First Regional Congress on the Death Penalty in Asia

     Dear Madam/Sir,
For  fifteen  years,  the  French  association  Together  against  the death  penalty  (ECPM)
has been dedicated to the fight against the death penalty all over the world. Every three years, we organize the World Congress against the Death Penalty. The 6thWorld Congress will be held in Olso June 2016.
Prior to the World Congress, and for the first time in Asia, a Regional Congress on the Death Penalty will take place on the  11th and 12thof June 2015 at the Renaissance Hotel in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Organized in partnership with ADPAN (Anti-Death Penalty Asian Network), SUHAKAM (Human Rights Commission of Malaysia) and Bar Council Malaysia, it will focus on the specific stakes of the death penalty in East and South-East Asia.
ECPM and its partners gladly invite you to the official ceremonies and debates of the Regional Congress. Travel and living details are at your expenses.
We are at your disposal should you require any further information please contact our Regional Congress Coordinator Yi Pan at ypan@abolition.fr
Please accept the assurance of our highest consideration.

 Public Registration for Regional Congress please visit:
<http://goo.gl/LGrCAG> http://goo.gl/LGrCAG

Follow Asian Regional Congress on Death Penalty on Facebook at:
<https://www.facebook.com/regionalcongresskualalumpur>
https://www.facebook.com/regionalcongresskualalumpur

For more information on the Regional Congress please visit the website:
<http://congres.abolition.fr/> http://congres.abolition.fr

 Respectfully yours,
Raphaël Chenuil-Hazan                             Chow Ying Ngeow
Executive Director                                       Coordinator
ECPM                                                                ADPAN

Sister Prejean Asks for Mercy

                                        Spare Boston Bomber's Life 
In the defense’s final move to save the life of convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, Sister Helen Prejean asked the jury not to execute the young man.The man responsible for the Boston bombings is “genuinely sorry for what he did,” testified Sr. Prejean on May 11 before a federal jury. “He said it emphatically. He said no one deserves to suffer like they did,” she recounted of Tsarnaev.
“I had every reason to think that he was taking it in and that he was genuinely sorry for what he did.”                                                                        
http://www.eurasiareview.com/12052015-sister-prejean-asks-jury-for-mercy-and-to-spare-boston-bombers-life/

Postscript: On Wednesday 24th June, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev rose in the Boston Court to say,
“I am sorry for the lives that I’ve taken, for the suffering that I’ve caused you, for the damage that I’ve done — irreparable damage.
I’m guilty of it. If there is any lingering doubt of that, let it be no more.”

Death Sentence on Boston Marathon Bomber

  Djokhar Tsarnaev one of the two perpetrators of the Boston marathon bombers was condemned  to death on 15^th May in the Federal Court of Massachusetts. We bring this case to the attention of readers of this blog as a case where the sentence of death comes closest to justification. We have presented cases of the innocent being executed, of those where a pitiable destiny in involved, but this is a case where the choice for abolition is most severely tested. It is a case which must be considered. The condemned culprit is of Chechen origin and is 21 years old. His crime caused three deaths and 264 wounded.

The death penalty has been abolished in the State of Massachusetts where the last execution took place in 1947, but death sentences can still be handed down by a Federal Court. The sentence required the unanimous decision of the jury of seven women and five men. Jury selection was particularly careful to choose only jurors not opposed in principle to the death penalty. Of the thirty accusations against Tsarnaev, seventeen were subject to the death penalty. We place before the reader a consideration of the plea of the prosecutor: “The only sentence providing justice in this case is the death penalty”

The Defence

The defence was based on the plea that the defendant acted only on the incentive of his brother, Tamerlan, who died in the manhunt that followed the atrocity. Djokhar, for his part, was a “good kid”, respected by his teachers, the family favourite. Without Tamerlan the atrocity would not have happened. But the arguments for the defense fell before testimonies of the terrible event, and an evident failure to repent by the accused. The only sign of emotion on the part of the accused was when an aunt could not give her testimony because she broke down in tears.

