CAMPAIGNINGTOOLKIT DEATH PENALTY - … PENALTY THEULTIMATEPUNISHMENT CAMPAIGNINGTOOLKIT For more information please contact your Amnesty International

DEATHPENALTYTHE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT

CAMPAIGNING TOOLKIT

For more information pleasecontact your Amnesty Internationalsection or structure. Details atwww.amnesty.org

Image: Majid Kavousifar andHossein Kavousifar, his nephew,hang from cables of a crane inTehran, Iran, 2 August 2007.© Private

Index: ACT/015/2008

THE DEATH PENALTYTHE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT


Every day, prisoners – men, women, even children – face execution. Whatever their crime,whether they are guilty or innocent, their lives are claimed by a system of justice that valuesretribution over rehabilitation.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel,inhuman and degrading punishment.It violates the right to life. Whateverform it takes – electrocution, hanging,gassing, beheading, stoning, shootingor lethal injection – it is a violentpunishment that has no place in today’scriminal justice system.

Yet it persists.

In many countries, governments justify theuse of the death penalty, claiming it deterscrime. But there is no evidence that it isany more effective in reducing crime thanother harsh punishments.

The death penalty is discriminatory. It isoften used disproportionately against thepoor, minorities and members of racial,ethnic and religious groups. It is imposed

and carried out arbitrarily. In somecountries it is used as a tool of repression– a swift and brutal way of silencingpolitical opposition.

The death penalty is irrevocable; coupledwith a justice system that is prone to humanerror and prejudice, the risk of executing aninnocent person is ever present. Mistakeslike that cannot be unmade.

Five men are publicly hanged in Mashhad, Iran, in August 2007.©

APPhoto/Halabisaz

Index:ACT/015/2008


AAmmnneessttyy IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall ooppppoosseess tthhee ddeeaatthhppeennaallttyy iinn aallll cciirrccuummssttaanncceess aanndd wwoorrkkss ffoorriittss aabboolliittiioonn iinn aallll ccoouunnttrriieess..

A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTSThe UUnniivveerrssaall DDeeccllaarraattiioonn ooff HHuummaannRRiigghhttss – adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly in December 1948 – recognizeseach person’s right to life (Article 3) andcategorically states that “No one shall besubjected to torture or to cruel, inhumanor degrading treatment or punishment.”(Article 5).

The UN reaffirmed and strengthened its position against the death penalty in December 2007 when the GeneralAssembly passed a resolution calling upon member states to establish amoratorium on executions “with a view to abolishing the death penalty.”

A SYMPTOM, NOT A SOLUTIONTo end the death penalty is to recognizethat it is a destructive and divisive publicpolicy that is not consistent with widelyheld values. It promotes simplisticresponses to complex human problemsand distracts from effective measuresbeing taken against criminality. It offers a superficial answer to the suffering ofthe murder victim’s family and extendsthat suffering to the loved ones of thecondemned prisoner. It diverts resources

that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist thoseaffected by it. It is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. It is an affront to human dignity. It should be abolished.

The world is turning its back on statejudicial killing. Since 1979, over 70countries have abolished the deathpenalty for all or ordinary crimes. Over 130 nations no longer have thedeath penalty in law or practice and only a handful of governments carry out executions each year.

Amnesty International calls for:

� A moratorium on executionsthroughout the world.

� Abolition of the death penalty for all crimes.

� Universal ratification of treatiesproviding for abolition, including theSecond Optional Protocol to theInternational Covenant on Civil andPolitical Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

� All countries that retain the deathpenalty to comply with their internationalobligations not to use it on child offenders.

FIND OUT MORE� For the latest on AmnestyInternational’s campaign against the death penalty, including up-to-date global facts and figures andinformation on what you can do tohelp, go to www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

� For general information about the death penalty worldwide, go towww.worldcoalition.org

� Take action on 10 October, WorldDay against the Death Penalty. Findout how on Amnesty International’swebsite.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS ASYMPTOM OF A CULTURE OFVIOLENCE, NOT A SOLUTION TO IT.


DOES THE DEATH PENALTY DETER CRIME? GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT

MYTH

The death penalty deters violent crime andmakes society safer.

FACTEvidence from around the world hasshown that the death penalty has nounique deterrent effect on crime. Manypeople have argued that abolishing thedeath penalty leads to higher crime rates,but studies in the USA and Canada, for instance, do not back this up. In 2004in the USA, the average murder rate forstates that used the death penalty was5.71 per 100,000 of the population asagainst 4.02 per 100,000 in states thatdid not use it. In 2003 in Canada, 27years after the country abolished thedeath penalty the murder rate had fallenby 44 per cent since 1975, when capitalpunishment was still enforced. Far frommaking society safer, the death penaltyhas been shown to have a brutalizingeffect on society. State sanctioned killingonly serves to endorse the use of forceand to continue the cycle of violence.

MYTHThe death penalty reduces drug crime.

FACTIn March 2008, the Executive Director ofthe UN Office on Drugs and Crime calledfor an end to the use of the death penaltyfor drugs offences: “Although drugs kill, I don’t believe we need to kill because of drugs.”

The use of the death penalty for drugoffences is a violation of international law.Article 6(2) of the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights states: “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most seriouscrimes.” In April 2007, the UN SpecialRapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions, acting as anexpert witness in a challenge toIndonesia’s Constitution, told theConstitutional Court that “[d]eath is not an appropriate response to the crime ofdrug trafficking.” Apart from Indonesia,China, Iran, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia andSingapore are some of the countries which execute people for drug offences.However, there is no clear evidence thatthe use of the death penalty for suchcrimes acts as a stronger deterrent thanlong terms of imprisonment.

MYTHIndividuals are less likely to commit violentcrimes, including murder, if they know theywill face punishment by execution.

FACTThis argument supposes that criminalsstudy and anticipate the consequences of getting caught, and decide that a longterm of imprisonment is acceptable,whereas execution is not. Many crimes are committed on the spur-of-the-moment, leaving little opportunity forpotential punishments to influencewhether the crime is committed in the first place as criminals do not believe they will be caught and held to account. The death penalty may even cause further violence. Execution is the ultimatesanction a state can inflict upon a person.Once criminals have knowingly committeda capital offence, they no longer have anyinterest in lessening their potentialpunishment by not committing furthermurders or other offences. For example, if armed robbery carries the death penalty,the robber loses nothing by committingmurders while attempting to flee.

Index: ACT/015/2008


MYTHThe threat of execution is an effectivestrategy in preventing terrorism.

FACTThose people willing to commit large-scaleacts of violence aimed at inflicting terrorupon a society do so knowing that theycould come to serious physical harm andtherefore show little or no regard for theirown safety. Executions of such peopleoften provide welcome publicity for thegroups they belong to and create martyrsaround which further support may berallied for their cause. Yet many countrieshave attempted to control terrorism byusing the death penalty. In November2005, Iraq passed the Iraqi Anti TerrorismLaw. This law provides only a vaguedefinition of terrorism and lists a numberof terrorist acts all of which – even thosewhere there has been no loss of life –carry the death penalty. Scores ofexecutions have been carried out in Iraqunder this and other laws.

MYTHThe death penalty is fine as long as themajority of the public support it.

FACTAmnesty International recognizes the rightof nations to create laws. However, suchlaws must be formulated within theboundaries of respect for human rights.History is littered with human rightsviolations that were supported by themajority but in modern times are lookedupon with horror. Slavery, racial segregationand lynching all had widespread supportin the societies where they occurred butconstituted gross violations of the victims’human rights.

It is understandable that populations lookto their leaders to take decisive actionagainst violence, and express anger atthose guilty of brutal crimes. AmnestyInternational believes politicians shouldlead the way in standing up for humanrights by opposing the death penalty andexplaining to their constituents why suchactions cannot be undertaken by the state.

After more than 30 years of research onthe death penalty, Amnesty Internationalbelieves that public support for capitalpunishment is overwhelmingly based on a desire to be free from crime. This isillustrated by polls in the USA and othercountries which show significant drops in support for the death penalty when lifeimprisonment without the possibility ofparole is offered as an alternative. In theUSA, a May 2006 poll by the Gallupcompany found support for the deathpenalty dropped from 65 per cent to 48per cent when life imprisonment withoutparole was offered as an option.

MYTHExecutions provide the most cost-effectivesolution to violent crime.

