UPR Triumvirate

It bodes ill for progress towards abolition of the death penalty in Thailand that the three countries chosen to respond to Thailand's human rights report on October 5th, the UPR "triumvirate" are countries which themselves retain the death penalty.

Cuba, commuted the death sentences of the remaining 3 death row inmates in 2010. The last execution was carried out in 2003.
In Indonesia, 98 people remained under sentence of death at year end 2010. New death sentences that year totaled 7 and 10 persons were executed in 2008
In Nigeria the number on death row is approximately 824, and there were 151 new death sentences last year. The last execution was in 2006.

Figures for Thailand are: prisoners on death row 759; death sentences in 2010,53; most recent executions, 2 persons in 2008.
In summary, Cuba is very low on the list of retentionist countries, while Indonesia, Nigeria, and Thailand are comparable middle level executioners. The only hope of strong recommendation to abolish the death penalty rests with interventions from countries attending the UPR.

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

One must not shuffle about with the death penalty. In 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a second Human Rights Plan for the years 2009 to 2013. In section 3.1 of the plan we are informed that Parliament has discussed the death penalty, agreeing to abolish the penalty and to replace it with life imprisonment. The document originates from the Ministry of Justice. In an annex to the plan, government ministries and departments, respond to the plan, accepting its proposals. Among the signatories are Mr. Kasit Phirom, Minister of Foreign Affairs. On October 5th, Thailand is scheduled to present itself for a Universal Peer Review (UPR) of its human rights record before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. The website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at present displays a report which the Royal Thai Government will present at the Review. Strangely, there is no mention of abolition of the death penalty. It is impossible that this is some careless omission. In its previous appearance before the UN Human Rights Council the Government was advised that current interpretation of international law recommends abolition. Since that time the UN General Assembly has voted three times in favour of a Moratorium on executions worldwide to be accompanied by national reflection on abolition.
What is the Government doing? Have they reversed the decision in favour of abolition? Ominously, regarding the death penalty, the UPR submission speaks of the importance of paying attention to public opinion throughout the country. By this statement, it appears that the Government is falling back on an old cliche, that abolition must wait a majority in public opinion. As the government, now three years into the human rights plan, has made no effort to introduce a public debate or to present evidence for an informed discussion, we can only assume that it intends yet again to quote the uninformed opinion of a majority to block progress on abolition. This is a failure in moral leadership, and a betrayal of the stand taken in the 2nd human rights plan. Is this a decision of the Ministry of Justice? By what right do they reject the plan and the signatories who accepted its proposal? Will they try to justify this stand in Geneva in the coming October, or hope that it will quietly pass unnoticed?

Protest against the death penalty for homosexuality

Death Penalty Thailand on Saturday 25th June joins in world rejection of the death penalty for homosexuality.

Nine countries still enforce the death penalty against homosexuals:
Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Soudan, Yémen.

Allah is All-merciful

Conference on Prison Conditions in Thailand

As the possibility arises that Thailand will replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, we turn our attention to conditions of long term imprisonment. On 31st May UCL organised an afternoon conference on prison conditions in Thailand. What follows is a BBC report on the conference.
Prisoners in Thailand kept 'shackled and cramped'
By Vaudine England BBC News, Bangkok
An independent rights group in Thailand, the Union for Civil Liberties, has opened a campaign to improve conditions in Thailand's jails. It has issued a report on prisons which highlights overcrowding, the use of shackles and the lack of medical care. The group has campaigned against the death penalty and praises the government's promise to commute death sentences to life imprisonment.
That makes improving prison conditions even more important, it says.
Thailand's prisons are built to hold about 100,000 people - but according to the government's own figures, they are holding more than twice that number.
As a result, the conditions, says the Union for Civil Liberties, are horrendous.
People have to sleep in tight rows on hard floors. In these sleeping cells, each prisoner has an average of one square metre - as opposed to the four to six square metres described as the minimum by the Council of Europe.
Danthong Breen, chairman of the union, says the overcrowding is shocking.
"In the women's prison it's particularly bad. You have 200 women in a single cell," he told the BBC. "If one of them has to get up at night to go to the toilet, they all shift a bit and when she comes back the space is gone and she has to stand up all night.
"The level of crowding is inhuman and inhumane."
The other horror, he says, is the widespread use of shackles.
These are welded on to the ankles of long-term prisoners and are not removed, even during illness, until the sentence is served.
The United Nations has criticised the practice. The Thai foreign ministry has promised to end it. The constitutional court ruled the practice was wrong.
But the reality of the over-crowding and a ratio of warders to prisoners of about one to 45, makes the practice hard to stamp out.
Prisoners with money are able to improve every aspect of their life behind bars, Mr Breen says. But a lack of government money is holding back investment in new facilities and extra staff.
The civil liberties group suggests Thailand could look more at using non-custodial sentences. It estimates at least half of those jailed are being held for drugs offences.
And it hopes that whatever government emerges from elections next month, the promise to no longer impose the death penalty is kept.

