Capital punishment at the United Nations: Recent developments

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 23-34

  Bantekas, Ilias ^a   Hodgkinson, Peter ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER   (United Kingdom)

^b Centre for Capital Punishment Studies

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 30944449479     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009421221524     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. U.N. Doc. A/C.3/54/L.8 (Oct. 7, 1999).
2. (1976) 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 6.
3. G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, art. 37(a).
4. ECOSOC Res. 1984/50.
5. The Second Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe in October 1997 called for universal abolition as a policy objective of the organisation: "Report of the Secretary-General on the Question of the Death Penalty," U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/52 (Jan. 12, 1999), para. 15.
6. "Report of the Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Commission on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions," U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/39, para. 53.
7. GA Res. 53/147 called, in its operative paragraph 13, on those governments that had not abolished the death penalty to abide by the relevant international guarantees and safeguards with the aim of complete abolition.
8. For example, the annual reports of the Special Rapporteur on Extra-judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions of the Commission on Human Rights, indicate an obligation to conform to the highest possible standards of fair trial, observe restrictions on its application under relevant international legal instruments and aim towards abolition: U.N. Doc. A/51/457, para. 104;
9. U.N. Doc. E/CN./1998/68, para. 15;
10. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1 999/39, paras. 50-54.
11. As of August 1, 1999, thirty-nine states had acceded to or ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aimed at Abolition of the Death Penalty, G.A. Res. 44/128, (1990) 29 I.L.M. 1464. See: "Report of the Secretary-General on the status of Human Rights Covenants and Protocols," U.N. Doc. A/54/277.
12. For example, in its Statement to the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights, the Permanent Mission of Georgia to the United Nations noted that with the promulgation of a Decree of July 25, 1997 (N-387), the President replaced death penalty sentences imposed on fifty-four persons with twenty-year prison terms. It was also declared that since 1995 a moratorium exists on the application of the death penalty: U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/5, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/39.
13. S.C. Res. 827 (1993), annex.
14. S.C. Res. 955 (1994), annex.
15. Five such quinquennial reports have been submitted, the most recent in 1995 (U.N. Doc. E/1995/78). A Report of the Secretary-General on this subject was also submitted to the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice at its fifth session in 1996 (U.N. Doc. E/CN. 15/1996/19). This consolidated the information contained in the fifth quinquennial report with additional material received up to March 1996. These reports are prepared on the basis of detailed questionnaires sent to states and data collected from specialised agencies and NGOs: "Report of the Secretary-General on the Question of the Death Penalty," U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/52, para. 1.
16. For example, C.H.R. Res. 1997/12.
17. Changes in practice cover non-legislative measures that show a significant new approach regarding the use of the death penalty; e.g., countries that, though maintaining the death penalty, announce a moratorium on its application, or after a de facto moratorium, resume executions after many years. Such changes might also include significant measures taken to commute death sentences. "Report of the Secretary-General on the Death Penalty," U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/82, para. 9.
18. Ibid.Report of the Secretary-General on the Death Penalty," , para. 9.
19. The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and its sessional Working Group on the administration of justice have on various occasions considered the evolution of capital punishment. See for example, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/WG.1/CRP3. In 1999, the Sub-Commission adopted resolution 1999/4 on a secret ballot, with fourteen votes to five and five abstentions, condemning the death penalty for persons below eighteen years of age. It also called on retentionist states that impose it for refusal to undertake military service, or for desertion, not to apply it where this is the result of conscientious objection to such service.
20. G.A. Res. 53/162.
21. GA Res. 53/159.
22. GA Res. 53/157. Operative para. 5 specifically condemned the death penalty as an instrument of suppressing fundamental freedoms, such as those of association, expression and assembly.
23. For example, G.A. Res. 53/147
24. and C.H.R. Res. 1999/61.
25. In the recent past these two states have been heavily criticised for disregarding well-established international safeguards regarding the imposition of capital punishment. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, in his 1996 Report, noted that the Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act shifts the burden of proof to the accused, leading to a possible violation of the right to life because the offence of drug trafficking carries a mandatory death penalty in this country. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/60/Add.l, para. 438.
26. See also the Singapore response, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/113.
27. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur, in her 1999 Report, stated that since 1992 Egyptian military courts, which do not allow for the right to appeal, have passed fifty-eight death sentences: U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1999/39, para. 57.
28. UN Docs. A/C.3/54/L.31 and A/C.3/54/L.32.
29. These amending principles were signed by Afghanistan, Algeria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, North Korea, Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Rwanda, St. Kitts Nevis and Anguilla, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Surinam, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Turkey.
30. As a prelude to the sessions of the Third Committee where the death penalty was concerned, Rwanda and Indonesia raised the topic of capital punishment before another Third Committee meeting on October 19, 1999 in the context of a debate on organised crime. Both delegations placed emphasis on cultural diversity and the effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent alternative to crime, and especially genocide. See Press Release GA/SHC/3530 (Oct. 19, 1999).
31. Statement by the Permanent Representative of Singapore to the United Nations, November 3, 1999 (on file with authors).
32. Ibid.
33. The representative of Singapore accused the EU of indirectly threatening an unnamed retentionist state with abrogation of future financial assistance, if it did not support the Finnish resolution. For a summary of the Third Committee deliberations, see Press Release GA/SHC/3544 (Nov. 3, 1999).
34. U.N. Doc. A/C.3/49/L.32.
35. The United Kingdom finally ratified the Second Optonal Protocol to the ICCPR on the December 13, 1999 and Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty, E.T.S. no. 114, on May 20, 1999.
36. See: Peter Hodgkinson & Andrew Rutherford, Capital Punishment: Global Issues and Prospects (1996), chapter 8.
37. U.N. Doc. A/49/234 and Add. 1 and Add.2 (1994), later revised by U.N. Doc. A/C.3/49/L.32/Rev.1 (1994).
38. "Letter from Several Delegations to the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights," U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1998/156.
39. U.N.Doc. A/C.3/49/SR.61.
40. Robert Toscano, The United Nations and the Abolition of the Death Penalty, in The Death Penalty: Abolition in Europe (1999). Toscano's chapter provides an excellent review and analysis of this debate.
41. Ibid.Robert Toscano, The United Nations and the Abolition of the Death Penalty, in The Death Penalty: Abolition in Europe (1999). Toscano's chapter provides an excellent review and analysis of this debate.
42. Draft resolution E/CN.4/1997/L.20 was adopted by twenty-seven votes to eleven, with fourteen abstentions. In favour: Angola, Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, Uruguay; Against: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, United States of America; Abstaining: Benin, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Philippines, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Zaire, Zimbabwe.
43. C.H.R. Res. 1998/8 was adopted on April 3, 1998 by twenty-six votes to thirteen with eleven abstentions. In favour: Argentina, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Congo, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Nepal, Peru, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela; Against: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan, United States of America; Abstaining: Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Uganda.
44. C.H.R. Res. 1999/61.
45. For further information about this and other news on the status of the death penalty, see AI Death Penalty News, June 1998 and 1999 - ACT 53/03/98 and ACT 53/03/99.
46. "Annual Report of the Secretary General on the Work of the Organisation," U.N. Doc. A/54/1.
47. This utilised language from the Charter of the United Nations: "Recalling the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, Article 1, paragraph 3, which, inter alia, calls for the promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms, as well as Article 2, paragraph 7 which clearly stipulates that nothing in the Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially with in the domestic jurisdiction of any state".