Death penalty in
Malaysia
Joint
stakeholder report for the 31st session of the Working Group on the
Universal Periodic Review – March 2018
Submitted by
Anti-Death
Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Ensemble contre la peine de mort
(ECPM)
The
Advocates for Human Rights
Harm Reduction
International (HRI)
The
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP)
Kuala
Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall Civil Rights Committee (KLSCAHC/Malaysia)
Malaysians
Against the Death Penalty (MADPET)
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) is an independent inter-regional
network committed to working to end the death penalty in the Asia-Pacific
region. ADPAN is made up of NGOs, organisations, groups from civil society,
lawyers and individual members. It is not linked to any political party,
religion or government.
Ensemble contre la
peine de mort (ECPM / Together against the Death Penalty) is a French non-governmental organisation that fights
against the death penalty worldwide and in all circumstances by uniting and
rallying abolitionist forces across the world. The organisation advocates with
international bodies and encourages universal abolition through education,
information, local partnerships and public awareness campaigns. ECPM earned its
legitimacy as a unifying group of the abolitionist movement because of its
strong sense of ethics and values. ECPM is the organiser of the World
Congresses Against the Death Penalty and a founding member of the World
Coalition Against the Death Penalty. In 2016, ECPM was granted
consultative status with ECOSOC.
Founded in 1983, The Advocates for Human Rights is a
volunteer-based non-governmental organization committed to the impartial
promotion and protection of international human rights standards and the rule
of law. In 1991, The Advocates adopted a formal commitment to oppose the death
penalty worldwide and organized a Death Penalty Project to provide pro bono assistance on post-conviction
appeals, as well as education and advocacy to end capital punishment. 
Harm Reduction
International (HRI) is
a leading non-governmental organisation working to reduce the negative health,
social and human rights impacts of drug use and drug policy by promoting
evidence-based public health policies and practices, and human rights based
approaches to drugs.
The Word Coalition against the Death Penalty
(WCADP) is composed of more than 150 NGOs, bar associations, local authorities
and unions. It aims to strengthen the international dimension of the fight
against the death penalty. The World Coalition provides a global dimension to
the action taken by its members in the field, who are sometimes isolated. Its
work complements their initiatives while respecting their independence.
I. Introduction
1.
This joint stakeholder report
aims to provide up-to-date and useful information to understand the reality of
the death penalty in Malaysia, in view of the next review of Malaysia by the
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in November 2018. The
substantive information was gathered by ADPAN and its Malaysian members from news,
reports and testimonies of lawyers, NGO members, etc.; it was then complemented
by The Advocates for Human Rights, the WCADP, HRI and ECPM, which co-drafted
the final report.
2.
In order to comprehend some
aspects of the use of the death penalty in Malaysia, it is important to
understand its basic political system. Malaysia is a federal constitutional
monarchy, composed of 13 states and 3 federal territories. The 13 states are
governed by a titular hereditary head of state or a King-appointed governor, as
well as an executive Chief Minister. The federal territories are ruled directly
by the King and paramount ruler of Malaysia.
3.
Malaysia is one of the leading death-sentencing
and executing states in the world. Despite some timid steps towards more transparency
and abolition (such as abolishing the mandatory death penalty for drug
trafficking), Malaysia’s use of capital punishment is still shrouded in secrecy
and no further progress towards abolition can be observed.
II. Legal framework regarding the application of the death penalty in Malaysia
A. National legal framework
4.
As one of the world’s top executing
countries, Malaysia makes provision in its legislation for the death penalty
for numerous crimes. Although the Federal Constitution acknowledges the right
to life of every human, it also recognizes the possibility of the death penalty.[1]
Capital punishment is provided for in six laws for more than 20 offenses. It is
also mandatory for nine offenses, making Malaysia one of the few countries
where the sentencing authority does not always have discretion in capital
cases.
5.
The law sets hanging as the
method of execution.[2] It
also prohibits the execution of pregnant women, whose death sentence is to be
commuted to life sentence once their pregnancy is proven.[3]
Crimes punishable by death
Crimes punishable by death are not limited to the “most serious” crimes
6.
Not all of the crimes subject
to the death penalty include an element of intentional killing. The Penal Code[4]
is the legislation containing most death penalty provisions. It can be carried
out for common law crimes (e.g. homicide; kidnapping, gang-robbery, rape or
hostage-taking followed by death), as well as political and military offenses
(crimes against the ruler of the state, terrorism or mutiny). Capital
punishment is mandatory for, most notably, murder, terrorism and offense
against the rulers.