Families of the victims opposed the death penalty

The trial lasted four months. Bill and Denise Martin, parents of an eight year old child killed in the bombing, and of his mutilated seven year old sister, tearing apart their lives, published an appeal in the Boston Globe of 17^th April, declaring their opposition to the death penalty.

It is most probable that the verdict will be appealed. Of the 80 persons sentenced to death in a Federal Court only 3 have been executed. Some died in prison or committed suicide, but most cases drag on.

An adequate punishment for a despicable crime

Loretta Lynch, minister of justice, expressed the hope that the verdict would bring a certain form of peace to the victims and their families. One victim, Sydney Corcoran who was himself injured while his mother lost both legs in the incident, expressed satisfaction that Djokhar Tsarnaev would go, and that he and his mother could continue their lives. “Justice”, he said, “is an eye for an eye”. His sentiment is shared by the killer, who wrote “The American government kills our innocent civilians. We, Muslims, are one. If you injure one of us, you injure us all. Cease killing our innocents and we too will stop.” During reading of his sentence Djokhar remained impassive.

 

 

ISLAM, justice and the death penalty

Azis Anwar Fachruddin, The Jakarta Post, 16^th May 2015

In general, the death penalty is a non-issue for Islamic organisations. First, this is maybe because death penalty cases in general scarcely touch the issue of Muslim identity politics — many so-called secular Muslims are on both sides of the debate. Second, capital punishment, along with corporal punishment, is prescribed in Islamic scripture so it is very difficult, though not impossible, to have a voice of Islam that is against the death penalty.

However, 21st century Muslims should review the practices of the death penalty in Muslim-majority countries and this can be done even within the realm of Islamic teachings or sharia. Here are the premises. Sharia by many Muslims nowadays is reductively understood in terms of legalistic formulae. Sharia is associated with corporal and/or capital punishment, as if sharia is nothing but a penal code and punishments. Yet sharia literally means the way or path. In Koranic terminology, it means the path toward an objective representative of the supreme virtue of Islam, which is justice (some would add dignity of human beings and mercy and love for all creatures).

Muslim scholars, ranging from reformists, rationalists, even literalists, would agree that the supreme value promoted by Islam when it comes to dealing with relationships among individuals and/or communities is justice, as explicitly stated and commanded by God many times in the Koran. The mercy that Islam would bring to the world is justice. Included in that unjust system are dictatorships that are still embraced by many Muslim-majority countries [...]

Any action leading to injustice, in whatever name, including in the name of Islam, is therefore un-Islamic and should be opposed by Muslims. All Islamic legal opinions that are against justice are thus against the sharia of Islam. As God has commanded Muslims to be “bearers of witness with justice”, as the Koran states, Muslims should share the notion once voiced by Martin Luther King Jr that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. All unjust punishments should be an Islamic issue, including questions over the death penalty of Indonesian migrant workers and foreign and local drug convicts.

Now, the question is how justice is manifested in punishment. The traditional fiqh (Islamic law and jurisprudence) is still lacking discussion of the philosophy of justice compared to advanced discourse in the secular realm, which has led to the concept of restorative justice, distinguished from retributive justice. The idea of qisas (an eye for an eye) is mostly understood as a deterrent and/or equal retaliation within retributive justice.
Nevertheless, Muslim scholars advocating a moratorium on the death penalty are echoing these arguments: corporal punishment, stoning or the death penalty cannot be implemented within an unjust system of governance, judiciary, or an unequal society, given the fact that those punishments are irreversible. In this view, a just system is a prerequisite of such irreversible punishments. An unjust system is considered one of the shubuhat (ambiguities) based upon which the irreversible punishment must not be applied, as the Prophet Muhammad said.

