Promoting abolition of the death penalty

36 Pages·2012·0.95 MB·English

Promoting abolition of the
death penalty
Guidelines for the Norwegian Foreign Service
2
Igor Dukic. USA
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. Introduction and goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. International framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Anti-death penalty efforts in the Foreign Service:
Overall approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 .1 The role of the diplomatic and consular missions . . . . . . . 11
3 .1 .1 Report regularly of the status of the death penalty
in the country of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 .1 .2 Proposed activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3 .2 The role of delegations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 .3 The role of the Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. The Foreign Service’s response in individual cases . . . . . . . 24
4 .1 The role of the missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4 .2 The role of the Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Division of tasks within the Ministry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3
F
o
r
e
w
o
r
d
Norway gives high priority to the fight against the death penalty,
which is an integral part of our human rights policy . In our anti-death
penalty efforts, we employ a wide range of tools and work through
intergovernmental and regional organisations as well as directly in
individual countries .
Norway opposes the death penalty in all circumstances . The death
penalty is incompatible with the principles of human dignity and
humane treatment . Killing sanctioned by the state has a brutalising
and dehumanising effect on any society . There is no conclusive
evidence that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and we know
that in a number of cases innocent people have been executed .
Such miscarriages of justice are irreversible .
However, since there is no general ban on the use of the death penalty
under international law, it cannot be used as a basis for objecting to
a country’s use of the death penalty . This does not prevent us from
promoting Norway’s views and putting forward arguments for the
abolition of the death penalty . Moreover, there are several internatio-
nal or regional agreements that prohibit or limit the use of the death
penalty . If a country is party to one of these but fails to honour its
commitments, we do have a basis in international law for our argu-
ments . In our opposition to the death penalty we therefore use a
combination of legal and ethical arguments .
The purpose of these guidelines is to set out what we can do to
systematise and strengthen the efforts of the Foreign Service
to promote the abolition of the death penalty, both at the general
political level and in individual cases .
4
Our aim has been to provide sound, practical and relevant guidelines
that will inspire all of us in the Foreign Service in our work . They are
primarily intended to provide practical guidance for local anti-death
penalty efforts but also as the basis for our work in multilateral forums,
our human rights dialogues and our consultations at political level .
The guidelines describe a range of possible approaches . To ensure
that our efforts are as effective as possible, these must always be
adapted to local circumstances .
We ask you all to study these guidelines and make active use of them,
and to consider what actions could be relevant in your field and at
your place of service .
We look forward to working together as we continue and intensify
our efforts to combat the death penalty .
Espen Barth Eide Heikki Holmås
10 October 2012
5
“The death penalty is a reflection of the animal instinct
still in human beings.” Nelson Mandela
1. Introduction and goals
Why is the death penalty an important issue for Norway?
The fight against the death penalty is one of the priority areas of
Norway’s human rights policy . Norway opposes the death penalty
in all circumstances as a matter of principle .
• The death penalty is incompatible with the principles of human
dignity and humane treatment . There is no conclusive evidence
that the death penalty has a deterrent effect, and we know that
in some cases innocent people have been executed .
• The death penalty can also affect Norwegian citizens . Several
Norwegian citizens and people who are entitled to receive consular
assistance from Norway have been arrested abroad and sentenced
to the death penalty or are awaiting trial for a crime that can carry
the death penalty .
• The fact that a country applies the death penalty has implications
for the degree of assistance we can provide in police, justice and
security matters:
– If there is a possibility that a country will use the death penalty,
cooperation on criminal investigations and other judicial assis-
tance will be limited, because the Norwegian authorities will not
provide information or evidence that increases the likelihood of
a death sentence being imposed .
– Norway cannot extradite a person to a country that applies the
death penalty if there is a risk that he or she will be sentenced
to death .
6
Our overall objective is global abolition of
the death penalty.
Norway will therefore
• encourage more countries to abolish the death penalty and become
parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the Inter national
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims at the abolition
of the death penalty;
• encourage countries that are not ready to remove the death penalty
from their legislation to introduce a moratorium on its use as a
first step towards abolition and to vote in favour of the resolution
on a moratorium when it is tabled in the UN General Assembly;
• seek to discourage countries from reintroducing the death penalty;
• urge states that have retained the death penalty in their legislation
but do not carry out executions to remove it from their legislation .