FACTA society cannot condone violence andsacrifice human rights as a cost-cuttingmeasure. The decision to take a humanlife should not rest on financial motives.Using the death penalty to reduceprison populations is futile. For example,the USA has a prison population ofapproximately 2.2 million but only around3,000 prisoners are condemned to death.If the entire population of death row wereexecuted, it would make no discernibledifference to the prison population.


POLITICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND THE DEATH PENALTY NOT AN ANSWER TO CRIME

All too often politicians avoid discussing the real issues behind criminality. Instead theyadvocate the use of the death penalty as a catch-all solution to making the public safer.

The causes and solutions to the violentcrime that blights so many societies arecomplex. Crime may be reduced throughhaving better trained and equipped policeofficers, eradicating poverty and improvingeducation, among other things. Butpoliticians often refuse to address thegenuine issues that lie behind crime,preferring instead the sound-bite “solution”of advocating executions. Executions givethe appearance of strong action beingtaken and the illusion of order beingbrought to a chaotic situation. In reality,taking the life of a person alreadyincarcerated and therefore no longer athreat to society is a futile and grotesquegesture in the fight against criminality.

In Jamaica, where the last hanging tookplace in 1988, both major political partieshave promised to resume executions in response to the island’s appallinghomicide rate. Jamaica has one of thehighest per capita homicide rates in theworld, with 1,574 murders committed in 2007 in a population of approximately 2.6 million. However, political leaders havebeen distracted from addressing reasonsfor, and solutions to, the crime rate bysimply arguing about who would hangmore. As one commentator wrote in theJamaican Observer newspaper in 2006:“Instead of using their time and energy to find new and creative ways to addressthe problems of violence against children,our parliamentarians prefer to rest theirlaurels and run the same tired argumentabout capital punishment.”

High-ranking police officers have pointedout the futility of attempting to addressthe Jamaican crime problem through theresumption of executions. Deputy PoliceCommissioner Mark Shields stated: “In my experience working in Jamaica, it would be a complete and utter waste

of time to say to these young men ofviolence that, if they kill, the likelihood is that they will be killed by the state,because they don’t expect to live thatlong. They expect to die at the hand of a police officer or at another criminal’sfirearm.” This view is supported by other

A death row inmate looks out of his cell in the North Condemned Unit at PontiacCorrectional Institution in Illinois, USA. In January 2003 Governor George Ryancommuted all death sentences in Illinois to life imprisonment, calling the state’sdeath penalty system “arbitrary and capricious”.

© AP Photo

Index: ACT/015/2008


surveys of high ranking police officers. A 1995 study in the USA found that amere 1 per cent of police chiefs thereput greater use of the death penalty as a priority in reducing violent crime,compared with a combined 51 per centfor reducing drug use or reducingunemployment.

In South Africa, a spokesman for theFreedom Front Plus party stated in 2006:“There are 18,000 murders a year inSouth Africa. That means 18,000 killerswalking around with too few police lookingfor them… The only solution is to bringback the death penalty. All other solutionshave failed.” This line of argumentappears confused and ignores theargument that an increase in the numberof police officers has not been tried andmight be a more productive approach toreducing crime.

Previous calls for the reintroduction of the death penalty have been resisted by political leaders. In 1996, responding to public demands for the reintroduction

of capital punishment in South Africa as a way of checking rising crime, thethen South African President, NelsonMandela, said, “It is not because the death sentence has been scrapped thatcrime has reached such unacceptablelevels. Even if the death sentence isbrought back, crime itself will remain as it is. What is required here is that the security forces must do their work and we are busy to ensure that thesecurity forces have the capacity to deliver services, safety to the community.That is the issue, not the death sentence.”

Politicians have a responsibility to act within the boundaries of humanrights. On the issue of the death penalty and the deterrence of crime,political leaders need to present effectivemeans of addressing the situation that do not endorse further violence,continue the cycle of violence or createmore misery through violence. When the public request solutions to violent crime, the answer must never be further killing.

