In many countries where capital punishment has been abolished there has been a corresponding rise in vio

For this reason, many governments are considering its reintroduction as a form of deterrent. Should Capita
introduced? Discuss

Arguments for and against capital

punishment in the UK
Contents. If you are looking for information on the situation in the USA please
click here.

Is capital punishment ethically acceptable?

Death versus deterrence

Arguments for capital punishment

Mad or bad?

Arguments against capital punishment

Capital punishment and the media

The future of capital punishment in Britain

Pain and suffering is the death penalty a

Should capital punishment be re-introduced?

and unusual punishment?

Alternatives to capital punishment

Can capital punishment ever be humane?

Life without parole

Conclusions
A personal view from a victims stance

Background.
Capital punishment is the lawful infliction of death as a punishment and since ancient
times it has been used for a wide variety of offences. The Bible prescribes death for
murder and many other crimes including kidnapping and witchcraft. By 1500 in England,
only major felonies carried the death penalty - treason, murder, larceny, burglary, rape,
and arson. From 1723, under the Waltham Black Acts, Parliament enacted many new
capital offences and this led to an increase in the number of people being put to death
each year. In the 100 years from 1740 - 1839 there were a total of up to 8753 civilian
executions in England & Wales, the peak year was 1785 with 307 as transportation was
not an option due to the American War of Independence. Remember that the population
in 1800 was just 9 million.

Reform of the death penalty began in Europe by the 1750s and was championed by
academics such as the Italian jurist, Cesare Beccaria, the French philosopher, Voltaire,
and the English law reformers, Jeremy Bentham and Samuel Romilly. They argued that
the death penalty was needlessly cruel, over-rated as a deterrent and occasionally
imposed in fatal error. Along with Quaker leaders and other social reformers, they
defended life imprisonment as a more rational alternative.
By the 1850s, these reform efforts began to bear fruit. Venezuela (1853) and Portugal
(1867) were the first nations to abolish the death penalty altogether. In the United
States, Michigan was the first state to abolish it for murder in 1847. Today, it is virtually
abolished in all of Western Europe and most of Latin America.
Britain effectively abolished capital punishment in 1965 (for the full story of abolition
click here).
The USA, together with China, Japan and many Asian and Middle Eastern countries,
plus some African states still retain the death penalty for certain crimes and impose it
with varying frequency. Click here for a detailed list of abolitionist and retentionist
countries.
Is capital punishment ethically acceptable?
The state clearly has no absolute right to put its subjects to death although, of course,
almost all countries do so in some form or other (but not necessarily by some
conventional form of capital punishment). In most countries, it is by arming their police
forces and accepting the fact that people will from time to time be shot as a result and
therefore at the state's behest.
A majority of a state's subjects may wish to confer the right to put certain classes of
criminal to death through referendum or voting in state elections for candidates
favouring capital punishment. Majority opinion in some democratic countries, including
the U.K., is still in favour of the death penalty.
It is reasonable to assume that if a majority is in favour of a particular thing in a
democracy, their wishes should be seriously considered with equal consideration given
to the downside of their views.
A fact that is conveniently overlooked by anti-capital punishment campaigners is that we
are all ultimately going to die. In many cases, we will know of this in advance and suffer
great pain and emotional anguish in the process. This is particularly true of those
diagnosed as having terminal cancer. It is apparently acceptable to be "sentenced to
death" by one's family doctor without having committed any crime at all but totally
unacceptable to be sentenced to death by a judge having been convicted of murder or
drug trafficking (the crimes for which the majority of executions worldwide are carried
out) after a fair and careful trial.
Let us examine the merits of both the pro and anti arguments.

Arguments for the death penalty.

Incapacitation of the criminal.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should
prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self
evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or
after escaping or after being released from it.
Cost.
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better
spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the
long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.
Anti-capital punishment campaigners in the U.S. cite the higher cost of executing
someone over life in prison, but this, whilst true for America, has to do with the endless
appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the U.S.
legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 12 years. In Britain in
the 20th century, the average time in the condemned cell was from 3 to 8 weeks and
only one appeal was permitted.
Retribution.
Execution is a very real punishment rather than some form of "rehabilitative" treatment,
the criminal is made to suffer in proportion to the offence. Although whether there is a
place in a modern society for the old fashioned principal of "lex talens" (an eye for an
eye), is a matter of personal opinion. Retribution is seen by many as an acceptable
reason for the death penalty according to my survey results.
Deterrence.
Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most
retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to
those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem
that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences,
there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a
deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much
more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential
criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is
committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act
as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these
circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.
Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually
site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed
and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading. Let us examine the situation in
three countries.
Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of
capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per

