Abolition of Death Penalty in Thailand - a beginning

The 2nd Five Year Human Rights Plan of Thailand contained a brief announcement of intention to abolish the death penalty. It is already the fourth year of the plan and there seemed no movement on the issue. It was worrying that in its Universal Peer Review presentation to the Human Rights Council, no mention was made of abolition. But many countries recalled the promise to address abolition. They raised questions at the UPR session and recommended action on the issue.
The Union of Civil Liberty and Amnesty International were happy to learn in a meeting with officials in the Ministry of Justice that action to achieve abolition is indeed taking place. The unit with responsibility on abolition is the Rights and Liberties Department. The following is their detailed plan of action for the year 2010.

Detailed plan of activities to promote abolition by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department, Ministry of Justice

Activities in Year 2012 Months
1. Study the abolition of death penalty in various countries, both abolitionist and retentionist; the criteria and tendency in each, so as to establish the consequences of abolition 2 months
2. Study to determine the highest sanction which replaces the death penalty in countries which have abolished the death penalty 1 month
3. Study all Thai laws which incur the death penalty, aspects of such laws, and the level of violence for which sentence is imposed 3 months
4. Study the statistics of trials which have imposed the death sentence and trials which have resulted in executions over the last 10 years 2 months
5. Interview experts in human rights, legal matters, and judicial procedure, victims of crime, persons who were condemned to death, and the general public 1 month
6. Organize workshops in the four regions of Thailand and in Bangkok, for participants from every province to survey opinion on the theme, “The attitude of Thai society to abolition of the death penalty” 1 month
7. Make submission to committees and sub-committees on the proposal to abolish laws imposing the death penalty, presenting opinions and proposals resulting from studies 1 month
8. Prepare a summary of studies and suggestions for further action on the theme “Abolition of laws which impose the death penalty” as proposed in the 2nd National Human Rights Plan, for discussion by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department. 1 month

We welcome this concrete initiative which we will support in every way possible.
However, we are troubled that the collection of opinion throughout the country is not preceded or accompanied by a campaign to inform public opinion. The Thai public are unaware of progress made elsewhere and changing world wide choices on the death penalty. There is danger that uninformed opinion may win the day. There is also a glaring lack of reference to political leadership which has been essential to achieve abolition in every country in the world.
We are also worried by interest shown in the "highest sanction" which might replace the death penalty. This is surely "life sentence, without parole". Such a sanction is only another form of the death penalty, and just as unacceptable. We are proposing a maximum sanction equivalent to that available to the International Criminal Court, a maximum sentence of 30 years, or, in exceptional circumstances, a life sentence. Both, however, would allow for parole. Consideration for parole in case of a life sentence would begin after 25 years.

Death Row Thailand - empty!

Male prisoners condemned to death are detained in Bang Kwang prison, in segregated areas of Buildings 5 and 7, which for want of another name is often referred to as Death Row, even if the areas do not have a topological similarity or penitentiary identity with those in the US,home of death rows. Women prisoners condemned to death are held in the Women's Central Prison, Ladphrao, and are not segregated at all from other women prisoners. However, relatives know exactly where they are and when they may be visited. Until Bangkok was flooded. First, it was reported that 600 prisoners had been moved from the flooded area of Bang Kwang in 17 buses, to be distributed in prisons elsewhere in the country. Now, we are told that Bang Kwang, this massive old high security prison, has been emptied of all prisoners, and its prisoners are being held in unknown locations. This is no small matter, Bang Kwang is already an overcrowded prison, with 4,191 prisoners, 676 of them condemned to death and permanently shackled. Where are they? The website of the Corrections Department has provided a phone number and an email address to make inquiries during the flood emergency. Emails remain unanswered and the telephone rings without response. These 676 people are already vulnerable and under severe stress. They desperately need the support of relatives, lawyers, and others who relate to them. The feeling of being out of sight in unknown locations must be especially traumatic. One could quote all kinds of rules of prison practice requiring relatives to be notified of the place of imprisonment, but this crisis is beyond rules. There is a grave injustice in moving prisoners en mass to unknown locations and letting the days pass with no news release of what is happening to them.
In fact, the treatment of prisoners is not very different from the treatment of ordinary citizens throughout the country. God-like decisions are made on which areas will be flooded, which dams will release water, which water gates will open or close, when and where mysteriously planned walls of sandbags will rise and fall, without explanation to those who suffer the consequences. But, at least, the public fight back, ask questions, act against the flood barriers in their utter frustration.
Prisoners are treated as non-persons with no rights, chained, and restrained against every norm of human dignity.
Women prisoners live in even more inhumane conditions.
Where are they? Thai prisons are already among the most crowded in the world; undoubtedly prisoners are being forced into even more intolerable conditions. Are they receiving food and water? One does not dare to ask whether they receive adequate food and water, as these are hardly available to the ordinary citizen in the flooded areas.
What is happening? Let the prisoners telephone their relatives, friends, and supporters. Or at least make a news release on the issue.