“[THE DEATH PENALTY] IS A VERY CONVENIENT POLITICALALTERNATIVE TO REALEFFECTIVE AND DIFFICULTPUBLIC PROTECTION ANDCRIME PREVENTIONPROGRAMMES. IT IS A CHEAP WAY FOR POLITICALLYINCLINED PEOPLE TO PRETEND TO THEIR FEARFULCONSTITUENCIES THATSOMETHING IS BEING DONE TO COMBAT CRIME.” J. van Rooyen, “The criminal judge and the death sentence: Some observations on the views of Mr Justice Curlewis” (South Africa, 1991)

FIND OUT MORE

For the latest studies on the death penalty in countries worldwide, seewww.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

INTERNAL


SECRET EXECUTIONS

By keeping executions secret, many governments are making sure that the public have noway of debating the real issues around the death penalty.

Many governments actively promote the death penalty as vital for crimecontrol. They claim that the threat of execution deters criminals fromcommitting violent crime. For the death penalty to prevent such crimes,potential offenders must be fully aware in advance of the risk of being executed. Yet these samegovernments, while endorsing the death penalty with one hand, cover up its use with the other.

In Japan, executions are typically held in secret with prisoners being informed justhours before they are killed and familymembers given no prior notice. In Chinaand Vietnam, information about the deathpenalty, such as the annual number ofexecutions, is classified as a state secret.Calls from the UN to divulge thisinformation have been met with steadfastrefusal. This leaves the public in thosecountries without information and stiflesdebate around this important human rightsissue. Logic would also dictate that suchsecrecy would lessen any alleged deterrenteffect that executions have.

In Singapore, too, the situation is muchthe same. Singapore endorses the death penalty but keeps silent about how much it is used in the country.Controls imposed by the government on press and civil society organizationscurb freedom of expression and are anobstacle to the independent monitoring of human rights, including the deathpenalty. Consequently, there is virtually no public debate about the death penaltyin Singapore and the government hasconsistently maintained that capitalpunishment is not a human rights issue.

The Singaporean authorities appear to be sending contradictory messages. If the death penalty plays a vital role in the fight against crime because of its deterrent effect, it should thereforefollow that the authorities would wish

© AP

Taken from a videotape, this photo allegedly shows prisoners being prepared forpublic execution in Fukien province, China, in 1992.

Index: ACT/015/2008


to maximize publicity around the issue to maximize the deterrent effect. In fact, it is doing just the opposite.

The states above are not alone in carryingout secretive executions. They are joinedby Mongolia and North Korea.

In 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitraryexecutions called for an end to officialsecrecy around the use of the deathpenalty, saying that meaningful publicdebate could only take place ifgovernments disclosed full details of:

“(a) the number of persons sentenced to death;

(b) the number of executions carriedout… Notwithstanding the critical role

of this information in any informeddecision-making process, many Stateschoose secrecy over transparency, but still claim that capital punishment is retained in part because it attracts public support.”

The taking of a human life by the state is one of the most powerful acts a government can commit. As many countries have illustrated, thejourney to abolition of the death penalty is fuelled by debate. When the authorities in states that kill suppress this debate and starve thepublic of information, they deny thepopulation the right to informed debate. But the severity of executionsdemands that they be subject to publicfocus and discussion – not choked by a conspiracy of silence.

“A LACK OF TRANSPARENCYUNDERMINES PUBLICDISCOURSE ON DEATH PENALTYPOLICY, AND SOMETIMES THISMAY BE ITS PURPOSE.”UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,summary and arbitrary executions, 2006

© AP Photo/Chiaki Tsukum

o

A police officer stands outside theprison in Tokyo, Japan. Executions aretypically held in secret, and prisonersare not warned of their execution untilthe day of their death.


INTERNAL

Do executions really provide justice to victims of violent crime and their families?

A LIFE FOR A LIFE: AN UNACCEPTABLE PROPOSITION

Many of those who advocate the deathpenalty do so in the name of “victims’rights”. They argue that the victims of violent crime and their loved ones have a right to see the life of theperpetrator taken by the state. However,the understandable anger that victims of violent crime and their families feeltowards the perpetrators of such acts cannot be used to justify the violation of the human rights of thoseconvicted of these crimes. The finality and cruelty inherent in the death penaltymake it incompatible with norms ofmodern-day, civilized behaviour. It is aninappropriate and unacceptable responseto violent crime.