Not revenge, but forgiveness is sweet

Victim of 9/11 hate crime fights for attacker's life
Days after the 9/11 terror attacks, 31-year old laborer Mark Stroman went on a shooting spree in the Dallas area. In a drug-fueled mission of revenge, he killed two South Asian immigrants and shot another — Rais Bhuiyan — in the face at close range, blinding him in one eye.
Shortly after his arrest, Stroman boasted of his role as "Arab Slayer."
Now, as Stroman faces imminent execution in Texas, an unlikely champion is fighting to save his life: Bhuiyan, who spent years recovering from the wounds he suffered in the attack.
"I've had many years to grow spiritually," said Bhuiyan, a Muslim who immigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh and now works as technology professional in Dallas. "I'm trying to do my best not to allow the loss of another human life. I'll knock on every door possible."Bhuiyan began collecting signatures late last year on a petition asking the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to commute Stroman's death penalty sentence to life in prison without parole through his website World without Hate.
Among those supporting his cause are some relatives of the two victims who were killed.
'Unprecedented' The odds are stacked against Stroman, 41, who is held in the Texas State Penitentiary at Huntsville, where he is scheduled to be executed on July 20.
The seven-member Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles holds the power to recommend a commutation to the governor, but it has only done so in one death penalty case since December 2000, when the current Gov. Rick Perry took office. That recommendation was denied by Perry.
By Kari Huus, Canada msn news June 3

Not in Our Name: Relatives of Victims on Death Penalty

One of the arguments most often quoted in support of the death penalty, in Thailand as elsewhere, is that it is necessary to give justice to relatives of the victims of capital crime. Increasingly these relatives are denying that capital punishment is in their interest, as the following newspaper account relates:

"As the country has increasingly turned against capital punishment as barbaric and horrifyingly prone to legal abuses, defenders are pointing to the emotional needs of the families of murder victims — “co-victims” to those who study crime — as justification. Many family members, however, have said they want no part of that.

When New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007 and New Mexico did in 2009, each did so with the support of co-victims. In Connecticut, the Legislature’s joint Judiciary Committee has now approved a bill that would repeal that state’s death penalty, again with the support of victims’ families.

The family members say that rather than providing emotional closure, the long appeals process in death penalty cases is actually prolonging their suffering. They also say it wastes money and unjustifiably elevates some murders above others in importance. In an open letter to the Connecticut Legislature, relatives of murder victims — 76 parents, children and others — wrote that “the death penalty, rather than preventing violence, only perpetuates it and inflicts further pain on survivors.” New York Times, 30th April 2011

Imprisonment for life without parole

As Thailand moves to abolish the death penalty, there are fears that, following US example, it will replace death by imprisonment for life without parole. The following leads one to doubt the wisdom of imitating US practice:

In the United States, dozens of 13- and 14-year-old children have been sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole after being prosecuted as adults. While the United States Supreme Court recently declared in Roper v. Simmons that death by execution is unconstitutional for juveniles, young children continue to be sentenced to imprisonment until death with very little scrutiny or review. A study by the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) has documented 73 cases where children 13 and 14 years of age have been condemned to death in prison. Almost all of these kids currently lack legal representation and in most of these cases the propriety and constitutionality of their extreme sentences have never been reviewed.
Most of the sentences imposed on these children were mandatory: the court could not give any consideration to the child’s age or life history. Some of the children were charged with crimes that do not involve homicide or even injury; many were convicted for offenses where older teenagers or adults were involved and primarily responsible for the crime; nearly two-thirds are children of color.

Death Penalty in Thailand

Current Death penalty Statistics

For all crimes
Sex. Appeal Court. Supreme Court... Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.....432.............170......................74............................676
Female….46..............24.......................13.............................83
Total....478.............194.......................87...........................759


For drug related crimes
Sex....Appeal Court....Supreme Court....Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.......183..............42......................59.........................284
Female.....55...............1.......................12..........................69
Total.......220..............62......................71........................353



For crimes of homicide and others
Sex....Appeal Court....Supreme Court....Juridical Process Complete....Total
Male.......249..............128......................15.......................356
Female…....9.................4........................1........................14
Total......258..............132......................16.......................406


Source: Department of Corrections, Bangkok, 30th March 2011

In 2010 the total number of those under sentence of death numbered 708. The increase to 759 is consistent with the 53 reported death sentences in the last year.