7.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Act
1952, drug trafficking may be punishable by death.[5]
Drug trafficking is the main offense for which death sentences are handed out
in Malaysia. A high number of foreign nationals are convicted under the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
8.
Capital punishment is also
available as a penalty in the Kidnapping Act[6]
(kidnapping for ransom), the Internal Security Act (armed offenses in security
areas) and the Armed Forces Act (various civil offenses perpetrated during
service, such as murder and various military offenses (e.g. communicating with
the enemy).
9.
The Economic and Social Council
of the United Nations (ECOSOC) endorsed a resolution in 1984 upholding nine
safeguards on the application of the death penalty which affirmed that capital
punishment should only be used for the “most serious crimes”.[7]
This threshold was specified to mean crimes that were limited to those “with
lethal or other extremely grave consequences”[8],
and was endorsed by the UN General Assembly.[9]
This threshold is not being met by Malaysia.
ð Amend the Penal Code, the Dangerous Drugs Act, the Kidnapping Act,
the Internal Security Act, the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act and the Armed
Forces Act to eliminate the death penalty for all crimes, especially those that
do not result in death.
Some offenses are subject to a mandatory death penalty
10.
The Parliament limited the
mandatory application of the death penalty to drug trafficking offences via
reforms to the Dangerous Drugs Act in November 2017. This is outlined in detail
below.
11.
The Firearms (Increased
Penalties) Act[10]
provides for a mandatory death penalty in the case of a scheduled crime (or
complicity to commit such a crime) committed with a firearm discharge,
irrespective of whether any harm is caused.
ð Abolish the mandatory death penalty for all offences and restrict
the scope of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”.
The pardoning process
12.
Persons sentenced to death have
the possibility to petition for pardon on their own initiative[11].
Their application is then reviewed by the State Board of Pardons, which advises
the Ruler of the State. The ruler has the ultimate power of clemency.
13.
As described in greater detail
in paragraph 31 below, even though the Ruler of the State has the power of
pardon, there are no clear rules governing the process (who can petition for
pardon, how to do it, how long it takes, etc.). As a result of this lack of
transparency, there is no way to assess whether the pardoning authorities are
using their discretion in a discriminatory manner.
B. International legal framework
14.
Malaysia has ratified only 5 of
the 18 international human rights treaties. It is not party to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Second
Optional Protocol (OP2), the only binding instrument on the abolition of death
penalty. The same applies to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatments or Punishments (CAT) and its optional protocol
(OPCAT). Malaysia did however ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
thus prohibiting death sentencing and execution of children and child
offenders.
15.
Finally, the Malaysian State
has continuously voted against the United Nations resolution for a universal
moratorium on executions, since its first occurrence in 2007, always also
signing the note verbale of
dissociation to reassert its formal opposition to the text.
16.
There are also very few
international safeguards surrounding the application of the death penalty in
Malaysia.
ð Ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
its Second Optional Protocol.
ð Ratify the Convention against Torture and its Optional Protocol.
ð Abstain in the vote on the UN resolution on a universal moratorium
on executions.
C. The UPR in 2013
17.
The last review of Malaysia by
the Working Group on the UPR took place in 2013. In its national report before
the session, the Malaysian government stated that the death penalty was applied
only for the most serious crimes, in line with Article 6 of the ICCPR, even
though Malaysia is not party to the treaty.
18.
In total, 22 recommendations on
the death penalty were made to Malaysia during the 2013 UPR session. It was the
fourth most addressed topic, representing 9% of all recommendations made to the
country.[12]
Most of the death penalty recommendations addressed the issues of the mandatory
death penalty (calling for its abolition) and the implementation of a
moratorium. Malaysia rejected all those recommendations except for one:
“maintaining its good example in observing the legal safeguards surrounding the
application of death penalty”. This recommendation is vague and fails to
clarify what those legal safeguards are. In fact, as this report indicates below,
Malaysia has not met the international legal safeguards on death penalty,
especially regarding the right of the accused to a fair trial free from
corruption and intimation.
19.