Death penalty advocates who claim to be acting on behalf of victims implythat all those affected by violent crimesupport the death penalty universally. This is far from true. Many relatives of murder victims object to the deathpenalty being carried out in the name of their loved ones. In the USA, thecampaign group Murder Victims’ Familiesfor Human Rights has become a powerfulvoice against executions:

“We believe that survivors of homicidevictims have a recognized stake in thedebate over how societies respond tomurder and have the moral authority to call for a consistent human rightsethic as part of that response. MurderVictims’ Families for Human Rights isthe answer to that call.”

Marie Deans, whose mother-in-law wasmurdered in 1972, states:

“After a murder, victims’ families face two things: a death and a crime. At these times, families need help to cope with their grief and loss, andsupport to heal their hearts and rebuild their lives. From experience, we know that revenge is not the answer.The answer lies in reducing violence, not causing more death. The answer lies in supporting those who grieve for their lost loved ones, not creatingmore grieving families [by executingtheir relative]. It is time we break thecycle of violence.”

The same people who justify the deathpenalty by citing victims’ rights rarelyaddress the suffering caused to others by executions. The trauma to prisonofficials and guards involved inexecutions, the emotional pain sufferedby the family and loved ones of theindividual executed, the defense lawyerswho may feel that they have somehowfailed their executed client and thenumerous other people brutalized byexecutions are simply ignored by politicalleaders espousing the “advantages” ofexecutions to the electorate.

“People don’t understand that the deathpenalty has an impact on families that is so far reaching,” says Jonnie Waner.Her brother, Larry Griffin, was put todeath by the state of Missouri, USA, in 1995. “My mother has never gottenover it [the execution of her son]. She has changed so much since it happened.All of the kids have a hard timeunderstanding it. The death penaltycreates so many more victims.”“TO THOSE WHO SAY SOCIETY

MUST TAKE A LIFE FOR A LIFE,WE SAY “NOT IN OUR NAME.”Marie Deans, relative of murder victim, USA

Index: ACT/015/2008


LIVES HELD TO RANSOMSome countries, most notably Iran,Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen,employ a system that allows relatives of the murder victim’s family to waivethe death penalty for free, or in returnfor financial compensation – otherwiseknown as diya or “blood money” – or set any condition they see fit. Theblood money is paid in compensation for the killing, thereby foregoing theexecution. Such systems make theadministration of the death penaltyarbitrary and discriminatory in the extreme. It is arbitrary becausethose accused of similar crimes can be treated differently from eachother. The person guilty of murderingthe relative of a merciful family is notexecuted, while someone whose victim’s family is less forgiving isexecuted, despite all other elements of the crime being similar. It isdiscriminatory because those withmoney are more likely to be able totempt the families of the victims intoaccepting a large payment.

The relatives of those murdered have every right to expect to see those guilty of inflicting such harm held to account by a fair judicialprocess. But allowing them to influencethe judicial process risks the removal of one of the central tenets of modernjurisprudence: that everyone standsequal before the law.

© AP Photo/Paul Sakum

a

An opponent of the death penalty protests against the execution in California, USA,of Clarence Ray Allen, aged 76, a blind wheelchair user. Clarence Ray Allen wasexecuted by lethal injection on 17 January 2006 after spending 23 years on death row.


IS THERE A HUMANE WAY TO EXECUTE?

Of all the many and varied types of execution – electrocution, hanging, shooting, gassing,stoning – lethal injection has emerged as the new method of choice for some because of its allegedly humane qualities. However, recent cases have led to a re-think on using lethalinjection and whether there really is a humane way for the state to kill.

The death penalty requires the state to carry out the very act most stronglycondemned by international law. In virtually every legal system, theseverest sanctions are deployed for the premeditated or cold-blooded killingof a human being. But no killing is morepremeditated or cold-blooded than anexecution. An execution, like physicalforms of torture, involves a deliberateassault on a prisoner. Simply put, thereis no humane way to put someone todeath. It is not possible to find a way to execute a person which is not cruel,inhuman or degrading.

Over the past two centuries, approachesto execution have changed, frommethods designed to maximize thesuffering of prisoners, to the modern,functional approach taken by themajority of governments which still usecapital punishment today. This functionalattitude emphasizes the death of theprisoner rather than exaggerating thesuffering caused by execution.

