of
assertive and overreaching nationalism. Criticizing Beijing would have the
advantage of aligning with Philippine popular opinion about Chinese
aggressiveness in the West Philippine Sea.
But no. Duterte has chosen instead to continue his fight against the human
rights hegemony of those terrifying, faceless, paper-pushing antideath
bureaucrats in Brussels: "You are putting us down. You are exerting pressure in
[sic] every country with the death penalty."
As far as we can tell, the President is grinding his much-used axe against the
European Union again because the European Parliament passed a resolution
calling on the Philippines not to reimpose the death penalty and because the
country's European allies and trading partners continue to voice their
opposition to the Duterte administration's ultraviolent war on drugs.
In other words, the President's latest tirade is in defense of his
administration, not of the country; it is in response to what he perceives to
be criticism of his policies, and therefore of himself.
Retreating to Threats
The telltale sign that the criticism has gotten under his skin is the language
that he uses; when he feels greatly offended he goes beyond the rhetoric of
abuse (cursing the previous president of the United States or the present pope,
for instance) and deploys the tropes of violence: "I will just be happy to hang
you. If I have the preference, I'll hang all of you."
This is what people say when they've lost the argument - or when they cannot
brook any argument.
Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella, who once recommended that the public
use its "creative imagination" when parsing the President's often intemperate
statements, was reduced to explaining his principal's unstatesmanlike remarks
against longstanding allies and partners as a symbolic expression. "I'm sure by
this time we understand that it's more than being literal. He basically speaks
about an attitude of, you know, emphasizing that we should be left alone to be
able to do our part."
We note that President Duterte approves publicly of Russia's Vladimir Putin and
China's Xi Jinping in part because they don't criticize his war on drugs for
human rights violations.
But we also note that the President knows his people well enough to know that
he cannot make his fight with the European Union and with European allies and
partners solely about death vs life. That would be an ultimately losing
proposition. As even the surveys show, a great majority of Filipinos want due
process to be followed; they do not want mere suspects killed.
So President Duterte uses the Western history card. He traces EU opposition to
the death penalty to Western imperialism and the massive death toll of 2 world
wars. "Your guilt, your conscience, is almost genetics. It is passed on from
generation to generation."
This is macabre, and downright mistaken. Modern opposition to the death penalty
is based on the experience of all of humanity; that experience shows that the
penalty claims the lives of mostly poor people. Reimposing it is a backward
step - like going back to hanging.
(source: Commentary: Editorial desk, Philippine Daily Inquirer)
***************
UN body to Phl: Stop death penalty revival
A monitoring body of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) has called on the Philippine government to junk the proposal to
reinstate the death penalty in the country and abide by its international
commitments.
In a letter to Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Maria
Teresa Almojuela, Human Rights Committee (HRC) chairman Yuji Iwasawa reminded
the Philippines that it is a party to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR
that prohibits the imposition of capital punishment.
"The committee is currently in session in Geneva. It expresses grave concern at
information it has received about the passage of a bill through the House of
Congress to reintroduce death penalty, for drug related offenses, in the
Philippines," read the letter dated March 27.
"It understands that the Senate will consider this bill soon," it added.
The letter was also addressed to Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III.
Iwasawa said he regrets the recent development in the Philippines and urged the
government to desist from ultimately passing the measure.
"On behalf of the committee, I call on (the Philippines) to take its
obligations under the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol seriously and
refrain from taking retrogressive measures, which would only undermine human
rights progress to date," he said.
Last month, the House of Representatives passed on third reading the bill that
imposes the death penalty on drug related offenses.
In an earlier statement, UN special rapporteurs Agnes Callamard and Nils Melzer
expressed concern over the passage of the proposal at the House of
Representatives.
"If approved, the bill will set the Philippines starkly against the global
trend towards abolition and would entail a violation of the country's
obligations under international law," they said.
Callamard is the special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary
executions, while Melzer is the special rapporteur on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
They reminded the Philippines of its obligation under the second optional
protocol of the ICCPR.
"Not only was the treaty ratified and widely advertised, but state authorities
have also expressly confirmed on numerous occasions its validity and binding
nature on the Philippines, without raising any concerns over the procedure
through which it had been ratified," the rapporteurs said.
(source: Philippine Star)
_______________________________________________
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