During the interactive
dialogue, the Malaysian government acknowledged the debate on the issue of the
death penalty in civil society which, with the decrease in death sentences and
executions between 2009 and 2013, showed a “trend against the implementation of
death penalty”.[13]
Responding to this trend, the State announced that it would initiate a study on
the administration of criminal justice, with a view to comprehensive reforms,
including on capital punishment.[14]
The government reports that it has completed its study of the criminal justice
system, but no results have been disclosed, even following pressure from civil
society.
20.
Official government statistics
from 2016 indicate 829 death sentences were handed down since 2010, undermining
the government’s claim there is a trend against the implementation of the death
penalty.
III. The application of the death penalty in Malaysia
21.
One of the most challenging
issues surrounding the use of capital punishment in Malaysia is the lack of
transparency. It is hence very difficult to provide detailed information on the
death penalty in the country.
A. Data
22.
Based on Amnesty
International’s record, in 2016 alone, at least 36 people were sentenced to
death, nine people were executed, and the total number of death row inmates (as
of April 2016) stands at 1042. These figures are higher than previous years,
making Malaysia the 10th leading executioner in the world in 2016.[15]
ð Establish a moratorium on executions.
23.
In March 2017, in response to a
parliamentary question, the government reported that, as of this date, at least
1122 people remained on death row; an increase of 80 death row prisoners from
April 2016 to March 2017.
24.
These figures demonstrated that
the application of the death penalty was far more widespread than previously
thought. The government also revealed some disaggregated data, most notably the
high number of foreign nationals (including migrant workers) on death row
(413), as well as the crimes for which death sentences are most commonly
pronounced (murder, drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, and kidnapping).[16]
25.
The data obtained by Amnesty
International and the figures stated above are not up-to-date as there is no
official annual release of data and information relating to the use of death
penalty by the Malaysia government. The prison authorities repeatedly refuse to
release information when requested by civil society or non-governmental
organisations. There is no other way to obtain data, except from newspaper
reports and when a Member of Parliament takes the initiative to ask such a
question during parliamentary session. This lack of information has resulted in
difficulties in monitoring accountability and violations.
ð Annually publish official detailed information on the use of the
death penalty in Malaysia (including, but not limited to the number of people
sentenced to death and executed; information about the nature of offenses and
the reasons why they were convicted; the implementation and the identity of
executed prisoners; the number of overturned death sentences on appeal; the
number of pardoned convicts; information on the extent to which the above
guarantees are incorporated into national legislation).
ð Facilitate access to death penalty statistics for institutions and
civil society organisations.
B. Procedural rights of people facing the death penalty
26.
In Malaysia, people in conflict
with the law do not always see their procedural rights respected, especially
people accused of capital crimes. These violations of rights occur at all
stages of the legal procedure, hence the distinction made in this report
between the moments before (arrest and police custody), during (from the first
court hearing to the final verdict) and after the process (between the final
verdict and the execution or pardon).
Before the process
27.
Violations of human rights
happen as soon as a suspect is arrested and taken into police custody. Lawyers
regularly report police brutality (at least five deaths in custody were
reported last year[17]),
acts of corruption, and violations of basic rights to interpretation or legal
representation, which often lead to coerced and false confessions. There are
very few domestic legal safeguards surrounding arrest and police custody,
making such human rights violations difficult to monitor and prosecute.
28.
Many foreign nationals are
arrested for drug-related crimes and can suffer from the lack of respect of
basic human rights. They are not necessarily provided with immediate and
professional interpretation during the crucial hour of police investigation and
interrogation, rendering confession based on misrepresentation and/or induced
by the investigating officer. Foreign nationals are also particularly prone to
lack of legal representation due to the difficult circumstances in which they
are living. According to the NGO Iran Human Rights, in Malaysia there are more
than 80 Iranians are currently on death row for drug charges in solitary
confinement.[18]
They were not provided with Farsi interpreters during their interrogations or
trials and were not given fair due legal process.[19]
ð Set up an Independent Police Complaint and Misconduct Commission
(IPCMC) to investigate corruption and police brutality.
ð Ensure that, prior to their questioning, foreign nationals involved
in a case which might lead to the death penalty are informed of their rights to
adequate interpretation.
ð Ensure that all persons at risk of the death penalty are questioned
in the presence of a lawyer or legal counsel, and an interpreter when needed.
During the process
29.