100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to
565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The number of killings recorded by police rose to 636 in
the 12 months to March 2011, up from 608 the previous year. The principal causes of
homicide are fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken
bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being
most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and
other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they
ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 the first year of abolition.
Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in
1995.
A total of 29 people released after being convicted of murder and six people convicted
of manslaughter, killed again between 2000/1 and 2010/11, according to figures
released by the Home Office. 13 of these committed murder, the most serious homicide
offence, and 16 committed manslaughter.
Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of life in prison for murder.
Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after
serving life were convicted of a further crime. These included two murders, one
suspected murder, one attempted murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous
bodily harm. The same document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since
January 1997 served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.
Statistics were kept for the first five years that capital punishment was suspended in
Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted
a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has
changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same
today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say
that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the
number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become
almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings,
however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child
murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and
beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with
someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in
most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims
who would have previously died from their injuries. Careful analysis of the situation in
Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point
to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders,
i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic
murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the
victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small
number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance
the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently.
For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact
with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms.

America.
In most states, other than Texas, the number of executions as compared to death
sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Of the 1099 executions carried out in the
whole of the USA from 1977 to the end of 2007, Texas accounts for 406 or 37%.
Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in
1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) - during a period of increased use of the
death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The
number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600.
America still had five times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in
1997 whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain.
How can one account for this? There are obvious cultural differences between the three
countries although all are modern and prosperous.
It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the
reduction of homicides in the US. There has been a general trend to a more punitive
society, (e.g. the "three strikes and your out" law) over this period and cities such as
New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero
tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, there has been political and economic
stability over the period and no obvious social changes. Improvements in medical
techniques have also saved many potential deaths. Various recent academic studies in
the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there.
Texas.
As stated above, Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state
(between 1982 and 2007 it executed 404 men and 2 women) and there is now clear
evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles
website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures.
Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas
In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every
100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to
5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population
increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238
murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which
had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every
5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people
or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain,
there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis,
19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims,
representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder
rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of
actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of
10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of
10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4
lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year
after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in
America.
In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week), but in 2001

only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from
40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death
sentence for every 40 murders.
Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down,
so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of
murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness
of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3
in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore
takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial
offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males
between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all
serious crimes.
Arguments against the death penalty.
There are a number of incontrovertible arguments against the death penalty.
The most important one is the virtual certainty that genuinely innocent people will be
executed and that there is no possible way of compensating them for this miscarriage of
justice. There is also another significant but much less realised danger here. The person
convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim and may even admit having
done so but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know
what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to the
skill of the prosecution and defence lawyers as to whether there will be a conviction for
murder or for manslaughter. It is thus highly probable that people are convicted of
murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter. Have a look
at the cases of James McNicol and Edith Thompson and see what you think.
A second reason, that is often overlooked, is the hell the innocent family and friends of
criminals must also go through in the time leading up to and during the execution. It is
often very difficult for people to come to terms with the fact that their loved one could be
guilty of a serious crime and no doubt even more difficult to come to terms with their
death in this form. One cannot and should not deny the suffering of the victim's family in
a murder case but the suffering of the murderer's family is surely valid too.
There must always be the concern that the state can administer the death penalty justly,
most countries have a very poor record on this. In America, a prisoner can be on death
row for many years awaiting the outcome of numerous appeals, some of which are
fatuous and filed at the last minute in order to obtain a stay of execution. Although
racism is claimed in the administration of the death penalty in America, statistics show
that white prisoners are more liable to be sentenced to death on conviction for first
degree murder and are also less likely to have their sentences commuted than black
defendants.

It must be remembered that criminals are real people too who have life and with it the
capacity to feel pain, fear and the loss of their loved ones, and all the other emotions
that the rest of us are capable of feeling. It is easier to put this thought on one side
when discussing the most awful multiple murderers but less so when discussing, say,
an 18 year old girl convicted of drug trafficking. (Singapore hanged two girls for this
crime in 1995 who were both only 18 at the time of their offences and China shot an 18
year old girl for the same offence in 1998.)
There is no such thing as a humane method of putting a person to death irrespective of
what the state may claim (see later). Every form of execution causes the prisoner
suffering, some methods perhaps cause less than others, but be in no doubt that being
executed is a terrifying ordeal for the criminal. What is also often overlooked is the
mental suffering that the criminal suffers in the time leading up to the execution. How
would you feel knowing that you were going to die tomorrow morning at 8.00 a.m.?
There may be a brutalising effect upon society by carrying out executions - this was
apparent in this country during the 17th and 18th centuries when people turned out to
enjoy the spectacle of public hanging. They still do today in those countries where
executions are carried out in public. It is hard to prove this one way or the other people stop and look at car crashes but it doesn't make them go and have an accident
to see what it is like. It would seem that there is a natural voyeurism in most people.
The death penalty is the bluntest of "blunt instruments," it removes the individual's
humanity and with it any chance of rehabilitation and their giving something back to
society. In the case of the worst criminals, this may be acceptable but is more
questionable in the case of less awful crimes.
Will Britain restore capital punishment in the future?
Support for the death penalty in Britain seems to be slowly declining although it is
supported by many young people who were not born when we still had it. In the short
term (say the next 10 years), there is no realistic chance of reinstatement, however,
despite majority public support for such a move. Reintroduction of something that has
been abolished is always much more difficult than introducing something entirely new.
Successive free votes on the issue in the House of Commons during the 1980s failed to
get anywhere near a majority for restoration. Politically it would be impossible now,
given our membership of the EU and our commitment to the European Convention on
Human Rights, both of which totally prohibit capital punishment. The EU contains no
member states that practice it and will not allow retentionist states to join. The present
Labour government is implacably opposed to capital punishment and has removed it
from the statute book for the few remaining offences for which it was still theoretically
allowed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are also against reintroduction.
There is no doubt that capital punishment is a very emotive issue and there is a strong
anti-death penalty lobby in this country who would put every obstacle in the way of its
return should it ever become likely.
There is concern at the number of convictions that are being declared unsafe by the
Courts, particularly for the most serious offences such as murder and terrorism.

Yet we live in a time of ever rising serious crime despite what the government tells us.
Will people become so fed up with escalating levels of crime and what they see in, most
cases, as derisory punishments that they will support anything that appears likely to
reduce crime and redress the balance? Or do they see the return of capital punishment
as a return to barbarity?
Should capital punishment be re-introduced in Britain?
There are very real issues of human rights that will effect us all if it were to be
reintroduced.
Will the government introduce laws that are just and contain sufficient safeguards and
will the judiciary administer them properly?
We are all potentially capable of murder (a lot of domestic murders, where one partner
murders the other during a row, are first time crimes) and, therefore, we must each
consider whether we and our loved ones are more at risk of being murdered or being
executed for committing murder.
We must also consider what the likelihood is of innocent people being executed - it is
inevitable that it will happen sooner or later.
Can the police, the courts, and the system generally be trusted to get things right on
every occasion? They never have been able to previously.
Will juries be willing to convict in capital cases? Would you like to have to make the
decision as to whether the person in the dock should live or die?
Will the government really be willing to carry out death sentences or will they find every
excuse for not doing so, thus returning to the injustices of earlier centuries?
Will executions really prove to be the deterrent that some supporters of capital
punishment expect them to be? It is unlikely the very worst murderers would be
deterred because they are typically psychopaths or of such dubious sanity that they are
incapable of rational behaviour (sometimes taking their own lives immediately after the
crime, as in the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres) Certain criminals, e.g. drug
traffickers, may be deterred because they have a clear option with defined risks but
would the person who has a violent argument with their partner give a second thought
to what will happen to them when in the heat of the moment they pick up the carving
knife?
It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect
particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial
killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least
likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use
any means to avoid conviction, e.g. intimidation of witnesses. So we go back to the
situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed. Thus a modern day Ruth Ellis
might also hang because she was sane, whilst Beverley Allitt, who murdered 4 small

children, would be reprieved because she has Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy or so

she and certain psychiatrists claim.
Can these scenarios ever be seen as justice?
Should we only execute people for the most awful multiple murders as a form of
compulsory euthanasia rather than as a punishment or should we execute all murderers
irrespective of the degree of guilt purely as a retributive punishment for taking another
person's life and in the hope of deterring others?
What about crimes such as violent rape, terrorism and drug trafficking - are these as
bad as murder? How should we punish such offences?
Should executions be carried out in such a way as to punish the criminal and have
maximum deterrent effect on the rest of us, (e.g. televised hangings). Would this be a
deterrent or merely become a morbid show for the voyeuristic?
Or should they be little more than a form of euthanasia carried out in such a way as to
remove from the criminal all physical and as much emotional suffering as possible?
Does it make any sense to imprison someone for the rest of their life or is it really more
cruel than executing them, particularly if they are young?
If we do not keep them in prison for life, will they be released to commit other dreadful
crimes? A small but significant number do.
What is the cost to society of keeping people in prison? (700.00 per week at present
for an ordinary prisoner which is around 550,000 for a typical life sentence for murder
with a minimum tariff of 15 years).
These questions need to be thought about carefully and a balanced opinion arrived at.
How do you feel about them? If you wish to share your thoughts with me send me an
email (Please include your name and age)
If the general conclusion is that capital punishment is desirable, then the first step
toward restoration is for the government to present a fully thought out set of proposals
that can be put to the people in a referendum stating precisely what offences should
carry the death penalty, how it should be carried out, etc., and what effect on crime is
expected to follow from reintroduction.
If such a referendum produced a clear yes vote, the government would have a genuine
mandate to proceed upon and could claim the support of the people, thus substantially
reducing the influence of the anti-capital punishment lobby. There should be another
referendum about 5 years later so that the effects of reintroduction could be reviewed
and voted on again. Referenda have the advantage of involving the public in the
decision making process and raising awareness through the media of the issues for and
against the proposed changes.
The alternatives.
What are the realistic alternatives to the death penalty?
Any punishment must be fair, just, adequate and most of all, enforceable. Society still
views murder as a particularly heinous crime which should be met with the most severe

punishment. Whole life imprisonment could fit the bill for the worst murders with suitable
gradations for less awful murders. Some 44 people are currently serving whole life
tariffs in the UK.
I am personally against the mandatory life sentence for murder as it fails, in my view, to
distinguish between really dreadful crimes and those crimes which, whilst still homicide,
are much more understandable to the rest of us. Therefore, it is clearly necessary to
give juries the option of finding the prisoner guilty but in a lower degree of murder, and
to give judges the ability to pass sensible, determinate sentences based upon the facts
of the crime as presented to the court.
Imprisonment, whilst expensive and largely pointless, except as means of removing
criminals from society for a given period, is at least enforceable upon anyone who
commits murder (over the age of 10 years). However, it appears to many people to be a
soft option and this perception needs to be corrected.
In modern times, we repeatedly see murderers being able to "get off" on the grounds of
diminished responsibility and their alleged psychiatric disorders or by using devices
such as plea bargaining. This tends to remove peoples' faith in justice which is very
dangerous.
Are there any other real, socially acceptable, options for dealing with murderers? One
possible solution (that would enrage the civil liberties groups) would be to have
everyone's DNA profile data-based at birth (not beyond the wit of modern computer
systems), thus making detection of many murders and sex crimes much easier. If this
was done and generally accepted as the main plank of evidence against an accused
person and a suitable, determinate sentence of imprisonment passed, involving a
sensible regime combining both punishment and treatment, it would I am sure,
considerably reduce the incidence of the most serious and most feared crimes. The
reason for this is that for most people, being caught is a far greater deterrent than some
possible, probably misunderstood punishment, e.g. "life imprisonment." Surely this has
to be better than the arbitrary taking of the lives of a tiny minority of offenders (as
happens in most countries that retain the death penalty) with all the unwanted side
effects that this has on their families and on the rest of society. It is clear that certainty of
being caught is a very good deterrent - just look at how people observe speed limits
when they see signs for speed cameras and yet break the speed limit as soon as the
risk is passed.
"Life without parole" versus the death penalty.
Many opponents of capital punishment put forward life in prison without parole as a
viable alternative to execution for the worst offenders, and surveys in America have
shown that life without parole (LWOP) enjoys considerable support amongst those who
would otherwise favour the death penalty.
However, there are drawbacks to this:

It is argued by some that LWOP is in fact a far more cruel punishment that death. This
proposition was put forward in a UK parliamentary debate by the philosopher John
Stuart Mill in the 19th century. It is interesting to note that no less than 311 prisoners
serving life sentences in Italy petitioned their government in 2007 for the right to be
executed. They cited LWOP as a living death where they died a little every day. In the
USA, as of 2009, there are over 46,000 people serving whole life sentences, of whom
2,200 were under 18 at the time they committed the crime, as US law no longer permits
the execution of minors. One might be forgiven for asking what is the point of locking a
person up to the day they die and one might wonder if it is indeed a far worse
punishment than death.
Death clearly permanently incapacitates the criminal and prevents them committing any
other offence. LWOP cannot prevent or deter offenders from killing prison staff or other
inmates or taking hostages to further an escape bid - they have nothing further to lose
by doing so and there are instances of it happening in the USA.
However good the security of a prison, someone will always try to escape and
occasionally will be successful. If you have endless time to plan an escape and
everything to gain from doing so, it is a very strong incentive.
We have no guarantee that future governments will not release offenders, who were
imprisoned years previously, on the recommendations of various professional "dogooders" who are against any punishment in the first place. Twenty or thirty years on it
is very difficult to remember the awfulness of an individual's crime and easy to claim that
they have reformed.
Myra Hindley is a prime example of this phenomenon - whilst I am willing to believe that
she changed as a person during her 37 years in prison and probably did not present
any serious risk of re-offending, one has absolutely no guarantee of this and it does not
obviate her responsibility for her crimes. Fortunately, she died of natural causes before
she could obtain the parole which I am sure she would have eventually been granted.
The Numbers Game "death versus deterrence".
If we are, however, really serious in our desire to reduce crime through harsher
punishments alone, we must be prepared to execute every criminal who commits a
capital crime irrespective of their sex, age (above the legal minimum) alleged mental
state or background. Defences to capital charges must be limited by statute to those
which are reasonable. Appeals must be similarly limited and there can be no reprieves.
We must carry out executions without delay and with sufficient publicity to get the
message across to other similarly minded people. This is similar to the situation which
obtains in China and would, if applied in Britain, undoubtedly lead to a large number of
executions to begin with until the message got through. I would estimate at least 2,000
or so in the first year if it were applied for murder, aggravated rape and drug trafficking.
This amounts to more than 7 executions every day of the year Monday through Friday.
Are we, as a modern western society, willing to do this or would we shy away from it and
return to just carrying out the occasional execution to show that we still can without any

regard for natural justice? These events will be seized upon by the media and turned
into a morbid soap opera enjoyed by a (large?) proportion of the population. (Note the
popularity in the American media of capital murder trials there.) It is doubtful whether
executions carried out on this basis will deter others from committing crimes.
For capital punishment to really reduce crime, everyone of us must realise that we will
personally and without doubt be put to death if we commit particular crimes and that
there can be absolutely no hope of reprieve.
One wonders if as many people would be willing to vote for this scenario in a
referendum when they realised the full consequences of their action.
I have no doubt that if we were to declare war on criminals in this fashion, we would see
a rapid decline in serious crime but at what cost in human terms? There will be a lot of
innocent victims - principally the families of those executed.
"Mad or Bad".
Are criminals (particularly murderers as we are discussing capital punishment) evil or
sick? This is another very important issue as it would seem hardly reasonable to punish
people who are genuinely mentally ill but more reasonable to use effective punishment
against those who are intentionally evil. As usual, as a society, we have very confused
views on this issue - there are those, notably some social workers and psychiatrists,
who seem to believe that there is no such thing as evil whilst the majority of us do not
accept that every accused person should be let off, (i.e. excused any responsibility for
their actions) due to some alleged mental or emotional condition. Will advances in
mapping the human genome over the next couple of decades allow us to predict those
people who are prone to committing violent and murderous crimes and so prevent them
before they happen?
It would seem that whilst legally and technically "sane" many criminals are in some way
abnormal and their thought processes are not like those of the rest of us. Ruth Ellis was,
in my view, a perfect case in point. She lived at a time when the death penalty was
mandatory for murder and was known to be in favour of it herself. She had two small
children and yet neither factor stopped her committing a murder which she made no
attempt to escape from or deny responsibility for, and for which she knew that she
would probably be hanged. We can only conjecture why she did murder David Blakely,
the man she loved at all, and particularly in the way she did which was much more likely
to result in her execution. Home Office psychiatrists who examined her in the
condemned cell found her to be sane according to their definition, and I have no doubt
that we would also have considered her to be sane if we had interviewed her - but she
was obviously not "normal." For a detailed account of her case and subsequent appeal
Click here.
In America the judicial system seems, on the whole, less concerned about the mental
state of condemned prisoners and are willing to execute them. Child killer, Westley Alan
Dodd, is a case in point reading his diary it is clear that he was very abnormal. There
are many other cases to choose from where the defendant's deeds are not those of a
normal person. The typical psychopath is often a person of above average intelligence
but is presently incurable and will continue to present a severe risk to society.

Will we ever find an answer to the "mad or bad" question and be able to find effective
treatment for those who turn out to be "mad?" Should we worry about the alleged
mental state of our worst criminals? These are the people who are least likely to benefit
from imprisonment or care in institutions (or worse still the community) and are most
likely to re-offend. It could, therefore, be argued that killing these people would be a
very good thing.
Capital punishment and the media.
Three hundred years ago there was no media. Newspapers first started in England
around 1725 and were expensive and of very limited circulation. In any case few
people could read at that time. So public executions were vital to show that justice had
been done and provide a deterrent to others. In particularly heinous cases of murder
the execution could be carried out near the scene of the crime so that the local people
could see the murderer punished, or the criminal could be gibbeted near the scene to
remind people of the punishment. By 1800 newspapers were more widespread and
public execution was abolished in England, Scotland and Wales in 1868. Reporters
were still allowed to witness some executions for some years afterwards, but by the
20th century, typically newspapers would merely state that so and so was executed
yesterday for the murder of at such and such prison. No details of the execution
were made available and so the story would be two paragraphs unless there was some
special feature such as a protest outside the prison. Radio and later television news
would also carry a similar brief report.
In the USA reporters are always permitted to attend executions and they receive a lot of
coverage at state level. However the media's attitude to executions varies widely
depending on the age and sex of the criminal, the type of crime and method of
execution.
Middle aged men being executed by lethal injection in say Texas for "ordinary" murders
hardly rate a paragraph in the press of other states, nowadays and do not get a mention
in the U.K. media at all. But, a woman convicted of double murder and being injected
on the same gurney gets tremendous worldwide media attention at all levels (Karla
Faye Tucker). Equally, a man being hanged in Washington or Delaware or shot by a
Utah firing squad makes international news (Westley Allan Dodd, Billy Bailey and John
Taylor). And yet (non white) women being hanged in Jordan and Singapore, the large
number of people publicly beheaded in Saudi Arabia and men and women executed by
the hundred in China make very little news. However, when a white woman is hanged
in Africa, (Mariette Bosch in Botswana) this is considered newsworthy by the British
press. The UK broadsheets ran large articles with photos of her.
Why is this? Is it a form of racism or do we not care if the execution takes place in a
Middle Eastern or Far Eastern Country? Are their criminals somehow perceived as
lesser people with less rights? The media obviously does not judge many of these
stories to be newsworthy although they are aware of them through the news wires from
those countries (which is how I know about them).
During the late 70's and early 80's when executions were rare in America, every
execution by whatever means, attracted a great deal of media interest and yet now they

are more frequent (normally averaging over one per week), the authorities sometimes
have difficulty in finding sufficient official witnesses. They also used to attract pro and
anti-capital punishment protesters in large numbers, but these seem to have dwindled
down to just a few in most cases.
I tend to think that if executions were televised, they would soon reach the same level of
dis-interest amongst the general public unless it fitted into a "special category," i.e. a
first by this or that method or a particularly interesting criminal.
In Kuwait criminals have been hanged in the yard of Nayef Palace in recent years and
once the prisoners were suspended the press and the public were allowed in to view the
hanging bodies. Photography was also allowed and photographs of the executions
appeared in the Kuwaiti media. One wonders what the deterrent effect of this. Have a
look at the article on Kuwait to learn more.
Is media coverage of executions just a morbid sideshow for some people, who deprived
of public hangings, etc., lap up every detail the media has to offer whilst the majority
ignore the not very interesting criminals who are executed by lethal injection?
Lethal injection, as my own survey has shown, is perceived by most respondents as the
least cruel method - probably because it is the least gruesome method. The less the
public interest, the easier the process becomes - a state of affairs that suits
governments of many countries and states in America very well.
Probably the majority of people don't much care either way and would rather watch
football! They may vaguely support capital punishment but do not wish to be or feel
involved.
The Future.
I wonder if in another hundred years we will, as a world still have capital punishment at
all or for that matter prisons, or whether we will have evolved technological means of
detecting and correcting potential criminals before they can actually commit any crime.
It seems to me that we must first find this technology and then educate public opinion
away from its present obsession with punishment by demonstrating that the new
methods work, pointing out the futility and waste of present penal methods, especially
imprisonment and execution.
Punishment will remain popular with the general public (and therefore politicians) as
long as there are no viable alternatives and as long as crime continues its present
inexorable rise. Logically, however, punishment (of any sort) cannot be the future - we
must progress and therefore we will.
Until this utopian point is reached, which I believe it ultimately will be, I think that we will
see the use of the death penalty continuing and its reintroduction in countries that had
previously abolished it. Most of the Caribbean countries are trying to get it reintroduced.
It is clear that in strict penal societies such as Singapore, that the crime rate is much
lower than in effectively non-penal societies such as Britain. It is, therefore, logical to

assume that Singaporean style policies are likely to be adopted by more countries as
their crime rates reach unacceptable proportions.
I do not believe that the majority of people who support capital punishment or other
severe punishments, do so for sadistic reasons but rather out of a feeling of desperation
that they and their families are being overwhelmed by the rising tide of crime which they
perceive the government is doing too little to protect them from. I think there would, in
the long term, be sufficient support for non-penal methods of dealing with criminals if
these were proved to be effective.
A particular danger in our society is that we continue to do little or nothing effective
about persistent juvenile offenders. If the death penalty were re introduced, we may be
consigning many of these to their death at the age of 18, having never previously given
them any discipline whatsoever. Surely execution should not be both the first and last
taste of discipline a person gets and yet as we allow so many youngsters to run wild
and commit ever more serious crimes unpunished, public opinion and thus political
expediency makes it more and more likely. Nicholas Ingram, who went to the electric
chair in the American state of Georgia in 1995, is a perfect example of this
phenomenon.
We should start by introducing stricter discipline from "the bottom up," i.e. start with
unruly children at school and on the streets and progress through young thugs and
older thugs before we think about restoring capital punishment. This way, we might
bring up a generation or two of disciplined people who might not need the threat of
execution to deter them from committing the most serious crimes.
It is noticeable that whilst Singapore retains and uses the death penalty, it also has
severe punishments for all other offences, including caning for many offences
committed by young men who are usually the most crime prone group. Thus, Singapore
provides discipline at all levels in its society and has the sort of crime figures that most
countries can only dream of.
Pain and suffering is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment?
The Eighth Amendment to the American Constitution prohibits the imposition of "cruel
and unusual punishments" and the "infliction of unnecessary pain in the execution of the
death sentence". Whilst this would seem reasonable it never intended this amendment
to guarantee a pain free death. When the Constitution was written execution by
hanging was specified and at the time this meant the short or no drop method as the
concept of a measured drop hadn't been invented. In the Supreme Court case of Rees
v Baze in 2007, Ralph Baze challenged the lethal injection procedure in the state of
Kentucky which was found to be constitutional by the court because it did not
intentionally cause pain.
Obviously one cannot be inside the brain of a person as they are being out to death to
know what, if any, pain they are feeling. All we can do is to observe their reaction to the
process and carry out an autopsy afterwards. If for instance in a measured drop

hanging, there is no obvious struggling or movement after the drop and the autopsy
finds that the neck has been broken and the spinal cord severed then it is reasonable to
conclude that the person died a pain free death. In lethal injection if the person appears
to lapse into unconsciousness within seconds of the commencement of the injection of
the fast acting barbiturate that is normally the first chemical injected in the US we
conclude the same.
It is equally clear that when any form of execution is bungled the prisoner often exhibits
signs of great suffering.
The time taken in the actual preparations prior to the execution, (e.g. insertion of the
catheters or the shaving of the head and legs for electrocution), must also cause great
emotional suffering which again may far outweigh the physical pain of the actual
moment of death which at least has an end. Remember that in 20th century Britain, it
took typically around 15 seconds to carry out a hanging, whereas it can take 20 to 45
minutes when all goes well to carry out a lethal injection. It sometimes takes much
longer when a vein cannot be found. Hanging may cause a degree of physical pain, but
surely being executed over a period of half an hour or more must cause acute mental
agony.
We have looked at the pain caused by execution but what of the suffering?
One issue rarely addressed is the length of time prisoners spend in the condemned cell
or on death row in tiny cells in virtual solitary confinement prior to execution and the
uncertainty of eventual execution as various stays are granted and then overturned
(particularly in America, where it is an average of over 12 years in 2006, the last year for
which statistics are available but can sometimes be over twenty years, as is the case in
California).
In Britain when we had the death penalty, three clear Sundays had to elapse between
sentence and execution, although this period could increase somewhat if the prisoner
appealed. In the US the person will have their execution date set often three months in
advance and have to deal with the approach of it. In Japan they are informed within the
last hour or so of their life so that they never know when they will be taken to the
gallows. In my view, the mental anguish caused by this part of the process is a far
greater cause of suffering both to them and their families than that caused by the
physical pain produced by the eventual execution. This view was shared by the British
Privy Council which is still the final appeal body for many of the Caribbean countries
and who ruled that if executions had not been carried out within five years after the
death sentence then the person must be reprieved.
Can capital punishment ever be "humane"?
I have never personally believed that any form of death, let alone execution, is either
instant or painless, so which method of capital punishment should a modern "civilised"
society use?
Should our worst criminals be given a completely pain free death even if the technology
exists to provide one, or should a degree of physical suffering be part of the
punishment?

Whatever method is selected should have some deterrent value whilst not deliberately
causing a slow or agonising death.
British style, hanging is an extremely quick process that is designed to cause instant
and deep unconsciousness and also benefits from requiring simple and thus quick
preparation of the prisoner. It also seems to have substantial deterrent value.
Lethal injection may appear to be more humane than other methods to those who have
to administer and witness it, but it is a very slow process. It is essential that the catheter
actually goes into a vein rather than through it or round it if the prisoner is to die a pain
free death. If it doesnt, then the person may suffer a great deal of pain but will be
unable to communicate this due to the paralysing effects of the second drug. The
biggest single objection to lethal injection is the length of time required to prepare the
prisoner, which can take from 20 to 45 minutes depending on the ease of finding a vein
to inject into.
The gas chamber seems to possess no obvious advantage as the equipment is
expensive to buy and maintain, the preparations are lengthy, adding to the prisoner's
agonies, and it always causes a slow and cruel death. It is also dangerous to the staff
and witnesses.
Electrocution can cause a quick death when all goes well, but seems to have a greater
number of technical problems than any other method, often with the most gruesome
consequences. (This may in part be due to the age of the equipment - in most case 7090 years old!)
Shooting by a single bullet in the back of the head seems greatly preferable to shooting
by a firing squad in that it is likely to cause instant unconsciousness followed quickly by
death rather than causing the prisoner to bleed to death, often whilst still conscious.
It is easy to condemn capital punishment as barbaric, but is spending the rest of one's
life in prison so much less cruel to the prisoner or is it merely a way of salving society's
conscience and removing the unpleasantness for the staff and officials?
For a full description of each of these methods click on the hyperlinks above.
Conclusion.
At the end of the debate, we would seem to be left with three options.
1) Not to have the death penalty and the genuine problems it causes and continue to
accept the relatively high levels of murder and other serious crimes that we presently
have.
2) Reintroduce capital punishment for just the "worst" murderers which would at least be
some retribution for the terrible crimes they have committed and would permanently
incapacitate them. It would also save a small amount of money each year which could,