Death Penalty and Thailand's Universal Periodic Review

I have been analyzing the references to the death penalty in the Thai UPR process, which took place on 5th October in the headquarters of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. In all ten countries raised the issue:
France: moratorium + abolition. good basic reference
Nicaragua: abolition, even for grave crimes
Canada: passing reference only
Slovakia: moratorium + abolition + prison conditions. excellent
Turkey: amazing. reference to human rights plan and the issue of death penalty for drugs
Switzerland: good basic reference
Argentina: good basic reference
Hungary: best reference, mention of human rights plan, abolition, and application of death penalty to non-violent crimes
UK: Advance question on reference to death penalty in 2nd National Human Rights Plan and on 2nd OP of ICCP
Czech Republic: Advance question on 2nd OP of ICCPR

Glaring absence of Netherlands who financed UCL projects against death penalty.
Surprisingly strong support from Slovakia, Turkey, and Hungary.

Letter to US Ambassasor in Thailand

October 4, 2011 11:33 am, Nation Newspaper
On September 21, in Jackson, Georgia, the 42-year-old Afro-American Troy Davis was put to death.

The execution of Davis has shocked the world. You may reply that the execution was "prescribed by law and after due process". This is no longer a sufficient reply. The great majority of members of the world organisation you helped found already formally request a moratorium on such actions. International law continues to require ever more narrow interpretation of the phrase "most serious crimes" of Article 6.2, edging closer to an outright rejection of capital punishment.

"Any man's death diminishes me," wrote John Donne. Personally, I felt the diminishment. All capital punishment is abhorrent. The executioners speak with contempt of the "weaklings" who cannot stomach judicial killing. In fact it is the strong who object, and do not just turn away with a tear in the eye.

The reason that the death penalty is a necessary deterrent has long been shown to be a falsehood. The arguments are well known. One must counter that the state, or any human agent, does not have the authority to deprive anyone of life. It is thus written in the highest rule of life, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You may respond further that it is the duty of an ambassador to uphold the laws of the state she represents. I think not. The death penalty is a matter of conscience, and no state may impose it on any of us. You lived in the Philippines at the time that the death penalty there was abolished. For one reason or another you may not risk a personal opinion on the issue, but at least you may report the revulsion felt throughout the world to the execution of Troy Davis. He spent 20 years on the ill-named "death row". We can have no real understanding of the horror of such an experience. I can guess a little from conversations with the condemned in Bang Kwang prison. Madame Ambassador, you know the French language; doubtless you have read in its emotive original Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne by Victor Hugo. You may be familiar with the writings of Robert Badinter, who visited his clients, the last men to be executed in France, every day between their condemnation and execution. In response to the news of the execution of Troy Davis he spoke of: a judicial assassination; a stain on US history; a defeat for humanity

A man has been kept on death row for 20 years; a punishment considered cruel, inhumane and degrading by the European Court of Human Rights. As one of the founding members of the UN and as a permanent member of the Security Council, the US has an exceptional responsibility to this body. I ask whether it is appropriate that your country has declined to accept the call for a moratorium on the death penalty, first passed by majority vote on December 8, 2007 and since then twice repeated with an increased majority.

I am aware that your country claims to follow the letter of the law in retaining the "right" to capital punishment, by adding to Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, sotto voce, the phrase rejected by the General Assembly of 1948, "except in cases prescribed by law and after due process". Eleanor Roosevelt urged the rejection of this amendment. More explicitly, your country claims the justification allowed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 6.2, "sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime".

But we are no longer in 1948, nor even 1966, the date of the International Covenant referred to. In 1966, Article 6.6 indicated that the allowance of Section 6.2 was a temporary measure, allowing time to adapt to the full requirement of abolition: "6.6 … Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by a State Party to the present Covenant".

In 2011, attitudes to the death penalty have greatly changed. In his report to the UN Human Rights Council, the UN secretary-general points out that, "About 140 of the 192 state members of the United Nations are believed to have abolished the death penalty or introduced a moratorium either legally, or in practice."

When we consider details of this case, the story becomes worse.

In 1991 Troy Davis was condemned to death for the murder of a white policeman in 1989. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime, nor was the weapon ever produced. His condemnation followed the evidence of 9 witnesses who identified him as the murderer. Seven of those witnesses later retracted their evidence, some saying that their evidence was given under pressure of police persuasion. The identification parade was carried out in a way which is no longer tolerated; before seeing the parade, witnesses had been shown a picture of Troy Davis, and told that this was the man they were expected to identify. The identification parade is now known to be a very flawed process.

The standard of evidence in the trial was far short of the standards for capital punishment. You will be aware that the standard of evidence in cases involving the death penalty is far more demanding than is the case in other criminal trials. In all probability Troy Davis was innocent.

The execution was delayed for four hours until the Supreme Court ordered the lethal injection to proceed. Is there another Victor Hugo, who can decode for us this ultimate inhumanity? President Obama declined to intervene. Before he died, Troy Davis declared that the movement to abolish the death penalty will go on. Indeed it will, Troy. This case has shocked many, and may well prove decisive in leading to abolition. One may also truly pity the wife of the slain policeman who declared her satisfaction that vengeance was achieved.

This letter is addressed to Your Excellency ahead of October 10, World Day for Abolition of the Death Penalty. One ambassador in Thailand has submitted her plea to the government of Thailand to proceed with abolition. Other ambassadors have assured me that they avail of every opportunity to make the same submission to the Royal Thai Government. Perhaps Your Excellency can find some diplomatic way to express support for an initiative parallel to that taken in the Philippines.

Danthong Breen is chairman of the Union for Civil Liberty.
10 1Email0

Troy Davis Executed

On 21st September 2011, at 23h08, in Jackson, Georgia, the 42 year old Afro-American, Troy Davis, was put to death.
In 1991 he was condemned to death for the murder of a white policeman in 1989. There was no physical evidence that he had committed the crime, nor was the weapon ever produced. His condemnation followed the evidence of 9 witnesses who identified him as the murderer. 7 of these witnesses later retracted their evidence, some of them saying that their evidence was given in response to police persuasion. The identification parade was carried out in a way which is no longer tolerated; before seeing the parade, the witnesses had been shown a picture of Troy Davis, and told that this was the man they were expected to identify. Study of witness by identification parade is now known to be a very flawed process.
The standard of evidence in the trial is far short of the standards for capital punishment. In all probability Troy Davis is innocent.
Execution was delayed for four hours until the Supreme Court ordered the lethal injection to proceed. President Obama declined to intervene.
Before he died, Troy Davis declared that the movement to abolish the death penalty will go on. Indeed it will, Troy. This case has shocked many, and may well prove decisive in leading to abolition. In passing, one may pity the wife of the slain policeman who declares her satisfaction that vengeance is achieved.

Comment by Robert Badinter who abolished the death penalty in France
- a judicial assassination
- a stain on US history
- a defeat for humanity
A man has been kept on death row for 20 years; a punishment considered cruel, inhumane, and degrading by the European Court of Human Rights

Another lesson for Thailand

Once again an illustration of the ill-practice of Thai officialdom in taking US practice on the death penalty as a model.
A stay of execution has been granted to Duane Buck just hours before he was to be put to death in Texas on Thursday.
Mr. Buck, an African-American, was convicted of murder in 1997. At the sentencing, a psychologist who was an expert witness said “yes” when asked if “the race factor, black,” increased the chances that Mr. Buck would again do something dangerous.
In Texas, this is a pivotal question: if the state does not prove “future danger” beyond reasonable doubt, it cannot sentence a convict to death. The prosecution got the answer it wanted. The jury sentenced Mr. Buck to death.
"The gross racism in Mr. Buck’s case is proof again that the death penalty is cruel and unusual because it is arbitrary and discriminatory, as well as barbaric, and must be abolished." (From Editorial, NYT, 17th September 2011)

Whispers and Rumours

In his annual report on the death penalty Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary General, takes note of the recommendations to Retentionist countries, made on the occasion of their Universal Peer Review (UPR) before the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Thailand will undergo such a review on 5th October of this year and its death penalty practice is certain to be raised. There will be two issues, one on continued use of the death penalty, the other on shackling and other abuses of detention for those on death row. Regarding the death penalty an informant in the Rights and Liberties Protection Department of the Ministry of Justice reveals that they have already been instructed to prepare legislation for abolition. Meanwhile the death row of Bang Kwang prison is alive with rumour that shackling will be abolished. If these two tendencies are realised, we can expect Thailand to take the place of honour in next year’s report on the death penalty to the Human Rights Council.

Slaugther in Norway and the Death Penalty: Thai reaction

สังหารหมู่ในนอรเวย์ กับการไม่ลงโทษประหารชีวิต

สมศรี หาญอนันทสุข
สมาชิก แอมเนสตี้ อินเตอร์เนชั่นแนล ประเทศไทย

การละเบิดที่กรุงออสโล และการสังหารหมู่อย่างโหดเหี้ยมที่เกาะอูโทยาในวันที่ 22 กรกฏาคม ที่ผ่านมา เป็นข่าวสะเทือนขวัญไปทั่วโลก และเป็นเหตุการณ์ที่ยอมรับกันไม่ได้ ไม่ว่าใครจะอยู่เบื้องหลังการกระทำของชายคนร้ายวัย 32 ปี หรือจะมีกี่คนที่ร่วมมือในการโจมตีครั้งนี้ เหตุการณ์ดังกล่าวหากเกิดขึ้นในประเทศไทย และหากชายผู้นี้เป็นคนไทยที่ก่อคดี แล้วถูกจับได้ในเมืองไทย คงถูกศาลเตี้ยรุมประชาทัณฑ์ จนครอบครัวต้องย้ายบ้านหนีไปแล้ว

คนไทยที่อ่านหรือดูข่าวนี้ คงตกใจไม่แพ้ชาวต่างชาติ ซึ่งกำลังติดตามอย่างใจจดใจจ่อเพราะอยากจะรู้ว่าอะไรที่ทำให้คทาชายชาวนอรเวย์ผู้นี้ต้องลงมือวางระเบิด ยิงสังหารหมู่ อย่างเลือดเย็นมากๆ ที่ผ่านมาสื่อมวลชนไทยหลายแขนงวิพากษ์วิจารณ์ และบางคนลุ้นให้มีการลงโทษประหารชีวิต รวมทั้งสื่อที่ไร้คุณภาพบางแขนง เชื่อว่าประเทศนอรเวย์จะลงโทษคนคนนี้ดังเช่นที่หลายประเทศ (รวมถึงประเทศไทย) มีแนวโน้มจะกระทำกัน ที่หนักไปกว่านั้นผู้เขียนได้ฟังผู้อ่านข่าวสองท่านเมื่อวันอาทิตย์ที่ผ่านมาซึ่งพูดอย่างสะใจว่า ประเทศนอรเวย์ควรจะประหารชีวิตชายผู้นี้และสัปให้เป็นชิ้นๆ ฟังแล้วก็อดรู้สึกอเน็จอนาจใจกับเรื่องทั้งสองเรื่องไม่ได้ ก็คือเรื่องการสังหารหมู่ที่นอรเวย์ และทัศนคติของสื่อมวลชนไทยที่ซาดิสย์ไม่แพ้กัน

มันน่าสนใจว่า ผู้อ่านข่าว และคนไทยจำนวนมากไม่ทราบเลยว่าประเทศในยุโรปเขาไม่มีการลงโทษแบบนี้นานแล้ว โดยเฉพาะสมาชิก 27 ประเทศของสหภาพยุโรป (EU) ซึ่งกำหนดเป็นกฏระเบียบเลยว่าหากประเทศใด ยังมีการลงโทษประหารชีวิตอยู่ ก็จะเป็นสมาชิกไม่ได้

อย่างไรก็ตาม สำหรับประเทศนอรเวย์ (และสวิสเซอแลนด์) แม้จะไม่ได้เป็นสมาชิกสหภาพยุโรป แต่ก็ได้ปฏิบัติเช่นเดียวกับประเทศอื่นในแถบเดียวกัน และรัฐบาลทุกชุดของประเทศเขาก็ไม่เห็นด้วยกับการลงโทษที่ป่าเถื่อนทุกรูปแบบ เขาจึงออกกฏหมายยกเลิกโทษประหารฯให้นักโทษธรรมดาตั้งแต่ปี 2448 (คศ. 1905) หรือร้อยกว่าปีที่แล้วและยกเลิกคดีอาญาทุกคดีในปี 2522 อีกทั้งยังลงนามในปฏิญญาและอนุสัญญาหลักๆ ถึง 14 ฉบับ หรือเกือบทั้งหมดที่ระบุไว้ในรายงานของ แอมเนสตี้ อินเตอร์เนชั่นแนล

หากมองเรื่องการโจมตีด้วยระเบิดที่กรุงออสโลและที่เกาะอุโทยา จากตรรกะธรรมดาๆ ต้องยอมรับว่าเป็นเรื่องน่าสพึงกลัว และต้องลงโทษค้นร้ายที่เกี่ยวข้องทุกคน ไม่มีข้อยกเว้น แต่จะลงโทษอย่างไร หากถามรัฐบาลของประเทศเขาและประชาชนทั่วไปในนอรเวย์ว่า เรื่องนี้น่าจะทำให้รัฐสภาของเขานำโทษประหารชีวิตกลับมาใช้เพื่อป้องปรามการกระทำที่อาจจะเกิดขึ้นอีกในอนาคต หรือไม่ อย่างไร

ผู้เขียนขอถือวิสาสะ ยืนยันแทนคนนอรเวย์ได้เลยว่า รัฐบาลและประชาชนนอรเวย์เขาเลิกคิดถึงการลงโทษแบบตาต่อตา ฟันต่อฟัน และข้ามพ้นการลงโทษเก่าๆเช่นนี้ไปไกลเกินกว่าที่เราคิดมากแล้ว ทั้งนี้เป็นเพราะเขามีความศิวิไลย์มากกว่าเรา และเขาไม่เห็นว่ามีหลักประกันอะไรที่ โทษประหารชีวิตจะช่วยยับยั้งไม่ให้ผู้กระทำผิดผู้นี้ คิดวางระเบิด และสาดกระสุนใส่บรรดาเยาวชนเหล่านั้น เพราะผู้ที่คิดทำอะไรได้ถึงขนาดนี้ส่วนใหญ่ ไม่กลัวการถูกประหารฯอยู่แล้ว บางคนถึงขนาดติดระเบิดพลีชีพวิ่งไปยังเป้าหมาย เพื่อตายพร้อมๆกันโดยไม่ต้องคอยโทษประหารด้วยซ้ำไป

ดังนั้นโทษแบบนี้จะมีความหมายอะไร มีไปก็คอยแต่จะสร้างภาพพจน์ไม่ดีให้กับประเทศชาติ สู้เรามาคิดใหม่ ตรากฏหมายใหม่ ให้ลงโทษตลอดชีวิตดีกว่า เพื่อให้ผู้ที่กระทำผิดในลักษณะนี้มีชีวิตอยู่ในคุกให้เราได้ศึกษาถึงต้นเหตุปัจจัยที่ทำให้เขาคิด วางแผน และลงมือกระทำการนั้น ไม่ว่าสาเหตุจอมาจากการเล่นเกมส์คอมพิวเตอร์มากไป หรือมีพฤติกรรมเรียนแบบจากที่ไหน หรือเป็นความเชื่อทางศาสนา ลัทธิที่สุดโต่ง หรือเป็นผู้ก่อการร้าย หรือเป็นปัญหาทางจิตล้วนๆ ที่อาจจะเกิดขึ้นอีกกับสมาชิกของอีกหลายครอบครัวในอนาคตก็ได้

จึงอยากจะเตือนสติคนไทยหลายคนว่า เมื่อเราจะกำจัดความรุนแรงด้วยการใช้วิธีที่รุนแรง มันอาจจะกำจัดคนๆนั้นด้วยการเพิ่มคนตายให้กับประเทศนอรเวย์อีกหนึ่งคน แต่ความรุนแรงที่เสริมเพิ่มเข้าไปนั้น มันจะฝังลึกในจิตใต้สำนึกผู้คนทั่วไปมากกว่าเก่าหรือเปล่า หรือสู้เรานำกรณีความรุนแรงนี้มาเป็นประโยชน์ศึกษาให้ถึงต้นเหตุ เพื่อนำผลการศึกษามาเฝ้าระวัง ป้องกันคนต่อๆไปไม่ให้มีโอกาสกระทำการเช่นนี้ จะดีกว่าหรือไม่

Also
H.E. Nordgaard Katja,
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway
Bangkok, Thailand

It seems to me that many people from inside and outside the country are calling for bringing back death penalty to Norwegian society after the bombing and shooting by Anders Behring Breivik. I hope your respected government will not consider capital punishment for the final solution and will be able to clam down the anger of the people.

I understand that this incident has caused a big tragedy (76 dead) which no one can accept it but death penalty is not an ideal solution for any problem. Norway is a developed country, high moral and abolished DP since 1905. It is a model of HR and Peace and it is well respect place for Nobel prize for the world.

With our awareness and concern, there are many ways of punishment to assure security and confidence for people, ie. extending the penalty period from 21 years to be more years, promulgate a new law for life sentence for heinous crime (not for every cases) or consider it case by case, etc.

Bringing back DP to the Kingdom of Norway will be a big shaking for our international norm and undermine our human right principle against DP.

We join the sorrow of victims' relatives and the grief of all people and God bless you all.

Somsri Hananuntasuk
Member of AI Thailand
ED of ANFREL

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?