Furthermore, Norway will urge countries that still impose the death
penalty and/or carry out executions to:
• refrain from executions and introduce a moratorium on the death
penalty;
• respect the restrictions set out in international law;
• limit the number of offences that are punishable by death;
• allow for commutation to a prison sentence;
• strengthen legal safeguards;
• disclose the number of persons sentenced to death and executed;
• reduce the number of executions and introduce more restrictions
on the use of the death penalty .
These guidelines are intended to set out what we can do to systema-
tise and strengthen the efforts of the Foreign Service to promote
the abolition of the death penalty .
“Every human being has the inherent right to life.
This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
From Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
7
Salvatore Piazzolla, Italia
2. International framework
The death penalty is not prohibited under international law, but there
is strong international pressure for its abolition .
In countries that retain the death penalty, Norway will continue its
efforts to ensure respect for the restrictions set out in international
law and for legal guarantees . Countries should respect the UN
safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the
death penalty, which were adopted by the UN Economic and Social
Council by consensus in 1984 (the safeguards are reproduced in full
in Appendix I on minimum standards) .
Various instruments of international law restrict or prohibit the use of
the death penalty . The most important of these are the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the American Convention
on Human Rights:
• The ICCPR (1966): Article 6 states that in countries that have not
abolished the death penalty, it may only be imposed for the most
serious crimes (such as murder), and not for crimes committed
by persons under 18 years old, and that pregnant women may not
be executed . It also states that countries that are parties to the
Covenant may not invoke anything in Article 6 to delay or prevent
the abolition of capital punishment . Norway is one of more than
165 parties to the Covenant . Article 7, which forbids torture and
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and
Article 14, which deals with the right to a fair trial, are also
relevant to application of the death penalty .
• The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1989): Article 1
requires parties to abolish the death penalty, but Article 2 allows
for reservations providing for the use of the death penalty in time
of war . Norway is one of more than 70 parties to the Protocol . 
• The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) (1989):
Article 37a states that the death penalty is not to be imposed on
anyone who was under the age of 18 at the time the offence was
committed . There are 193 parties to the Convention (the US and
Somalia are the only exceptions) .
9
• The ECHR (1950): Article 2 states that everyone’s right to life shall
be protected by law, and that no one shall be deprived of his life
intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following
his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law .
• Protocol no . 6 to the ECHR (1983): prohibits the use of the death
penalty in time of peace . With the exception of Russia, all the
Council of Europe’s 47 member states (including Norway) are
parties to the Protocol .
• Protocol no . 13 to the ECHR (2002): abolishes the death penalty
under all circumstances . Forty-three of the Council of Europe’s
member states (including Norway) are parties to the Protocol .
Two of them (Armenia and Poland) have signed but not ratified
Protocol 13, and two (Russia and Azerbaijan) have not signed it .
• The American Convention on Human Rights (1969): Article 4
restricts the use of the death penalty, but does not forbid it .
• The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights (1990):
forbids the use of the death penalty, but allows for reservations at
the time of accession or ratification providing for the use of the
death penalty in time of war .
Appendix II provides a more complete list of international legal
instruments and key mechanisms to promote implementation of
these instruments .
Norway and other like-minded actors, including the EU, believe that,
in any case, customary international law (established practice) sets
absolute limits on the use of the death penalty . On this basis, we
consider the execution of minors or persons who were under the age
of 18 when the offence was committed, pregnant women or persons
with mental disorders to be in violation of international law . We also
consider that there are grounds for claiming that execution by means
of particularly brutal methods, such as stoning or throwing people
from great heights, is forbidden . Requirements regarding legal
safeguards must also be satisfied . However, it can be difficult to gain
sufficient information about a legal process to be able to claim with
certainty that a trial was in conflict with international standards .
The EU has drawn up guidelines for its policy on the universal
abolition of the death penalty, see Appendix I .
10