The Issue of Shackling

In July 2005 Thailand presented to the Human Rights Committee in Geneva its report on the implementation of its obligations under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In its response the Human Rights Committee issued a stern admonition that the State "should guarantee the right of detainees to be treated humanely and with respect for their dignity". The issue of shackling was given special attention; "The use of shackling and long period of solitary confinement should be stopped immediately". Yet, two years later prisoners condemned to death are still permanently shackled. UCL has drawn attention again and again to the admonition of the Human Rights Committee and the obligation under international law to implement the terms of the Covenant. The response has been that the prison authorities are 'not yet ready' to fulfill their obligation.

To the shame of the prison authorities, prisoners themselves are taking legal initiatives against the unjust practice. A first case was submitted to the Administrative Court against the Corrections Department on the grounds that perpetual shackling is against Correctional Policy Guidelines, and causes mental stress and physical difficulties to prisoners. Photographic evidence of prison conditions demonstrated that shackling could not be claimed necessary to ensure the secure detention of prisoners. The Court immediately ordered that shackles be removed from the prisoner who submitted the complaint while the case was under consideration. On this decision another prisoner also invoked legal action. In this second case the decision of the Court has already been handed down, that perpetual shackling is indeed illegal. At present fifty prisoners are bringing similar action. If the precedent has been established it is difficult to see how a favourable decision will not be granted in other cases.

A worrying consequence is that prisoners whose shackles have been removed are being restricted to their cell block, unlike shackled prisoners who are free to go outside.
The Corrections Department is appealing the case where a decision has already been given. Can this be considered acceptable given the ruling of the Human Rights Committee two years ago?

And does the Corrections Department intend to oppose the legal case of every individual prisoner who seeks redress under the law?

Text of Moratorium on Death Penalty

United Nations A/C.3/62/L.29

General Assembly Distr.: Limited
1 November 2007
Original: English

Sixty-second session

Third Committee

Agenda item 70 (b)

Promotion and protection of human rights: human
rights questions, including alternative approaches
for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms

Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Vanuatu and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of): draft resolution

Moratorium on the use of the death penalty

The General Assembly,

Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations, Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,[1] the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[2] and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,[3]

Recalling also the resolutions on the question of the death penalty adopted over the past decade by the Commission on Human Rights in all consecutive sessions, the last being its resolution 2005/59,[4] in which the Commission called upon States that still maintain the death penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions,

Recalling further the important results accomplished by the former Commission on Human Rights on the question of the death penalty, and envisaging that the Human Rights Council could continue to work on this issue,

Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable,

Welcoming the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a moratorium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty,

1. Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;

2. Calls upon all States that still maintain the death penalty to:

(a) Respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the 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;

(b) Provide the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of capital punishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty;

(c) Progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed;

(d) Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty;

3. Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session on the implementation of the present resolution;

5. Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its sixty-third session under the same agenda item.

---

[1] Resolution 217 A (III).

[2] See resolution 2200 A (XXI), annex.

[3] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, No. 27531.

[4] See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2005, Supplement No. 3 and

corrigenda (E/2005/23 and Corr.1 and 2), chap. II, sect. A.

Abolish Death Penalty in Iran

deathpenaltythailand fully supports the movement against the death penalty in every country in the world, above all in the major executing countries, China, USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Singapore. Humanity is diminished by every execution. Abolition will only be accomplished when it is accepted by every state.

Stoning in Iran - a Barbaric Horror

New stoning to death and hanging in Iran

Paris, 11 July 2007 : The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the Iranian league for the Defence of Human Rights (LDDHI) express their deep concern at the stoning to death of a man for adultery, on 5 July 2007, in Takistan (province of Qazvin). On July 10, a spokesperson of the Judiciary confirmed the execution of Jafar Kiani, and stressed that stoning is a legal penalty in Iran.

Jafar Kiani and his partner, Ms. Mokaraameh Ebrahimi, spent 11 years in prison. They were both condemned to stoning. The execution of Mokaraameh Ebrahimi has been postponed up to now thanks to domestic and international mobilisation.
In addition, in Sistan, in the South East of the Islamic Republic, a man whose first name is Mohamad-Gol, was hanged for armed rebellion, but no information is available concerning the date of his arrest and condemnation, the circumstances of his trial, or his family name.

The spokesperson of the Judiciary also announced on 10 July that 20 “thugs” condemned to death will be hanged in the coming days and that 15 other “thugs” may be condemned to death shortly.

Public hanging is generally used as the method of execution in the Islamic Republic of Iran, while stoning is prescribed in certain cases, including adultery (Art. 83 of the Islamic Criminal Code). The Code prescribes that men be buried up to their waist, women up to their chest (Art. 102). The size of the stones, which must not be too large so as to kill the person immediately but not too small either, is described in article 104.