Execution of three Filipinos on drug charges in China

On Wednesday 30th March 2011, three Filipinos, Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, aged 32; Elizabeth Batain, aged 38, and Ramon Credo, aged 42 were executed by lethal injection in China. They were charged with smuggling heroin weighing 4 to 6 kilos into the country. By Chinese law the smuggling of a quantity exceeding 50 grams is subject to the death penalty.
Pleas for clemency made by the President of the Philippines were rejected by Chinese authorities.
In a statement made by a spokesperson of the Chinese government:
"In China, our judicial authorities handled the case independently and we grant equal treatment to foreign drug traffickers. The involved individuals rights and treatment are ensured and safeguarded according to the law. China has fulfilled its international obligations in the process.”
This is not so. In international law the death penalty may be inflicted only for the most serious crimes which is interpreted as intentional homicide. The UN Human Rights Council has insisted that drug related crimes do not come under the ambit of “most serious crimes”.
China must not deny the experience of most countries in the world, nor the shared moral sense of the majority in rejecting the death penalty

The three executed were drug mules recruited by foreign drug syndicates preying on jobless Filipinos, not professional drug dealers. In one of the cases there is doubt that the carrier was aware of the nature of the carried package. They appear to have been first time offenders.
They carried the drugs through an ineffective surveillance in Manila International Airport, a process which must be investigated.

The three condemned Filipinos were allowed to meet with their families for one hour before execution. One of the three was unaware that the visit was a prelude to her execution, and her family tried to hide from her the significance of their visit.

The drug trade is the largest crime problem in the world and cannot be solved by the death penalty. The Chinese government should study the case of Hong Kong where the death penalty has not been used in 40 years and where the drug problem is no different than in the comparable city of Singapore, which surpasses even China in its rate of execution per population unit (Evidence may be found on an earlier posting on this blog: See Archives; December 2008)

Many other Filipinos are under death sentence in China and elsewhere. The death penalty has been abolished in the Philippines for the last nine years.
13 Thai women are awaiting execution on drug charges in China

Thailand dissociates itself from countries which insist on their right to use the death penalty

The representative of Egypt in the United Nations General Assembly has presented on 10th March the "right" of a group of countries to retain the death penalty.

Thailand is no longer amongst this group, a choice consistent with its proclaimed decision to abolish the death penalty, in respect of the right to life of all human beings

"(d) Capital punishment has often been characterized by some as a human
rights issue in the context of the right to life of the convicted prisoner. However, it is first and foremost an issue of the criminal justice system and an important deterring element vis-à-vis the most serious crimes. It must therefore be viewed from a much broader perspective and weighed against the rights of the victims and the right of the community to live in peace and security;
(e) Every State has an inalienable right to choose its political, economic,
social, cultural, legal and criminal justice systems, without interference in any form by another State. Furthermore, the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations, in particular, Article 2, paragraph 7, clearly stipulates that nothing in the Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. Accordingly, the question of whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, and the types of crimes for which the death penalty is applied, should be determined by each State, taking fully into account the sentiments of its own people, state of crime and criminal policy. On this question, it is improper to attempt to create a universal decision or to prescribe to Member States actions that fall within their domestic jurisdiction, or attempt to change, by way of a General Assembly resolution, the stipulations under international law that were reached through a comprehensive negotiation process;
(f) Some Member States have voluntarily decided to abolish the death
penalty, whereas others have chosen to apply a moratorium on executions.
Meanwhile, many Member States also retain the death penalty in their legislations.
All Member States are acting in compliance with their international obligations.
Each Member State has decided freely, in accordance with its own sovereign right
established by the Charter, to determine the path that corresponds to its own social,
cultural and legal needs, in order to maintain social security, order and peace. No
Member State has the right to impose its standpoint on others.
The permanent missions to the United Nations listed below wish to request the
circulation of the present note verbale as a document of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly.
New York, 11 March 2011
1. Afghanistan
2. Antigua and Barbuda
3. Bahamas
4. Bahrain
5. Bangladesh
6. Barbados
7. Botswana
8. Brunei Darussalam
9. Central African Republic
10. Chad
11. China
12. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
13. Democratic Republic of the Congo
14. Dominica
15. Egypt
16. Equatorial Guinea
17. Eritrea
18. Ethiopia
19. Grenada
20. Guinea
21. Guyana
22. Indonesia
A/65/779
11-26164 5
23. Islamic Republic of Iran
24. Iraq
25. Jamaica
26. Kuwait
27. Lao People’s Democratic Republic
28. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
29. Malaysia
30. Myanmar
31. Niger
32. Nigeria
33. Oman
34. Pakistan
35. Papua New Guinea
36. Qatar
37. Saint Kitts and Nevis
38. Saint Lucia
39. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
40. Saudi Arabia
41. Sierra Leone
42. Singapore
43. Solomon Islands
44. Somalia
45. Sudan
46. Swaziland
47. Syrian Arab Republic
48. Tonga
49. Trinidad and Tobago
50. Uganda
51. United Arab Emirates
52. Yemen
53. Zimbabwe