But every method of execution has been shown to be problematic andcapable of causing prolonged suffering.Shooting, hanging and beheading haveall failed on occasions to produce instantdeath and further violence was neededto kill the prisoner. Faced with these

grisly scenes, some governments haveturned to lethal injection as the modernday method of killing.

On 10 February 1998, Guatemala usedlethal injection for the first time toexecute a prisoner. The condemned man was Manuel Martínez Coronado.But those charged with carrying out theprocedure against him were apparentlyso nervous (reportedly due in part to the distressing sounds of the prisoner’swife and children weeping) that it tookthem a long time to attach the line thatwas to deliver the drugs needed to killhim. A power cut during the executionstopped the flow of the lethal drugs andit took the prisoner 18 minutes to die.The entire ordeal was broadcast live onstate television.

In the USA, a number of lethal injectionexecutions have been botched. AngelDiaz, a native of Puerto Rico who was sentenced to death for a murdercommitted in 1979, took 34 minutes todie by lethal injection on 13 December2006. According to reports he wasmoving, grimacing and attempted tospeak for over 20 minutes of that time. A second dose was required before adoctor, wearing a hood over his face to conceal his identity, signaled thatAngel Diaz was dead.

The USA introduced execution by lethalinjection almost 30 years ago, applying it for the first time in 1982 as the most“humane” way of putting someone todeath. Since then, nearly 900 prisonershave been killed by this method in theUSA, and it has all but replaced thealternative methods – electric chair,hanging, gassing and shooting. Nearly20 years after its introduction into USlaw, lethal injection was adopted byChina, Guatemala, the Philippines(although the Philippines subsequentlyabolished the death penalty in June2006), Taiwan and Thailand.

The injection consists of lethal doses of three chemicals: sodium pentothal to induce general anaesthesia;pancuronium bromide to cause muscleparalysis; and potassium chloride to stop the heart. If inadequate levels of sodium pentothal are administered, the anaesthetic effect can wear offrapidly and the prisoner will experienceexcruciating pain as he or she goes intocardiac arrest. Moreover, their paralysismeans that they will be unable tocommunicate their agony to anyone.

In some parts of the USA, it is againstthe law to use these chemicals to“humanely” put an animal to death. The use of pancuronium bromide for

Index: ACT/015/2008


pet euthanasia is not acceptable underAmerican Veterinary Medical Associationguidelines, and its use has been bannedin several states. In September 2003, for example, a new law came into forcein Texas banning its use in theeuthanasia of cats and dogs. Yet Texas is the state which uses lethal injectionthe most frequently for humans, havingexecuted nearly 400 people by thismethod since 1982.

Lethal injection avoids many of theunpleasant effects of other forms ofexecution: bodily mutilation and bleeding due to decapitation, smell ofburning flesh in electrocution, disturbingsights or sounds in lethal gassing and

hanging, the problem of involuntarydefecation and urination. For these reasons, lethal injections may be lessunpleasant for those involved in carryingout the execution. However, lethalinjection increases the risk that medicalpersonnel will be involved in killing forthe state, in breach of long-standingprinciples of medical ethics.

The search for a “humane” way of killing people should be seen for what it is – a search to make executions more palatable to those carrying out the killing, to the governments that wishto appear humane, and to the public in whose name the killing is supposedlycarried out.

Health professionals assist at theexecution of Manuel Martínez Coronado,the first by lethal injection in Guatemala,February 1998.

“IT REALLY SOUNDS LIKE HE WASTORTURED TO DEATH."Jonathan Groner MD, Ohio State Medical School, on the death of Angel Diaz by lethalinjection in 2006

© Jorge Uzon

INTERNAL


More and more people across the worldare condemning the death penalty forwhat it is – a brutal punishment that has no place in a just society. Their callshave not gone unheard. Today, at thebeginning of the 21st century, two thirdsof all countries have abolished the deathpenalty in law or in practice. By contrast,at the turn of the last century, only threecountries had permanently abolished the death penalty. The trend is clear: the world is standing up and saying “no” to executions. And that principle has been reinforced at the highestinternational level.

In December 2007, the UN GeneralAssembly – the UN’s highest politicalbody – voted 104 to 54 for a resolution on a moratorium on executions “with a view” to total abolition of the deathpenalty. This landmark decision carriesconsiderable moral and political weight,although it is not legally binding on states.Establishing a moratorium on executionsis an important tool for convincing statesstill using the death penalty to engage in a nation-wide debate and to review theirlaws on capital punishment. While deathpenalty laws are under review, allexecutions are postponed.

The resolution is the international initiativethat emerged from regional developmentsthat have embraced the campaign to end capital punishment. Europe hasemerged as a virtually death penalty-freearea and a leader in campaigning forabolition. The continent of Africa is largelyexecution free with only seven of theregion’s 53 countries known to havecarried out state killings in 2007.

The USA, a country other nations citewhen justifying their own use of capitalpunishment, is moving steadily away from the death penalty. The number of executions carried out and deathsentences imposed has droppeddramatically in recent years. In NewJersey, the death penalty was abolished in December 2007 and several otherstates have legislation pending to endcapital punishment.

TOWARDS ABOLITION

People are no longer willing to stand by while their governments execute in the name of justice.

A protester carrying a placard calling for the abolition of the death penaltydemonstrates outside a Chinese liaison office in Hong Kong, July 2005.

© Private

Index: ACT/015/2008


Since 1979, over 70 countries have abolished the death penalty. Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom reintroduced.

Campaigners for abolition across the world are joining forces, creating a truly global movement against capitalpunishment. Key events include the annual World Congress against the Death Penalty, spearheaded by the World Coalition against the Death Penalty. National coalitions have emerged in several countries, includingthe Anti-Death Penalty Action Network(ADPAN) in Asia. Uniting them is thegrowing awareness that there arealternative punishments to the deathpenalty which are effective and which do not involve the premeditated and

cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice.

Amnesty International campaigns for thetotal abolition of the death penalty. We callon all nations to work for a world free fromexecutions and to make the 2007 UNresolution a reality.

There are alternativepunishments to the deathpenalty which do not involvethe premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a humanbeing by the state in thename of justice.

FIND OUT MORE� For an up-to-date list of abolitionistand retentionist countries, seewww.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty

� For general information about the worldwide campaign to abolish the death penalty, seewww.worldcoalition.org

� Take action on 10 October, World Day against the Death Penalty. Find out how on AmnestyInternational’s website.

Hundreds of protesters hold a vigiloutside Alipore Central Jail, Calcutta,India, where Dhananjoy Chatterjee washanged on 14 August 2004.

© AP Photo/Bikas Das


KILLED BY THE STATE

Individuals condemned after unfair trials, political opponents executed, children sentencedto death – the following is just a selection of cases of people who have had their lives“legally” taken by a state.

CHINA Ismail Semed was executed on 8 February2006 in Urumqi, Xinjiang UighurAutonomous Region (XUAR). Chargedwith “attempting to split the motherland”after being deported from Pakistan in2003, he was sentenced to death on 31 October 2005 by the UrumqiIntermediate People’s Court.

He appealed against the conviction but, according to the US-based UyghurHuman Rights Project (UHRP), his appealmay have been heard in a closed session– which, while legal under certaincircumstances, does make it difficult to determine whether the proceedingswere fair. The UHRP also maintains thatIsmail Semed confessed to the chargesduring interrogations but denied themduring the trial, suggesting that his initialconfession was extracted through torture.

Ismail Semed’s wife and two youngchildren were allowed just 10 minutesalone with him the day before hisexecution. He was killed by a single shotto the heart.

INDONESIA Fabianus Tibo, aged 61, Dominggus daSilva, aged 43, and Marinus Riwu, aged49, were executed by firing squad on 21September 2006 at 1.45am. They hadbeen sentenced to death in April 2001 for premeditated murder and inciting riots,following ethnic and religious violence inthe district of Poso, Central Sulawesi, inMay 2000. Although the location of theexecution was not officially disclosed bythe authorities, a member of the policeforces said it took place near Palu airport,Central Sulawesi.

Amnesty International believes that thetrial was unfair. In particular, witnesstestimony provided as evidence by thedefence may have been ignored by theCourt when giving its verdict. There werereports of demonstrators armed withstones outside the courthouse, demandingthat the three men be sentenced to death.It is feared that such intimidation affectedthe outcome of the trial. The men’sdefence lawyers were also subjected to intimidation, including death threatsand a bomb planted at the house of onelegal adviser.