Stoning is an inhuman and degrading punishment violating Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the Islamic Republic, which states that «No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ». Numerous UN bodies, including the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee against Torture and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture have called for the abolition of corporal punishment.

With regard to the death by stoning, an order was reportedly made by the Iranian Judiciary in 2003 not to carry out death by stoning anymore. However, the July 5 execution by stoning is the second one since that order was made.

“We vigorously condemn the recent executions in Iran. They bring the execution toll since the beginning of the year to more than one hundred”, declared Karim Lahidji, Vice-president of FIDH and President of LDDHI. “We urge the Iranian authorities to adopt an immediate moratorium on all executions and, as a first minimal step, to pass a law prohibiting the death by stoning”, he concluded.

In Iran, the death penalty is generally pronounced after blatantly unfair trials, the executions are carried out in public, and the death sentence is not restricted to the “most serious crimes”, as required under international law. Those circumstances make an immediate moratorium on executions all the more urgent.

Little by Little - Exemption for Pregnant Women

Pregnant women exempted from death row in Thailand

Legislators on Wednesday amended the criminal code to exempt pregnant women from the death penalty.

The National Legislative Assembly approved an amendment to the Criminal Case Procedural Code to make a life sentence the maximum penalty allowed for women who are pregnant when on trial.

Under the previous code, pregnant women were eligible for capital punishment but were allowed at least one year on death row before the execution was carried out to spare the life of the child.

The death penalty is rarely carried out in Thailand, a Buddhist country.

Another amendment to the criminal code will require Thai jails to provide facilities for prison moms to take care of their children for at least three years after birth

At the UN Crime Prevention Congress in Bangkok, 2004, the then Permanent Secretary of the Justice Department declared that 'Thailand does not execute women'

Stoning to Death in Iran

See post below

"This Horrendous Practice"

Second Thoughts on an Executioner - Chavoret Jaruboon

Addendum to 'The Last Executioner' (see below)

The fascinating biography of Susan Aldous, ‘The Angel of Bang Kwang’ (Maverick House, 2007; widely available in Bangkok bookshops) gives a complementary picture of Chavoret Jaruboon. Susan has devoted herself to the inmates of Bang Kwang, and the inmates include the staff of the prison as well as prisoners, with a fierce generosity. She describes him as ‘one of the most honest and practical people I know ..who always tries to be fair and respectable to his charges’. He was to become her friend and biggest advocate within the prison and cooperated with her on several projects.

One senses the tragedy of a fair and honest man who has been doomed to take on the tragic guilt of carrying out judicial killing on behalf of others who sleep easily at night by reducing capital punishment to the paperwork of a judicial decision, while hiding the awful reality of the execution process.

This Horrendous Practice

This website is primarily concerned with the issue of the death penalty in Thailand. However the world is one, and what happens elsewhere affects thinking and decisions made in our country. At present three examples of the barbaric practice of Capital Punishment are pending. We list them as examples of the horrendous practice of the death sentence. In these three cases UCL will make strong protest to the countries concerned. Those who wish to follow our example can easily find avenues to submit protests.

1. Iran
A man and a woman are condemned to death by public stoning on Thursday 21st June, in Takistan, Ghagrin, on a charge of adultery . Both have been in prison since sentencing 11 years ago. The judge who passed sentence will throw the first stone and posters will invite the public to participate.

An Iranian source informs us that this sentence has been canceled

Meanwhile a Sri Lankan girl awaits beheading in Saudi Arabia while the Sri Lankan government hesitates to engage Saudi lawyers to launch an appeal to save her.

SAUDI ARABIA Rizana Nafeek (f), aged 19, Sri Lankan national

Domestic worker Rizana Nafeek was sentenced to death on 16 June for a murder committed while she was 17 years old. Saudi Arabia is a state party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which expressly prohibits the execution of offenders for crimes committed when they were under 18 years old. Rizana Nafeek is believed to have appealed against her sentence, but if her appeal is unsuccessful she could be executed within days.

She was arrested in May 2005 in Jeddah on charges of murdering an infant in her care. She had no access to lawyers either during interrogation or at her trial and was believed to have confessed to the murder during police questioning. She has since retracted her confession.

She apparently told the authorities that she was born in February 1988, but they seem to have ignored this on the basis that her passport indicated that she was born in February 1982. According to information available to Amnesty International no medical examination is believed to have been carried out to ascertain her age, nor was she given the opportunity to present her birth certificate, which reportedly shows that she was born in 1988.

2. Pakistan
Younis Masih, a Pakistani Christian was sentenced to death for blasphemy on May 30th. The case arose from an event on 9th September last when Younis went at midnight to protest the loud singing during a religious ceremony in a house near his Lahore home. Trial and sentence followed a complaint lodged by the Muslim cleric who led the service. An attempt has been made on the life of the lawyer, Pervez Aslam Choudhury, who acted for the defense of Younis.
3. Libya (17th July: The death penalty has been commuted to life imprisonment in this case)

PARIS, Tuesday, July 24 (AP) — Five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor sentenced to life in prison in Libya for allegedly contaminating children with the AIDS virus left Tripoli on Tuesday on board a plane with the French president’s wife, France’s presidential palace said.
The plane was heading to Bulgaria, the Elysée Palace said.