Capital crimes are prosecuted
at the High Court. When an accused is charged for a capital offence, they must
be legally represented. The court will assign a defence attorney if they cannot
afford one. The assignment is voluntarily, usually from a pool of defence
attorneys who are willing to take up capital cases. These attorneys are often
overworked with briefs that generate income as well as with cases on a pro-bono
basis. Besides experience and expertise, defending a capital case requires the
upmost attention and resources of an attorney, which are sometimes simply not
available to them.
At times, defence attorneys also face obstacles and
challenges in gathering evidence due to the lack of monetary and human
resources. This situation has a negative impact on accused persons coming from
vulnerable groups, especially foreign nationals. Equipped with little
understanding of the local legal system, foreign nationals also frequently face
financial and/or language barriers. If they are unable to secure effective
legal representation at the outset, it becomes very difficult – if not
impossible – to ensure a fair trial and the services of a competent lawyer.
This can make the difference between arrest and charge, conviction and
acquittal, and in cases of the death penalty, the difference between life and
death.
30.
In addition, there are concerns
about corruption, including but not limited to the integrity of prosecution,
witnesses and evidence; of lack of sufficient time for the defence attorney in
preparation of the trial where crucial evidence is given at the last minute; of
the lack of independent professional witnesses such as forensic and mental
health experts. For example, a South Korean student charged under Section 39B
of the Dangerous Drugs Act which carries the mandatory death penalty, was recently
acquitted and discharged by the Court after the key witness admitted that he
had lied in his testimony after the defence team produced CCTV evidence
directly contradicting his evidence given under oath.[20]
ð Take concrete measures to ensure the integrity of the prosecution,
witnesses and evidence.
ð Ensure that defence attorneys of persons facing the death penalty
have sufficient time and access to evidence to prepare the trial consequently.
After the process
31.
Even though a person sentenced
to death has the right to petition for pardon, the process is neither
transparent nor fair. The right to clemency is not automatic and the process
has no established or clear rules. The Board of Pardons rarely meets and does
so without a fixed frequency. As a result, petitioners do not have the
opportunity to present their case before the Board and the Board is not
required to disclose the explanation for its decision, suggesting that the
decision itself may be obscure and arbitrary. Moreover, there is no procedure
to stay an execution while a petition for pardon is pending. Of the four known
executions 2017, two were carried out while the petitioners’ clemency requests
were pending.
ð Establish precise and transparent rules governing the pardon process
and the functioning of the Boards of Pardons, specifically by setting a regular
meeting frequency and an obligation to publish its findings.
ð Take concrete measures to inform those facing the death penalty of
their right to petition for pardon.
ð Ensure that, if a death row prisoner is petitioning for pardon,
their death sentence is suspended throughout the entire pardoning process.
32.
One of the most meaningful
manifestations of the lack of transparency on the issue of the death penalty in
Malaysia is the secrecy around the execution process. Executions are carried
out in secret with no established procedure to notify the person sentenced to
death or their family[21].
Very short notice (two days at most) is the norm.[22]
In 2016, the families of three death row inmates were given notice two days
before their execution, while the inmates received notice only the day before
their execution.[23]
ð Establish precise and transparent rules governing the execution
process, especially on the notice of execution given to the death row inmate,
their lawyers and their family.
C. Living conditions on death row
33.
Very little is known about the
status and living conditions of death row inmates in Malaysia. They are usually
kept in solitary confinement once their sentence has been imposed.[24]
Once in solitary confinement, prisoners often lack access to proper drinking
water or facilities necessary to maintain hygiene standards for long periods of
time, creating conditions in which disease and ill health can thrive. According
to official statistics, 259 prisoners have died in Malaysian prisons since
2000.[25]
34.
No one is allowed to meet with
death row inmates, with the exception of family members, lawyers, and
occasionally religious counselling groups who must be pre-registered and
approved. Thus far, there has not been any known visit by a Member of
Parliament or civil society of death row prisoners to ascertain their living
conditions and whether their rights have been violated.
ð Facilitate visits of death rows and reports on detention conditions
by civil society organisations and parliamentarians.
IV. Recent developments related to the death penalty
A. Transparency and public opinion
The government’s recent efforts at transparency have not become systematic
35.
In 2016, the government
responded to a formal request by Parliament and disclosed figures on the use of
capital punishment in Malaysia in recent years. This progress towards more
transparency is yet to be qualified, since it has not become a regular practice
by the authorities and obtaining data is still a challenge.
The government is doing little to shape public opinion against the death penalty
36.
A 2012 study by Roger Hood for
the Death Penalty Project, in association with the Bar Council Malaysia[26],
showed that even though the public did not question the death penalty in
general, there was an absence of consensus on its mandatory provisions. In
2018, the debate on the death penalty in Malaysia still revolves almost
exclusively around the mandatory death penalty, especially amongst politicians,
to the point where people tend to confuse death penalty in general with the
mandatory application of the death penalty for certain crimes. Civil society in
Malaysia and around the world has, for the past 10 years, relentlessly
campaigned and lobbied for its total abolition or for at least the abolishment
of the mandatory death penalty. These efforts have attracted significant
attention from the Government, resulting in the Attorney General’s Office
conducting an in-depth study on the death penalty, as well as public
announcements by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of
law supporting the abolition of the mandatory death penalty on numerous
occasions.
B. The 2017 amendment to the Dangerous Drug Act
The death penalty for specific drug offences
37.
Malaysia is one of only 33
countries that currently retain the death penalty for drug offences in law.
While the secrecy around the use of the death penalty was lifted to a limited
extent in 2016, data on death sentences for drug offences remain opaque, with
estimates on sentences and executions generally compiled by non-governmental
organisations.[27]
According to HRI research there have been no known executions for drug-related
offences since 2013, but of the estimated 1124 people on death row in 2017, at
least 675 – or over 60% – were charged with drug-related offences.[28]
38.
Until very recently, Malaysia
was also one of 10 countries that retained the mandatory death penalty for drug
trafficking. On 30 November 2017, Parliament amended the Dangerous Drugs Act to
abolish the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking.[29]
This reform came into force on 15 March 2018 and allows judges to use their
discretion – under specific conditions – in sentencing drug trafficking
offences where capital punishment was previously applied automatically.
Specifically, if a judge is satisfied that the accused has ‘assisted an enforcement agency in
disrupting drug trafficking activities’, and has met
one of the three conditions set out in Section 39B(2A) of the Dangerous Drugs
Act; the judge may reduce a death sentence to life imprisonment and at least 15
strokes of caning. If the judge concludes that those conditions are not
satisfied, the judge must impose the death penalty.
39.
While welcoming this reduction
in scope of the application of the death penalty, the alternative punishment
proposed is a concern, as are the application and implementation of these
reforms.[30]
Alternative punishment
40.
The alternate sentence is
mandatory life imprisonment with no less than 15 strokes of caning. Caning is
an inhuman and degrading punishment that violates international law. Mandatory
life imprisonment is disproportionate to the offences in consideration.
Implementation of reforms
41.
There are significant
limitations in respect of the effect and implementation of these reforms:
a.
Judicial
discretion allows judges to consider only four matters, as set out in Section
39B(2A). Jurisprudence on sentencing, such as other mitigating factors or
proportionality, is not applicable.
b.
Being
compelled to cooperate with authorities, in order to simply avoid the death
penalty at the court of first instance, will certainly impact the right of
appeal to the higher courts; thus leading to a violation of the right to a fair
trial.
c.
The
burden of proof lies with the accused. In reality, the double presumption law
in the Dangerous Drug Act (i.e. presumed to have knowledge and presumed to be
trafficking) places the accused person in a disadvantageous position.
42.
Finally, it is of significant
concern that the amendments to the Dangerous Drugs Act will not apply retrospectively.
There are two categories of people on death row directly affected by this:
§ Firstly, in 2018, between the parliamentary
amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Act and its coming into force, at least 10
people were sentenced to the death penalty for drug trafficking[31], five of those being foreign nationals from
India and Nigeria.
§
Secondly,
there are currently 675 persons on death row who were sentenced to death for
drug trafficking prior to the November 2017 reforms. The new law does not
provide previously convicted persons with a legal avenue for review or
resentencing.
ð Impose a stay on all executions for drug offences.
ð Advise the King and the Rulers of the States, as well each and every
Pardon Board - via the Attorney General - to review all previous convictions of
drug trafficking resulting in a death sentence, including (a) persons sentenced
since the amendments were adopted in November 2017 and (b) persons sentenced
prior to the amendment of the Dangerous Drugs Act; with a view of recommending the
full commutation of the death sentences.
[1] ‘Federal Constitution of Malaysia’, incorporating all amendments up
to P.U. (A) 164/2009 (1957), art. 5.
[2] ‘Criminal Procedure Code of Malaysia’, A593 as amended by Act A1431
of 2012 (1935), sec. 277.
[3] Ibid., sec. 275.
[4] ‘Penal Code of Malaysia’, Act 574 as amended by Act A1536 of 2017
(1936), secs 121, 122, 130C, 132, 302, 305, 307(2), 364, 374a, 376, 396.
[5] ‘Dangerous Drugs Act of Malaysia’, Act 234 (1952), sec. 39B.
[6] ‘Kidnapping Act’, Act 365 as amended by Act A910 of 1995 (1961),
sec. 3(1).
[7] ECOSOC. Implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of
the rights of those facing the death penalty Resolution 1984/50. 25 May 1984.
[8] Ibid.
[9] UN General Assembly. Human rights in the administration of Justice.
Resolution A/RES/39/118. 14 December 1984.
[10] ‘Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act’, Act 37 (1971), secs 3, 3A, 7.
[11] Federal Constitution of Malaysia, art. 42.
[12] ‘UPR Statistics on Malaysia’, UPR Info, accessed 1 March
2018,
https://www.upr-info.org/database/statistics/index_sur.php?action_type=104&cycle=2.
[13] Government of Malaysia, ‘National Report Submitted in Accordance
with Paragraph 5 of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21’
(Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council, Working Group on the Universal
Periodic Review, August 2013), 8, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/161/32/PDF/G1316132.pdf?OpenElement.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2016’
(London, 2017), 42.
[16] Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2016’,
29–30.
[17] Amnesty International, ‘Report 2017/18. The State of the World’s
Human Rights’ (London, 2018), 250.
[18] Iran Human Rights. Special Report: 80 Iranian Death Row Prisoners
in Malaysia. 10 October 2017. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/3089/
[19] Iran Human Rights. Special Report: 80 Iranian Death Row Prisoners
in Malaysia. 10 October 2017. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/3089/
[20] Sarban Singh, ‘S. Korean Student Freed of Drug Charge’, The Star
(Online), 5 October 2017, https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2017/10/05/s-korean-student-freed-of-drug-charge-judge-acquits-20yearold-after-police-officer-admits-he-lied-in/.
[21] Amnesty International, ‘Report 2017/18. The State of the World’s
Human Rights’, 250.
[22] Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), ‘Human Rights Report 2017: Malaysia’,
2017, 55.
[23] International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), ‘Going Backwards:
The Death Penalty in Southeast Asia’ (Paris, 2016), 10.
[24] Amnesty International Malaysia. Malaysia: Death Penalty Reforms
must be an Opportunity for Positive Human Rights Change. 2 November 2017. http://aimalaysia.org/content/malaysia-death-penalty-reforms-must-be-opportunity-positive-human-rights-change;
Iran Human Rights. Special Report: 80 Iranian Death Row Prisoners in Malaysia.
10 October 2017. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/3089/
[25] Iran Human Rights. Special Report: 80 Iranian Death Row Prisoners
in Malaysia. 10 October 2017. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/3089/
[26] Roger Hood, ‘The Death Penalty in Malaysia: Public Opinion on the
Mandatory Death Penalty for Drug Trafficking, Murder and Firearms Offences’
(London: The Death Penalty Project, 2013).
[27] Amnesty International. Death sentences and executions, 2017.
[28] Gen Sander, ‘The Death Penlaty for
Drug Offences: Global Overview 2017’ (London: Harm Reduction International
(HRI), 2018), 27,
https://www.hri.global/files/2018/03/06/HRI-Death-Penalty-Report-2018.pdf.
[29] ‘Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act 2017’, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952
(2017).
[30] Charles Hector and Ngeow Chow
Ying, ‘No Reason to Delay Commencement of DDAA 2017’, Malaysiakini, 14
February 2018, https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/412257; Hands Off Cain,
‘Malaysia: Three Sentenced to Death for Drug Trafficking’, 13 February 2018,
http://www.handsoffcain.info/notizia/malaysia-three-sentenced-to-death-for-drug-trafficking-40301596.
[31] Hector and Ngeow Chow Ying, ‘No
Reason to Delay Commencement of DDAA 2017’; Hands Off Cain, ‘Malaysia: Three
Sentenced to Death for Drug Trafficking’.
No comments:
Post a Comment