Included in that unjust system are dictatorships that are still embraced by many Muslim-majority countries, where the weak and poor are more likely to be punished than the wealthy and powerful. That is the argument posed by some NU leaders in criticising Saudi Arabia’s death penalty for Indonesian migrant workers, given frequent reports of torture and other dehumanising practices by employers. With regard to restorative justice, Mutaz M Qafisheh from Hebron University in the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences wrote that Islamic jurisprudence had many alternatives to original punishments known in modern restorative justice systems, such as compensation (diya), conciliation (sulh) and pardon (afw).

These mechanisms are stated in the Koran and were exemplified by the Prophet. Qafisheh also says that classical Muslim scholars had unique mechanisms derived from the wider principles of Islam that can be understood as restorative means, such as repentance (tawba), intercession (shafaa), surety (kafala) and expiation (kafara). He concludes: “By looking at the philosophy of penalty as detailed by Islamic jurisprudence [...] restorative justice does exist. It exists as the general rule. Retributive justice is the exception.”

That kind of reinterpreting of Islamic scripture should be advanced by today’s Muslim scholars if Muslims want to be able to respond to the discourse of international human rights.
Also, for the Muslims who are so obsessed with the rules textually prescribed in the scripture, we should consider the notion that God’s revelation is not only in the text (ayat qauliyyah) but exists also in the universe (ayat kauniyyah), in the way human beings behave. Modern sociology and criminology should be juxtaposed and mirrored with traditional fiqh by Muslim jurists in their interpretations of the scripture.

The writer Azis Anwar Fachruddin, (The Jakarta Post, 16^th May 2015)  is a graduate student at the Centre for Religious and Cross-cultural Studies at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta.

Rejection of Accusation of Bias

Dear Sir,

Mr. Barth proposes “one simple question” implying bias in favour of Australian nationals executed on drug charges in Indonesia. His charge is simply wrong. I have monitored all accessible reports on the executions and was simply unaware of the alleged bias. Most reports treated the ten condemned on an equal basis, apart from an understandable interest in nationals of the country where the reports were published, such as particular attention to the Philippina in the Philippines.

Most noted were real causes of defects in the judgements; for example the mental illness of the Brazilian national, the legal doubts on the guilt of the Philippina. In the case of the two Australians the questioning of their execution was based on the belief that they had been rehabilitated, strong grounds for the quality of mercy. Strangely, many comments by Australians themselves approved the execution on the basis of the ancient eye for an eye argument.

On the other hand may I draw the attention of Mr. Barth to the biased action of President Widodo in refusing mercy while exerting himself to seek clemency for Indonesians abroad charged with capital crimes. Better, simply, to have done with it all and abolish the death penalty for ever and for everyone.

Danthong Breen
Bangkok Post, 6/5/2015

Indonesia: let the last two live

Enough of a bloodbath. Let the last two live.
Nothing is gained by executing them. They have already suffered too much.
Joko Widodo, are you bereft of all human feeling?

A Brazilian man executed by firing squad along with seven other prisoners in Indonesia on Wednesday had no idea he was about to be killed until his final minutes, the priest who counselled him has said.He also revealed that Mary Jane Veloso, a Filipino woman who won a dramatic reprieve, had been aware a new suspect in her case had surrendered to police but was only removed from the prison about an hour before the killings.Rodrigo Gularte, 42, was shot dead alongside seven others, including four Nigerians, two Australians and an Indonesian, for smuggling cocaine into Indonesia in 2004.
Doctors had diagnosed the Brazilian with paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A second diagnosis, commissioned by Indonesia’s attorney general, has not been made public.

Details of the execution reveal a fiasco of justice. The time to be polite is past.
                              Spare the final two, and suspend all further executions.

                                                                  Serge Atlaoui
                                                

                                                                  Mary Jane Veloso

                                               Please copy this website address and sign

 <https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Joko_Widodo_of_Indonesia_Cease_executions/?eJxkbab>

Thailand's Human Rights Commission Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

“Abolish the death penalty, replacing it with life imprisonment”: Thailand’s Human Rights Commission scheduled for amalgamation with Ombudsman Office in draft of new constitution, responds with a call for abolition of the death penalty.

