Malaysia,
disappointingly, voted against the Death Penalty resolution - odd as
Malaysia is in the process of finalizing its study on the abolition of
the death penalty...Logically, Malaysia should have abstained rather
than objected...
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY(UNGA) MORATORIUM ON THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY RESOLUTION..19/12/2016
[117 of the UN’s 193 member states voted
in favour of the proposal. Only 40 states voted against it and 31 abstained at the vote]
Below the Draft Test of the Resolution(for the final text, visit UN Website)
The General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles
contained in the Charter of the United Nations,
Reaffirming the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the
Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Recalling the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty, and in this regard welcoming the increasing
number of accessions to and ratifications of the Second Optional Protocol,
Reaffirming its resolutions 62/149 of 18
December 2007, 63/168 of 18 December 2008, 65/206 of 21 December 2010, 67/176
of 20 December 2012 and 69/186 of 18 December 2014 on the question of a
moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which the General Assembly
called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to establish a
moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing it,
Welcoming all relevant decisions and
resolutions of the Human Rights Council,
Mindful that any miscarriage or failure of
justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and
irreparable,
Convinced that a moratorium on the use of
the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the
enhancement and progressive development of human rights, and considering that
there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty,
Noting ongoing local and national debates
and regional initiatives on the death penalty, as well as the readiness of an
increasing number of Member States to make available to the public information
on the use of the death penalty, and also, in this regard, the decision by the
Human Rights Council in its resolution 26/2 of 26 June 20145 to convene
biennial high-level panel discussions in order to further exchange views on the
question of the death penalty,
Recognizing the role of national human
rights institutions in contributing to ongoing local and national debates and
regional initiatives on the death penalty,
Welcoming the considerable movement towards
the abolition of the death penalty globally and the fact that many States are
applying a moratorium, including long-standing moratoriums, either in law or in
practice, on the use of the death penalty,
Emphasizing the need to ensure that persons
facing the death penalty are treated with humanity and with respect for their
inherent dignity and in compliance with their rights under international human
rights law,
Noting the technical cooperation among Member States, as well as
the role of relevant United Nations entities and human rights mechanisms, in
supporting State efforts to establish moratoriums on the death
penalty,
Bearing in mind the work of special
procedures mandate holders who have addressed human rights issues related to
the death penalty within the framework of their respective mandates,
1. Reaffirms the sovereign right of all
countries to develop their own legal systems, including determining appropriate
legal penalties, in accordance with their international law obligations;
2. Expresses its deep concern about the
continued application of the death penalty;
3. Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General
on the implementation of resolution 69/186 and the recommendations contained
therein;
4. Also welcomes the steps taken by some
States to reduce the number of offences for which the death penalty may be
imposed, as well as steps taken to limit its application;
5. Further welcomes initiatives and
political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the
possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic
decision-making;
6. Welcomes the decisions made by an increasing
number of States from all regions, at all levels of government, to apply a
moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death
penalty;
7. Calls upon all States:
(a) To respect international standards that
provide safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the
death penalty, in particular the minimum standards, as set out in the annex to
Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984, as well as to
provide the Secretary-General with information in this regard;
(b) To comply with their obligations under
article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, particularly
the right to receive information on consular assistance;
(c) To make available relevant information,
disaggregated by sex, age, and race, as applicable, and other applicable
criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the number
of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the
number of executions carried out, the number of death sentences reversed or
commuted on appeal and information on any scheduled execution, which can
contribute to possible informed and transparent national and international
debates, including on the obligations of States pertaining to the use of the
death penalty;
(d) To progressively restrict the use of
the death penalty and not to impose capital punishment for offences committed
by persons below 18 years of age, on pregnant women or on persons with mental
or intellectual disabilities;
(e) To reduce the number of offences for
which the death penalty may be imposed;
(f) To ensure that those facing the death
penalty can exercise their right to apply for pardon or commutation of their
death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair and transparent
and that prompt information is provided at all stages of the process;
(g) To establish a moratorium on executions
with a view to abolishing the death penalty;
8. Calls upon States which have abolished
the death penalty not to reintroduce it, and encourages them to share their
experience in this regard;
9. Encourages States which have a
moratorium to maintain it and to share their experience in this regard;
10. Calls upon States that have not yet
done so to consider acceding to or ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the
abolition of the death penalty;
11. Requests the Secretary-General to
report to the General Assembly at its seventy-third session on the implementation
of the present resolution;
12. Decides to continue consideration of
the matter at its seventy-third session under the item entitled “Promotion and
protection of human rights”.
Some observations of a friend as follows:-
The
plenary session of the UN General Assembly adopted yesterday its sixth
resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with 117
votes in favour,
40 against and 31 abstentions.
The text of the resolution includes some positive new additions compared to 2014, including:
-a
reference to the role of national human rights institutions in
contributing to ongoing local and national debates and regional
initiatives on the death
penalty;
-a
request to make available relevant information on any scheduled
execution, in addition to other information already listed in previous
resolutions;
-a
call on states that still retain the death penalty “To ensure that
those facing the death penalty can exercise their right to apply for
pardon or commutation
of their death sentence by ensuring that clemency procedures are fair
and transparent and that prompt information is provided at all stages of
the process;”
Unfortunately
the opponents of the resolution managed this year to include in the
resolution a new paragraph that recalls their sovereign right to
determine
their legal systems, as follows:
“1.
Reaffirms the sovereign right of all countries to develop their own
legal systems, including determining appropriate legal penalties, in
accordance
with their international law obligations;”
While
the number of the votes in favour remained the same as in 2014, there
have been some interesting changes in the voting, both positively and
negatively:
Positive changes:
-Guinea, Malawi, Namibia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka moved from abstention to vote in favour;
-Zimbabwe moved from vote against to abstention;
- Swaziland also moved from not present to vote in favour
(but voted against the resolution in previous years).
-Lesotho
moved from not present to abstention (but abstained in previous
resolutions, so did not mention this in our AI statement); Nauru moved
from not
present to vote in favour (but supported the resolutions in previous
years, so we did not mention this in our statement).
Negative changes:
-Equatorial Guinea, Niger, Philippines, Seychelles moved from vote in favour to abstention;
-Maldives moved from abstention to vote against;
-Burundi and South Sudan moved from vote in favour to vote against.
Several states also did not vote yesterday, for whatever reason, contributing to the final results:
-DRC, Gambia, Senegal went from abstention to not present;
-Rwanda went from vote in favour to not present.
This
leaves us with a somewhat bittersweet result: on one hand, the number
of votes in favour has not become higher compared to 2014; on the other
hand, some
of the positive changes might signal the beginning of new journeys
towards abolition.
2016
has been a very challenging year all around, including for the death
penalty-some of the negative vote changes were somewhat expected, some
perhaps speak
to greater human rights challenges.
Thank you nonetheless for your continued work to get us all here-look forward to more work together in the new year.
Amnesty International’s public statement on yesterday’s vote can be found below and at this link:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment