On 15/11/2007, a call for a global moratorium on executions by the UN General Assembly's Third Committee was an "historic resolution and major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide" - but the real vote will be made at General Assembly - and we all need to lobby our countries to vote in favour of this resolution.
In Malaysia, the Malaysian Bar in 2006 passed a Resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty. There has been much debate - but the Malaysian government has not yet taken any moves towards abolition. On 15/11/2007, Malaysia was one of those that voted against on 15/11/2007 for the resolution that was adopted by 99 countries in favour, 52 against and 33 abstentions.
Before the vote on the 15th, Malaysia had this to say:-
Making the first explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Malaysia said the viewpoints of other countries had to be fully respected. The language in the draft resolution contained biased assumptions and erroneous facts. It was unfortunate the issue had come up during the current session and the Committee was divided. Malaysia would vote against the draft; whatever the outcome of the vote, it could not be seen as a victory for any side, as divisions caused by a draft represented a defeat for all. In any State, change had to be undertaken at a pace that the people of that country were comfortable with, free of outside pressure or interference. Conciliation was needed; that would not happen if the issue returned at future sessions. More reasonable heads had to prevail.
Thus, there is a need for Malaysians (in fact all ASEANs and others around the world) to do some serious lobbying to ensure that the UN Resolution for a global moratorium on executions is passed in December 2007.
Votes from Asian countries:
In favour: Australia, Cambodia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nepal, New Zealand, Philippines, Samoa, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
Against: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga.
Abstain: Bhutan, Fiji, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nauru, Palau, Republic of Korea, Solomon Islands, Viet Nam.
The arguments that were used by the opponents were mainly focusing on:
-the principle of non-intervention (article 2.7 of the UN Charter) of the UN in domestic matters, and the States' will to maintain national sovereignty and territorial integrity
-the perceived imposition of Western values --Singapore in particular was claiming that the resolution was an attempt by the EU to impose its values on the rest of the world
-the fact that the death penalty is a matter of national criminal justice systems and should not be considered under international human rights law
-the need to consider the right to life comprehensively, including abortion
-the fact that the death penalty is not illegal under International Law and there is no international consensus on it anyway.
We are reporting some of the statements made by representatives from Asian countries. We hope you find this information useful for any future lobbying against the death penalty. For full details please see:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3905.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3906.doc.htm
Please keep up the lobbing - the vote is expected around 10/11 December. The vote in the UN General Assembly plenary will be an endorsement of the resolution adopted in the Third Committee on 15 November. It is possible for governments to change their votes and it is also possible for governments to oppose the resolution by making further amendments which we hope will not be the case!
Wednesday 14 November 2007
Introduction of the draft resolution and amendmends
The representative of the Philippines then made a statement in connection with action on the draft resolution entitled Moratorium on the use of the death penalty. She said the text was the result of a comprehensive effort by the main sponsors, who had worked in a transparent and cooperative manner. In a sincere effort, the main sponsors had made several modifications to the text, which had led to a rise in the number of co-sponsors. Beginning with the title, as well as the preambular and operative paragraphs, the focus of the draft was on a moratorium. Abolition would be the result of a step-by-step process. The text began with a reference to the Charter of the United Nations, and that document should be read and understood in its entirety; selective quotation would undermine the text. As the main sponsors had taken those changes to the text on board, the co-sponsors reiterated that such changes did not aim to challenge national sovereignty and were rather aimed at reinforcing the phasing out of the death penalty. Making a correction, she said she thought she had mentioned Rev.1, but there was no such document, and the Committee was still working on document A/C.3/62/L.29.
The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that States belonging to the Conference strongly believed that every human being had a right to life. It was the duty of States to respect the right to life, in line with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and relevant instruments. A number of States had exercised their sovereign right to impose a moratorium or to abolish the death penalty. For a majority of member States of the Organization, the issue was one related to their criminal justice systems, with an obligation on them to carry out the death penalty subject to competent courts and after exhausting all legal remedies. The OIC recognized that the issue of establishing a moratorium lacked international consensus, especially in view of existing international human rights instruments.
The representative of China said her delegation regretted the fact that the death penalty was again being discussed in the Third Committee, as there was no international consensus on its abolition. She said in 1994 and 1999, the General Assembly had discussed that issue without results. The death penalty was not prohibited by international law. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the death penalty might be imposed only because of the most serious of crimes. Deciding on the most appropriate penalty was a question of sovereignty and therefore a matter for the State. The Assembly was not the proper forum to address the death penalty question. To discuss the issue in such a political forum would only further politicize it. It was inappropriate to submit a draft resolution to the General Assembly which asked for a moratorium on the death penalty. She called upon all delegations to support the amendments proposed.
The representative of Singapore said that a divisive, unpleasant and unnecessary fight was about to begin. A group of countries led by the European Union had decided to table a resolution knowing fully well that it would not only not enjoy consensus, but that it would polarize the Committee. They had done so because they wanted to impose their values on others; apparently, anyone who had a different view had to be forced to change. The tabled amendments were a defence against the European Union’s aggressiveness. The ultimate objective of the main draft was not a moratorium, but the abolition of the death penalty. For many countries, such a penalty was a criminal justice matter, not a human rights issue, and despite what many co-sponsors claimed, that penalty could not be a violation of human rights, as it was not forbidden under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Now that all States in the European Union had abolished the death penalty, it expected all others to follow, he said. The Union wanted everyone to think as they did; “when their values ‘shift,’ our values should also ‘shift’.” If anyone had the audacity to be different, then the European Union thought it was open season to badger them. That trait had been seen before. Singapore supported the amendment introduced by Egypt; it was nonsense to argue that it was a selective quotation from the Charter of the United Nations. The Committee had before it a blatant attempt to impose the values of one set of countries upon everyone else.
The representative of Gabon, given the floor on a point of order, asked to correct what his counterpart from Singapore had said. The draft resolution on a moratorium was an interregional initiative, not an initiative of the European Union.
The Chairman said that the representative of Gabon was not making a point of order, but rather an explanation that could be delivered after a vote.
The representative of Gabon responded that it was necessary for delegations to be well-informed and to avoid confusion. Gabon was not in the European Union, but it was an African country that was supporting the initiative; others were from Asia and South America.
The representative of Timor-Leste said her country was one of the main sponsors of the cross-regional initiative and her delegation wished to state the following before the vote: the main sponsors had provided plenty of opportunity to put forward amendments. The amendment in question sought to undermine the spirit of the resolution. The purpose of the draft was not to intervene, but to reinforce a growing trend towards phasing out the death penalty, which was a legitimate concern of the international community. Timor-Leste would vote against it and urged others to do the same.
The representative of New Zealand, speaking as a co-author of the main draft “L.29”, said the amendment was a selective and partial quotation from the Covenant that was misleading and imbalanced. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights pointed to the abolition of capital punishment. The co-sponsors had been open to feedback, and the feedback had been that there was no wish for selective quotations from international instruments on which the main draft was founded. New Zealand would oppose the amendment.
In an explanation of position before the vote, the representative of New Zealand agreed with her counterpart from Uruguay that the amendment was unnecessary and, though it may be factual, that did not justify its inclusion. She said 130 countries –- or more than two thirds of the United Nations membership -- had abolished the death penalty, in law or in practice, for all crimes. The representative of Botswana had referred earlier in the day to inflated statistics. The number of Member States that still had the death penalty had sharply declined, a clear trend that had been mentioned in the main draft. The amendment was contrary to the spirit and intention of the main draft, and New Zealand would vote against it.
Thursday 15 November 2007
Statements before the vote on the draft resolution
Making the first explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Malaysia said the viewpoints of other countries had to be fully respected. The language in the draft resolution contained biased assumptions and erroneous facts. It was unfortunate the issue had come up during the current session and the Committee was divided. Malaysia would vote against the draft; whatever the outcome of the vote, it could not be seen as a victory for any side, as divisions caused by a draft represented a defeat for all. In any State, change had to be undertaken at a pace that the people of that country were comfortable with, free of outside pressure or interference. Conciliation was needed; that would not happen if the issue returned at future sessions. More reasonable heads had to prevail.
The representative of Singapore said the events of the past two days proved that the issue of a moratorium on capital punishment was a divisive one. There had never been a genuine desire on the part of the co-sponsors to seek consensus; the main sponsors had gone so far as to suspend freedom of expression. The Committee had become a forum for recrimination and self-righteous morality that brooked no dissent. Those behind the draft had acted in a sanctimonious, hypocritical and intolerant way, but that was not a surprise. The draft did not reflect the range of opinions that existed in the United Nations on the issue. The co-sponsors had contradicted the spirit of cooperation and consensus building that was supposed to be the foundation of the Committee’s work. Every State had a sovereign right to choose its own systems. Singapore would vote against the draft; to vote for it would be to encourage countries which sought to impose their views.
The representative of Nepal, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, said there was no law in his country that provided for capital punishment. It was not Nepal’s intention, however, to impose values on others. It was possible, though, for humanity to abolish the death penalty, and his delegation thought the resolution would only encourage States to put moratoriums on the death penalty. Nepal would vote in favour of the resolution.
The representative of Thailand said the United Nations Charter could not interfere in matters pertaining to domestic affairs. As a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Thailand was committed to upholding its commitments vis-à-vis that instrument, and the Convention did not prohibit the use of the death penalty. Thai law only permitted the death penalty for the most serious of crimes and violations, and no execution had been carried out for some time. Thailand would therefore vote against “L.29”.
Statements after the vote on the resolution
Speaking first after the vote, the representative of India said there had to be recognition that it was the sovereign right of States to determine their own legal systems, and added that there was no consensus on capital punishment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights spoke only of the desirability of abolition of the death penalty. In India, the death penalty was an exception to be exercised in the rarest of rare occasions. His country had seen a single use of it since 1995, and there were many legal safeguards present. Indian law also had provisions for suspension of the death penalty for pregnant women, he said, adding that juveniles could never be sentenced to death in India. His delegation had not been in a position to support the draft resolution, as it went against his country’s statutory law.
The representative of Japan said he had voted against “L.29”. In his view, the question of abolishing the death penalty should be decided only after every country had considered the matter in light of its own criminal issues. Most of the public believed that the most vicious criminals should receive the death penalty. There was no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty, and it was regrettable that the resolution had been tabled without sufficient discussion. Many countries had voiced strong opposition to the proposal in informal meetings, but the sponsors had pursued the resolution’s passage despite that.
The representative of Viet Nam said he had abstained in the vote on the resolution because the death penalty was “indispensable” in Viet Nam at present, in order to ensure a peaceful life for the whole of the community. That penalty was applicable only to the most violent criminals, and not to children or pregnant women, among other groups. Viet Nam respected the decision by countries that had abolished the death penalty, given the concrete national situations. He stressed the importance of dialogue on human rights issues on the basis of common respect.
The representative of China said the fact that 50 countries had voted against the draft proved there was no consensus and there were therefore doubts about the effects of such a resolution. All countries had the right to choose their own judicial systems. The death penalty was an issue of criminal justice and was part of a country’s internal affairs. China regretted that two days had been spent on the resolution, which had increased tension and led to a major confrontation, and deplored also the request to vote on a separate paragraph. China could not accept that co-sponsors had applied pressure on other countries and did not wish to see a repeat of the process.
The representative of Bhutan said his country had abolished the death penalty, and would like to see that done worldwide. Nevertheless, he respected the right of each country to make its own laws, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. He had voted in accordance with that view.
The representative of Bangladesh said his country’s criminal justice system had provisions for the death penalty, but only in the case of the most heinous crimes. That sentence involved an exhaustive and transparent legal process, with opportunities for redress. The resolution just adopted was an example of the growing trend against the death penalty, but the time had not come yet for such a ban. He had been constrained to vote against the resolution.
The representative of Singapore congratulated the co-sponsors on their “pyrrhic victory”. The vote had proved that there was no international consensus on the resolution, as almost half of the delegations had not voted in its favour. That should be an indication that many delegations were uncomfortable with the resolution. Co-sponsors had brought the resolution fully aware of how acrimonious and divisive the issue was. He suspected that different countries, with their domestic considerations, would not impose a moratorium because of passage of the resolution. Domestic issues were clearly “irrelevant” to the co-sponsors, and the resolution had made a mockery of the Committee.
The representative of Myanmar said the country had not carried out capital punishment since 1988. Myanmar was not happy with how the resolution had been approved. Every Member State had the right to choose without interference, and the resolution as it had been drafted was, in Myanmar’s view, an attempt to impose a choice on countries. Thus, Myanmar had voted against “L.29”.
Working to protect human rights worldwide