In the case of the six Bulgarian medical personnel charged with deliberate injection of the AIDS virus of 438 infants in 1998 , as reported in an earlier posting, the Supreme Court Attorney has requested confirmation of the death sentence by firing squad. Probably the Supreme Court will uphold the sentence, but a compensation deal would override the Court's decision. (12th July. The Supreme Court has indeed upheld the sentence. It was earlier reported that a compensation deal was accepted by the parents of the infected children) One of the condemned, a doctor of Palestinian origin who is now a naturalised Bulgarian, confessed to the crime under torture. However, top AIDS experts have exonerated the group affirming that AIDS infection was already prevalent in the children's hospital due to poor hygiene before the arrival of the Bulgarian medical team. After more than eight years of imprisonment and sentence to death the medical team are severely traumatised.
The three cases illustrate that all cases involving the death penalty are horrendous, whether in Iran, Pakistan, Libya, or Bangkwang prison, Bangkok.

'Studies spark fresh death-penalty debate'

An article from Associated Press on a renewed death-penalty debate, in the Nation of June 16, alludes to recent research which claims that between 3 and 18 lives would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer. This is a curious statement. The death penalty and the sociology of crime are very complex questions which do not lead to simple conclusions. An investigation resulting in a numerical conclusion which ranges over a factor of 6 indicates a huge imprecision and complexity.

This is indeed the case in the present studies, where the equation used to predict the homicide rate contains six different factors which would influence the total. However, when we examine the data used as input for these factors we find that the variation, standard deviation or, in simple terms, error, is 3 to 4 times greater than the data figure itself. This is particularly true of the execution rate which is considered the crucial factor in deterring homicide. There is no doubt that such studies are of interest and indicate paths to combat homicide. But an author quoted in the Associated Press article warns at the conclusion that ‘a stand for or against capital punishment should be taken with caution’ (Naci Mocan)

One must go further and assert that the conclusions of the article should not influence at all a stand for or against capital punishment. The pivotal article of Mocan referred to above begins with the words ‘Empirical studies of the economics of crime have established credible evidence regarding the impact of sanctions on criminal activity’. The study is an empirical study in the economics of crime. The decision to abolish the death penalty is a moral decision which recognises the inviolability of human life. Capital punishment is no longer an option as a deterrent against crime, as is now recognised in the majority of the world’s nations and by the moral leadership of the UN. To make the argument clear, we might agree that the public stoning to death of an adulterous woman might be a most effective deterrent to adultery, or the amputation of one or both hands be a powerful deterrent of theft. But no amount of juggling with figures from the economics of crime would make such barbaric punishment acceptable in civilised countries.

What then are we to make of the studies on Mocan and his fellow economists? The studies are indeed useful. If we omit from his equation the variables relating to execution and insert variables which include crime rates such as lack of education, alcoholism, and poverty etc. we have a most useful tool to compensate any increase in homicide rate that might arise from a decrease in deterrence. This kind of study is of course the product of US culture where economic thinking dominates any other, and where the loss of human life is considered a collateral issue, an unavoidable cost to be tolerated in national and foreign affairs. I believe that the study in its present form would not be applicable in a society where the free availability of firearms did not facilitate the commission of murder. The methodology of the study is also too coarse a tool to estimate the long term cultural change brought about by the increase in respect for life which inevitably results from abolition of the death penalty. In terms of use of the death penalty, the US remains in the company of China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, pariah states where respect for human rights can hardly flourish when the most basic right of all is not guaranteed.

Change in Draft Constitution favours abolition in Thailand

Charter drafters pave way for end to death penalty

The Constitution Drafting Assembly (CDA) yesterday decided to remove the expression "death penalty" from its draft charter, thus paving the way for a possible future campaign to eventually end capital punishment in Thailand.

The assembly also supported a move that enables police to search suspects without a court warrant.

Removal of the words "death penalty" does not automatically mean an end to the death penalty, but future moves to end it will face fewer obstacles.

"It's good that the capital punishment issue has been adjusted [out of the charter] as it reflects the thinking of a society that doesn't resort to violence," said CDA member Kannika Bantherngjit.

"We should no longer resort to an eye for an eye and should look at the real cause of crime. Strong punishment is not right. It leads to society solving problems by force."

Postscript: In a referendum on 19th September the new constitution was accepted by a small majority of Thailand's population. While welcoming the omission of a phrase relating to the death penalty, we regret the passing of this unsatisfactory constitution forced on the country without consultation or freedom of discussion.