IRAN Atefeh Rajabi Sahaaleh, aged 16, washanged for repeated "crimes againstchastity" on 15 August 2004. She wasexecuted in public, in the centre of thetown of Neka, Mazandaran province,northern Iran. The execution was carriedout despite reports that Atefeh Rajabi wasnot believed to be mentally competent and that she did not have access toeffective legal defence at any stage.

During the trial, Atefeh Rajabi is said tohave lost her temper, shouted at the judgethat she had been the victim of actscarried out by an older man, and thrownoff her headscarf in protest. The judgereportedly reprimanded her and later said that she had “undressed in public”. It is alleged that Atefeh Rajabi wasmentally ill both at the time of the actswhich the government claim constitutedher “crimes” and during her trial.Although her national identity card stated that she was 16 years old, the Mazandaran Judiciary apparentlyannounced at her execution that she was 22. International law prohibits theexecution of juvenile offenders – thoseaged under 18 at the time the crime was committed. Judicial authorities havenot acted to investigate a complaint filed against the judge. According to theIranian newspaper Peyk-e-Iran, the lowercourt judge who issued the originalsentence placed the noose around AtefehRajabi’s head as she went to the gallows.

Index: ACT/015/2008


SINGAPORE Nigerian citizen Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi,aged 21, and Okele Nelson Malachy, aged 35, from South Africa, were hangedin the early hours of 26 January 2007 at Singapore’s Changi Prison.

The two were executed despite appealsfrom the Nigerian government and the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,summary or arbitrary executions, callingon the Singaporean government not toproceed with Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi’sexecution. The UN Special Rapporteurstated that his fundamental human rightto presumption of innocence had not beenguaranteed at the trial.

Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi was arrested at Changi Airport on 27 November 2004,and charged under the Misuse of DrugsAct with transporting 727.02 grams ofheroin into Singapore. A death sentenceis mandatory for anyone convicted oftrafficking in more than 15 grams ofheroin into the country. The judge whoconvicted him appears to have acceptedthat he might not have realized thesubstance he was carrying was heroin. In his verdict, he said, “There was nodirect evidence that he knew the capsulescontained diamorphine [heroin]. Therewas nothing to suggest that [Mr] Smith[who gave him the pills to transport] hadtold him they contained diamorphine, or that [he] had found that out of [sic] his own.”

USA Philip Workman, aged 53, was executedby lethal injection in Tennessee on 9 May2007 despite evidence that a key statewitness lied at his trial and that LieutenantRonald Oliver, the police officer that PhilipWorkman was convicted of killing during a1981 robbery, may have been accidentallyshot by a fellow officer. Philip Workmanhad been on death row for 25 years.

On 4 May 2007, the US Court of Appealsrejected Philip Workman’s appeal for astay of execution to pursue his claim ofinnocence. Two of the judges ruled thatPhilip Workman had “not met his burdenof showing a likelihood of success” on the merits of his appeal. They continued:“Nearly 25 years after Workman’s capitalsentence and five stays of execution later,both the state and the public have aninterest in finality...” However, the thirdjudge, Judge Cole, dissented. He arguedthat Philip Workman had “made thenecessary showing” that he was likely tosucceed, at least in his bid to obtain anevidentiary hearing on his claims, and thatthat was enough to warrant a stay. JudgeCole also pointed out that another three-judge panel of the US Court of appealshad recently granted a stay of execution to a death row prisoner in similarcircumstances. He said: “I simply cannotconclude that this inconsistency in theadministration of the death penalty ispermissible...” Since 1973, over 120individuals have been released from deathrows in the USA after being exonerated.

DEATHPENALTYTHE ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT

CAMPAIGNING TOOLKIT

For more information pleasecontact your Amnesty Internationalsection or structure. Details atwww.amnesty.org

Image: Majid Kavousifar andHossein Kavousifar, his nephew,hang from cables of a crane inTehran, Iran, 2 August 2007.© Private

Index: ACT/015/2008

Documents

CAMPAIGNINGTOOLKIT DEATH PENALTY - … PENALTY THEULTIMATEPUNISHMENT CAMPAIGNINGTOOLKIT For more information please contact your Amnesty International