Bangkok Business News, 23^rd April 2015 in Thai language

In a remarkable document issued by Thailand’s largely ineffective Human Rights Commission, the commission makes a firm and detailed plea for abolition of the death penalty in Thailand, action already promised in the current and previous national human rights plans. There follows a summary and translation of the news item:

Based on internationally recognized human rights, the Human Rights Commission (HRC) proposes abolition of the death penalty and its replacement by life imprisonment.

A news release by Government House revealed that during a cabinet meeting on 20^th April the cabinet acknowledged a submission from the National Human Rights Commission regarding reform of the law on capital punishment and human rights. The Commission affirms that the punishment of wrong doing currently aims at behavioural correction of the wrongdoer by reform of mentality and behaviour which originated and led to crime from a defective knowledge and understanding. Such an approach has already led most countries throughout the world to abolish the death penalty and provide instead opportunity for the criminal to reform and again find a place in society. The death penalty is a violation of the right to life, despite a theory of criminology which considered the death penalty a protection for others and a deterrent against wrongdoing.
“HRC realizes that the death penalty does not lead to a decrease in crime. There is a growing conviction that the death penalty does not truly control crime, and so we propose to the Cabinet and concerned agencies a policy of law reform based on a respect for human rights.”
The law reform proposed suggests a revision of laws involving the death penalty as punishment for their violation, especially for crimes which did not directly intend the death of the victim or of other persons. Examples are articles 148, 149, 201,202,218,220, 222,313, and 314.

“It is also proposed that the Cabinet not legislate the death penalty as a punishment for newly drafted laws. As Thai society comes to understand and accept abolition, the death penalty should be totally abolished as is necessary for the protection of human life, the basis of all other rights.

HRC further recommends that the Cabinet discuss ratification of the second optional protocol to the Convention on Social and Political Rights in order to achieve total abolition by the year 2018, thus supporting and confirming the intention of government and its agencies to fulfil the 3^rd national human rights plan. Only such a total abolition can establish the right to life as the basis of all human rights. In addition, the Cabinet should adopt a motion to vote in favour of a Universal Moratorium in UN General Assembly consultations on this issue. Such a vote is justified by the fact that no executions were carried out between the years 2004 to the present, with the exception of the execution in 2009 of two persons convicted on drug charges.
HRC quotes the policy of the Ministry of Justice and associated agencies to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment, by which is meant a prison sentence of not less than 25 to 30 years, this sentence being subject to a request for royal pardon. The Department of Corrections must therefore hasten to reform the prison system in preparation for this eventuality to meet the requirements of security and long term detention which does not abuse the human rights of prisoners.

The Ministry of Justice and other related agencies must also take on the responsibility of informing Thai society on capital punishment, the Corrections Department, the Department of Probation, the Department of Mental Health, the various Courts of Justice. Families and community groups must be encouraged to take responsibility for overseeing the behaviour of those who have been sentenced to imprisonment and released on probation, supporting government officials in the task of establishing reconciliation between offenders and victims, the responsibility of the wrong doers and the compensation of those who suffered both physical and mental harm. Meanwhile the Justice Ministry, the National Police Office, the Courts and their agencies must rapidly achieve an efficient justice system which handles cases without undue delay.

“The Cabinet acknowledged the submission of HRC and appointed the Ministry of Justice to take responsibility for content regarding policy and the recommendations on law reform. Discussions should be held with agencies concerned, such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry for Social Development and Security, the Ministry of Public Health, the Office of the Juridical Council, the Royal Thai Police Commission against Drugs, and the Attorney General’s Office. A report of discussions should be submitted to the Cabinet within 30 days of the receipt of this order.”

Comment: An important addition to the submission should be to urge government to formally declare a national moratorium on executions, as is customary in countries debating abolition. This measure allays the stress of those under sentence of death while discussion on their fate takes place.

Support for appeal by Karapatan to save Mary Jane Veloso

Abolitionthai is very aware of the miscarriage of  justice exemplified in the case of Mary Jane Veloso. There are many Thai women under sentence of death in other Asian countries, who suffer from faulty systems of justice and inadequate support of their own country. We join hands with Karapatan in their appeal for strong intervention by the OHCHR. In a matter of the death of our women citizens there is no room for ASEAN so called principle of non-interference.
                                                                             

April 15, 2015

H.E. Mr. Joachim Rücker
Human Rights Council President
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
52 Rue des Paquis, CH 1201
Geneva, Switzerland        

 Dear Mr. Rücker:

Karapatan is an alliance of Philippine-based human rights organizations, desks, institutions and individual human rights advocates that monitors and documents human rights violations in the country[i]. We co-convene several platforms for engagements with the United Nations Human Rights Council, including its mandate holders and treaty bodies, to monitor and report on the compliance of the Philippine government to international human rights instruments. The human rights desk of Migrante International, an organization of Filipino migrant workers and their families, is a member of Karapatan.

We write to inform the Council on the plight of Mary Jane Veloso, a 30-year-old Filipina and mother of two children, who was sentenced to death by the Indonesian Supreme Court in April 2010 for drug trafficking.

Veloso’s case was submitted for judicial review, but her appeal was rejected by the Indonesian Supreme Court last March 26, 2015. News reports state that Indonesia is preparing to transfer Veloso from the city of Yogyakarta to the maximum security prison in Nusakambangan Island of Central Java to await execution by firing squad.

Veloso was a domestic worker in Dubai from 2009 to 2010. She left Dubai and came back to the Philippines after her employer attempted to rape her. On April 22, 2010, she was illegally recruited by the daughter of her godfather to work as a domestic worker in Malaysia. When she arrived in Kuala Lumpur, the same person told her that the job was not available anymore and that she would instead be transferred to Indonesia. Upon her arrival at the Jogjakarta airport, Veloso was apprehended by customs officials. It was there that she found out that she was tricked into carrying luggage containing 2.6 kilos of heroin. Hidden inside Veloso's luggage was 2.6 kilograms of heroin wrapped in aluminum foil, with an estimated street value of US$500,000. She had been set up as a drug mule and was arrested by the police.

Mary Jane was not provided a lawyer or translator by the Philippine embassy upon her arrest in 2010. During her trial, the court-provided interpreter was not a duly-licensed translator by the Association of Indonesian Translators. Her lawyer during the course of her trial was a public defender provided by the Indonesian police. The Phil. government did not provide a lawyer during the crucial period of her 6-month trial. Mary Jane was convicted after a very brief trial period – on October 2010, just six months after she was arrested. Public prosecutors asked the court to sentence Mary Jane to life imprisonment but the judges handed down a death sentence. Based on the timeline provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Phil. Embassy in Indonesia appealed the trial court sentence to the Indonesia Court of Appeals in October 2010. The embassy-hired lawyer filed a final appeal to the Supreme Court in February 2011. [ii]

We fully agree with Migrante International, an organization of Filipino migrants handling the case ofVeloso, that the Philippine government’s appeal for clemency for Mary Jane since 2011 was a passive and perfunctory effort, with no further attempts of such after the moratorium against executions was lifted by then newly-elected Indonesian president Joko Widodo. Phil. Pres. Benigno Aquino III only intervened more than a year after Veloso had already been sentenced to death, through a request for clemency with then-President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono who imposed a moratorium on executions during his term.

This was later rejected by new President Joko Widodo, who lifted the moratorium as soon as he took office.

For five years, the Philippine government and its Department of Foreign Affairs did not actively initiate contact and worked with the Veloso family, nor provide regular updates on the status of her case.According to Mary Jane’s parents, Cesar and Celia, and her sister, Maritess, they learned of Mary Jane’s imprisonment not from the government but from a phone call from Mary Jane herself, and a few days later from her alleged recruiter, Kristina Sergio.

The Philippine government had not done anything to arrest, investigate or even just invite for questioning Mary Jane’s alleged recruiter and trafficker.

Veloso's execution was deferred by the Indonesian government in February 2015 following a formal appeal from the Phil. Department of Foreign Affairs. Veloso claims she did not have a capable interpreter during her trial. Last month, the Indonesian government allowed her family — her mother, sister and two children — to see her in prison.

On March 3 to 4, a two-day trial was held in Sleman to determine whether there was new evidence in Mary Jane’s case. Lawyers argued she deserved a case review because she wasn’t given a capable translator. The head of the foreign language school in Yogyakarta testified that the translator at the time was indeed their student. To support Veloso’s case, her lawyers cited as precedent the Supreme Court’s decision in 2007 commuting the death sentence of another convicted drug smuggler, Thai national Nonthanam M. Saichon, also because of the translator issue. But on March 26, the Indonesian Supreme Court rejected the case review request.

We acknowledge the statement of UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings/Summary Executions Christof Heyns on the dire lack of fair trial and due process in the case of foreign nationals on death row, especially that of Veloso, in Indonesia.

Veloso’s case is indeed indicative of several violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[iii] and the International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families[iv], wherein both Indonesia and Philippines are State parties, including the right to appear in court with qualified translators in the State of employment, legal representation at all stages of the judicial process, consular support of State of origin for foreign national defendants throughout the judicial process, inconsistencies in sentences for similar cases, and the application of the death penalty in drug-related cases[v].

Karapatan believes that while gross violations against Veloso are perpetrated by the Indonesian government, the Philippine government should be made accountable as well for its gross inability of the Philippine government to protect its citizens who, in the absence of better opportunities in the country, venture to seek employment abroad despite immense difficulties.  According to Migrante International, Mary Jane Veloso is the eighth OFW put on death row under B. S. Aquino’s watch. Seven have already been executed before her, earning for the Aquino regime the stature of having the most number of OFW executions since the Philippine Labor Export Policy was hatched in 1970.There are at least 125 more OFWs on death row in other countries where capital punishment is also imposed.

We appeal to the Council to exercise its moral suasion on the Indonesian government in overturning the death sentence on Veloso and possibly grant her clemency.  We implore the Council to take meaningful measures, including a review of human rights records and compliance to international human rights instruments of its Member States, to hold the Indonesian and Philippine governments accountable for this injustice on Veloso and her family.

Cristina Palabay, Secretary General Karapatan

Joko, listen to the world!

France wants halt to execution of its citizen

France has requested Indonesia to halt the plan to execute one of its citizens who was put on death row after being convicted of drug charges, warning that the relationship between the two countries could suffer if it goes ahead.

“If the execution is carried out, it will not be without consequence for our bilateral relationship,” Ambassador Corinne Breuze told reporters in Jakarta, adding that France, which abolished the death penalty in 1981, was opposed to capital punishment in every circumstance.
Serge Atlaoui, 51, was arrested near Jakarta in 2005 in a secret laboratory producing ecstasy and sentenced to death two years later.
Imprisoned in Indonesia for a decade, the father-of-four has always denied the charges, saying he was installing industrial machinery in what he thought was an acrylics factory.
He has appealed for his case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court and a verdict on that is expected imminently.
If rejected, his execution and that of other foreigners — including citizens of Australia, Brazil, the Philippines, Ghana and Nigeria — could occur very soon.
Breuze said that Atlaoui was wrongly prosecuted.
“News that said Serge was caught with 138 kilograms of methamphetamine, 290 kilograms of ketamine and 316 drums of drug-precursor chemicals are nonsense and misleading. All those goods were confiscated from the factory along with 17 other people. It’s far too much to consider Serge the only person to be responsible for all the seized goods,” she said.

The French government also questions the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) for putting Serge on the list of people to be executed very soon, while the others detained together with him are not on the list.
“Is it because he is a foreign national?” asked Atlaoui’s lawyer, Nancy Yuliana.
France also questions the Supreme Court’s (MA) ruling to uphold Atlaoui’s death penalty on the basis of his role as a chemist, while the lower court considered him as the mastermind in the drug-running operation.
“Serge is no more than just a technician. His role was minimum in this case and all testimonies supported that,” Dreuze said.
The ambassador expected the Supreme Court, which is currently reviewing Atlaoui’s case, would work professionally and independently.
She elaborated that France believes the death penalty is not a proper response to drug smuggling. “Therefore, France continuously condemns the application of the death penalty all over the world,” she said, adding that the French government is ready to help Indonesia eradicate drug smuggling.
Serge was detained in 2005 in a drug factory in Tangerang, Banten, West Java. He was first sentenced to life in prison by the Tangerang District Court in November 2006. Prosecutors appealed to the Banten High Court, which changed his sentence to death. Then in 2007 Atlaoui appealed to the MA, but his appeal was rejected.
Serge filed for a case review with the MA after President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo rejected his clemency plea in 2014. The MA is now studying the case review proposal.

Attorney General M. Prasetyo said that prosecutors had not yet set a date for executing Atlaoui. (saf )

The Indecisions of Joko Widodo and of others

How is one to understand Joko Widodo? He personally tries to save the lives of Indonesians sentenced to death abroad, while refusing clemency to those condemned to death in his own country.
                                                       

Efforts by President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to secure reprieves for hundreds of Indonesians on death row in overseas prisons met a sudden setback on Tuesday with the unexpected execution of a mentally ill Indonesian worker in Saudi Arabia.
The Foreign Ministry announced that migrant worker Siti Zaenab Duhri Rupa was beheaded in the city of Medina.
“The Indonesian government expresses deep condolences to her loved ones and hopes she receives the best place in heaven,” the ministry said.

Please question him about his inconsistency at:
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/President_Joko_Widodo_of_Indonesia_Cease_executions/?eJxkbab

Meanwhile Philippinos protest the failure of their own government to act more firmly in pleading for the life of a Philippine woman scheduled to be executed in Indonesia.

"Mary Jane Veloso is a victim not only of soulless creatures who took advantage of her desperation. Ultimately, she is also a victim of this government and our society that still push our poor, young and hopeless to leave everything and risk anything in order to put food on family tables and chase their simple dream of living like human beings in faraway lands—20 years after Flor Contemplacion.

Twenty years after Flor Contemplacion, Mary Jane Veloso is yet another dispensable commodity of a government that now falls all over itself to save her after apparently doing too little and too late—again. Serious and credible allegations that she was not only deceived and set up but also effectively denied basic due process to adequately defend herself mandate that she be given a fair chance to legally establish her innocence. After all, there is no further motion for reconsideration in the afterlife.

Twenty years after Flor Contemplacion, seemingly hard and cold yet fallible laws in faraway lands are poised to ignore all humanitarian pleas storming the heavens with prayers to save the life of Mary Jane Veloso.

Twenty years before Mary Jane Veloso, we did not want to see Flor Contemplacion’s stoic face or hear her pained moans crying for mercy and justice as she was delivered to the gallows.

Against all odds, fast and furious steps in local and international venues are again being explored and exhausted by a team of Filipino human rights lawyers just recently retained by Mary Jane Veloso’s family to help stop her unjust execution in Indonesia—20 years after Flor Contemplacion."

EDRE U. OLALIA, secretary general, National Union of Peoples’ Lawyers, nupl2007@gmail.com

Note: SINGAPORE—On March 17, 1995–18 years ago–the Philippines wept when Singapore hanged Filipina overseas worker Flor Contemplacion, a death that apparently unraveled the chilling tragedy behind the government’s labor importation policy. There were serious doubts about the guilt of Flor, who confessed under duress. Singapore, as was its custom, ignored pleas for clemency from abroad.