NO to the Death Penalty The "Moratorium 2000" - International Campaign

OFFICIAL POSITIONS OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

U.N. COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADOPTS A RESOLUTION ON THE DEATH PENALTY

28 April 1999

The Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution which called on States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which it might be imposed and to establish a moratorium on executions.

The resolution on the question of the death penalty was adopted after a roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 11 against and 12 abstentions. The Commission urged all States that still maintained the death penalty not to impose it for any but the most serious crimes; not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age; to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment; and not to impose it on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder.

The Commission approved by roll-call vote of 27 in favour to 13 against and 13 abstentions retention of operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 of resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.91). The Commission adopted by roll-call vote of 30 in favour to 11 against and 12 abstentions this resolution on the question of the death penalty, in which it called upon all State parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that had not yet done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; urged all States that still maintained the death penalty to comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably: not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence; urged all States to ensure that the notion of "most serious crimes" did not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences and that the death penalty was not imposed for non-violent financial crimes or for non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience; not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; to observe the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50; not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder; and not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at international or at national level, was pending; called upon all States that still maintained the death penalty to progressively restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed, establish a moratorium on executions, and to make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty.

The result of the roll-call vote for the retention of operative paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5 was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ecuador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Cuba, India, Japan, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan and the United States.

Abstentions: Bhutan, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Niger, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

The result of the roll-call vote on the whole resolution was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Sudan and the United States.

Abstentions: Bhutan, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guatemala, India, Liberia, Madagascar, Morocco, Philippines, Senegal, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.

CLAUDIO MORENO (Italy), speaking on draft resolution L.91 on the death penalty, said his country had been fighting for the abolition of the death penalty and thanked the German delegation which had worked to ensure that the draft resolution was adopted. Italy noted with satisfaction that the moratorium had in a spirit of openness and cooperation been discussed and agreed upon.

VICTOR LAGOS PIZZATI (El Salvador) said that the draft was an extremely positive initiative since it spoke of the right to dignity of the individual. It was an issue of the right to life, the respect of life, and the duty of the State to respect these rights and protect them. The right to life was inherent to each individual.

H. K. SINGH (India), speaking on draft resolution L.91 on the question of the death penalty, said it had participated in the debate and regretted that there had been no open debate which would have led to modifications. It was clear that the international community had not yet reached consensus and it must be recognized that this agreement could only be reached progressively. In India, the death penalty was only imposed in the most exceptional cases and must be given explanations. India had begun the process of abolition of the death penalty for pregnant women and had already accorded it for minors.

NANCY RUBIN (the United States) said it would vote against the draft since capital punishment was not against either national or international laws, as long as it was carried out by due process. It was recognised that many States were against the death penalty, as were a large number of citizens of the United States. However, the majority of citizens of the United States were for capital punishment in the case of particularly heinous crimes. If this were to change, then the law would be changed.

H. K. SINGH (India) called for a separate vote on paragraphs 3f, 4b and 5.

WILHELM HOYNCK (Germany) said that these paragraphs had been carefully written and did not infringe on national sovereignty. Germany would therefore vote in favour of them.

DENIS LEPATAN (the Philippines) said it would abstain in the light of an absence of consensus on the draft resolution on the death penalty.

KAMEL MORJANE (Tunisia) said that the death penalty had been de facto abolished in his country. It was applied only very rarely and for the most heinous crimes. Tunisia would therefore abstain.

KINGA SINGYE (Bhutan) said his country would abstain due to a lack of consensus on the draft resolution on the death penalty.

HASSAN WIRAJUDA (Indonesia) said that his country and others would like to disassociate themselves with resolution L.91 on the question of the death penalty because there was no international consensus that the death penalty should be abolished. Capital punishment had often been characterised as a human rights issue and in the light of the right to life of the criminals. However, the rights of the victims should also be taken into account. The question of whether or not to abolish the death penalty should be decided upon by each State, in the context of the opinion of its citizens and its impact upon crime.

IFTEKHAR CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh), speaking on resolution L.91 on the death penalty, said his country had voted against it since the death penalty was still legal in Bangladesh, although it was very rarely applied. The text of the resolution could be remedied so that Bangladesh could vote in favour of it in the future.