The Sixty-Second General Assembly Approves Moratorium on Death Penalty
Pedro Bujalance-Andrés
For the first time, the UN General Assembly approved a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Hailed as a milestone for human rights by some Member States while criticized by others, the controversial resolution was adopted in the plenary on 18 December 2007, in a recorded vote of 104 in favour and 54 against, with 29 abstentions. Explaining their position prior to the vote, Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), noted that the provisions in the resolution were unbalanced. Barbados further pointed out that capital punishment was not prohibited by international law. Singapore stressed the deterrent effect of the death penalty on offenders. Mexico was the only nation to speak in favour of the moratorium prior to adoption of the draft resolution that some Member States described as “divisive.”
Capital punishment has been a source of controversy for decades. This most severe of legal punishments that includes beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection, shooting and stoning was carried out officially against 1,591 people in 25 countries during 2006, among them the United States, with 53 executions. In its 2006 death penalty statistics, Amnesty International reported that 3,861 people were sentenced to death in 55 countries and 1,010 were presumed to have been executed in China.
The third Article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” With the 60th anniversary of the Declaration set to be celebrated in 2008, there are still 64 countries that continue to apply capital punishment for ordinary crimes, according to Amnesty International. In 2006, the death penalty was completely abolished in 90 countries; another 11 States have abolished it for all but exceptional crimes, such as war crimes.
Capital punishment still remains in the legal systems of a number of countries worldwide. The first international attempt to abolish capital punishment dates back to 1948 with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and was followed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1966. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR), 160 countries that have ratified or acceded to the Covenant have become legally bound States parties. In 1989, the General Assembly adopted a Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aimed at the abolition of the death penalty; to date, only 64 countries have ratified it. The United States has not signed the Second Optional Protocol, while France finally ratified it, abolishing the death penalty in October 2007. Of the countries that still have capital punishment in their constitutions, thirty-two nations could be considered as abolitionists in practice, according to Amnesty International, because there has not been an execution in these countries for the past ten or more years.
In March 2006, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston, pointed out that the most frequent reason given for withholding information on the death penalty was that it was considered a “State secret”, which would endanger national security if made public. The Governments of China and Viet Nam, for example, have refused to disclose statistics on death sentences and executions based on these arguments. In his 2007 report, Mr. Alston noted that between August 2004 and March 2006 nine boys and six girls had been sentenced to death in Iran for crimes committed when they were under the age of 18. According to the Special Rapporteur, there was ground to believe Iran was ignoring the prohibition on the juvenile death penalty, which constituted a “clear violation of Iran’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”
Countries consider the issue of capital punishment very carefully before undertaking to legally abolish it. It is not the first time that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty has been proposed at the Third Committee. In April 1999, the UN Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution supporting a worldwide moratorium on capital punishment: ten countries voted against it, including China, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sudan and the United States. On 2 November 2007, the sixty-second General Assembly President, Srgjan Kerim, received a book containing more than 5 million signatures, collected in 154 countries since 1998, in favour of a moratorium on the use of capital punishment.
Discussions on capital punishment in the Third Committee
Capital punishment was the focus of intense discussions in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) during the sixty-second session of the UN General Assembly on 30 October 2007. The Committee approved a draft moratorium on the use of the death penalty on 15 November 2007, after a vote of 99 votes in favour and 52 against, with 33 abstentions. During the debate, New Zealand, had proposed a moratorium stating that the death penalty was a human rights violation that demanded a firm response, and pointed out that the adoption of a moratorium would be an international milestone on the elimination of capital punishment.
Some delegations advocated the abolition of the death penalty, while others, including China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the United States, defended its application. Stating that was an inhuman, degrading and irreversible form of punishment, Switzerland reminded delegates that 130 nations had abolished or suspended its use of the death penalty. In contrast, China pointed out that capital punishment was retained in more than 80 countries, as it was “not a human rights issue”. Singapore supported China’s point of view, arguing that capital punishment should be considered a criminal justice issue and that every country had the right to decide its own criminal justice system. Libya and Pakistan spoke in favour of the death penalty, arguing that it was a deterrent for criminal offenders. However, Switzerland maintained there was no evidence that capital punishment prevented crimes and therefore defended its abolition. Norway also considered the death penalty to be an inhumane punishment and a violation of the right to life, while Ukraine welcomed the Member States who supported the abolition of capital punishment.
During discussions, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia expressed concern, stating that no country should try to neither set norms for other nations nor impose its points of view on them. In voting against the moratorium, Egypt and Oman said that the death penalty was a matter to be determined by each Member State. The United States stated that capital punishment was not prohibited by the ICCPR, which recognizes the right of countries to carry out such punishment for certain crimes. Mauritania and Sudan also decided against the moratorium, declaring that the use of capital punishment was a matter that was governed by international law. Nigeria stated that capital punishment was still on its statutes for security reasons, given its deterrent effect against serious crimes. Botswana and Singapore also voted against it, declaring that it was clear there was no consensus on the use of the death penalty.
Italy said it hoped that the resolution would be approved. Colombia agreed, saying that it would promote the abolition of the death penalty. The representative of Gabon explained that the capital punishment had been abolished in his country and therefore his delegation would vote in favour because, as he said, human dignity was sacred and had to be preserved. Nepal also endorsed the moratorium, affirming that it would encourage other nations to fight against the death penalty. Cameroon was among those that abstained from voting because, it explained, its penal code provided for capital punishment—therefore could not be in favour of a resolution that was not in accordance with the national statutes. Sierra Leone and the United Republic of Tanzania expressed the same opinion, arguing that they could not support any resolution that would be inconsistent with their respective constitutions, even though in the case of Sierra Leone there had been no case of capital punishment in recent years.
During an interview with the UN Chronicle, the Chairman of the Third Committee, Raymond Wolfe, referred to the moratorium on the use of the death penalty as “divisive” because “different delegations who take opposite positions on the issue, will give you different interpretations.” However, the political weight of the resolution could be measured by considering the number of votes in favour and against, as well as the abstentions, he said. Although the “colleagues from the European Union will see it [the approval] obviously as a milestone, for other delegations who voted against the resolution, it was a means of imposing on the will of those who are against”. According to Mr. Wolfe, the use of the death penalty was one of the most polemic issues to be discussed in the Third Committee, and the criticism around the moratorium proved that the use of capital punishment was not “a battle which is over.”