perhaps, be spent on the more genuinely needy. This option is unlikely to reduce overall
crime levels.
3) Reintroduce the death penalty in the really strict format outlined above and see a
corresponding drop in serious crime whilst accepting that there will be a lot of human
misery caused to the innocent families of criminals and that there will be the occasional,
if inevitable, mistakes.
A personal view from a victims stance.
Click here to read a personal view from the stance of a victim, Ali Stein whose blog is
linked to with her permission.
The death penalty should be abolished because it is a barbaric form of punishment which should not be
allowed in the United States, which is supposedly one of the most civil nations in the world. It should also
be eradicated due to the fact that it defies the U.S. Constitution, which most Americans hold sacred. The
death penalty would not obtain its goal even if it remained legal in the U.S. Capital Punishment is brutal
and immoral and should not be considered part of our criminal justice system.
Death Penalty The debate on if the death penalty is ethical is something that is a long-standing debate
depending on what side of the issue you are on. Both sides of this issue have their points yet there are
always things about the issue that kept it in the forefront. The right to life is taken for granted without
thinking twice, however, due to the laws of this country the freedom we take for granted can be taken
away with the mistakes we made. Looking at both sides of the issue gives insight on why this remains a
relevant and will continue being debated not only civilly, but also in many appeals in our court system
today.... [tags: capital punishment, death penalty] Death Penalty: Ineffective, Inhumane, and Immoral
-The Ethical Ambiguity Concerning the Death Penalty - The question of ethical behavior is an age-old
conundrum. The prevailing issue with ethics is that it is extremely difficult to measure. A persons moral
fabric is largely based on their particular personality traits, as well as, their psychological state and
environmental influences. Many believe that ethics are tied to a persons conscience, and that good
morals are often facilitated by a strong religious background. Furthermore, a persons moral development
can be linked to their economic situation and cultural differences.... [tags: capital punishment, death
penalty]
The debate over capital punishment has been raging on for countless number of years. Capital
punishment has been used for thousands of years due to the physiological fear it inflicts on the people
who witness and learn about the death penalty. The use of this punishment has helped to reduce crime
and alter the minds of future criminals to deter them against committing heinous crimes such as murder,
treason, espionage, terrorism and in some cases aggravated kidnapping. Advocates say it deters crime
while abolitionists say it is unconstitutional

In several nations, many people believe that the upsurge of crime is inextricably linked with
the abandon of the use of death penalty. Thus, it is proposed that the governments should
once again legalize capital punishment for the sake of the whole society. Nevertheless, as
there are different arguments for and against this implementation, this essay will scrutinize
both sides of this issue.
On the one hand, advocates of the above proposal claim that the reintroduction of death
penalty is generally beneficial. Firstly, it could be regarded as a deterrent to the criminals.
No doubt capital punishment is the highest sentence that murderers have to face, and this
will provoke fears in people who are about to commit crime. The crime rates, as a
consequence, will decline which confirms the effectiveness of this method. Secondly, if
prisoners who commit capital offences are released after being imprisoned, they are likely to
take vengeance on the innocent. It is true that numerous villains cannot turn into good
people, continuing to harm others and therefore, death penalty should be put forward.
On the other hand, opponents may argue that the reuse is problematic in and of itself. A
plausible reason is that in some cases, crime is committed unconciously in the name of self
protection. Admittedly, people have the right to defense and it would be unfair for them to
be found guilty. They deserve special care from specialists in order to come back to their
normal lives after such accidents. Besides this, other factors also contribute to the recent
increase in violence. A lack of civic education in the curriculum, the widespread use of guns
are prime examples of this. Hence, re-introducing capital punishment might be unnecessary
since other measures are more feasible.
In conclusion, just as a coin has two side, so does this practice. The governments should
accordingly pay further attention to this tendency.

Search Help
Search

HANSARD 18032005 1950s 1955 February 1955 10 February 1955 Commons

Sitting

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL

COMMISSION'S REPORT)

HC Deb 10 February 1955 vol 536 cc2064-183 2064

3.34 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major
Gwilym Lloyd-George)
I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital
Punishment (Cmd. 8932). I am sure that the House will wish me, in opening this debate on the
Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, first to express our gratitude to the
members of the Commission for their long and arduous labours and for the comprehensive
Report which they have presented. Whatever view we may take about particular
recommendations of the Commission, I think we must all appreciate the industry and the
patience with which Sir Ernest Gowers and his colleagues have examined every aspect of this
most difficult question, and the time which they devoted to visiting other countries and collecting
information which might throw light on the problem. We are greatly indebted to the Commission
for its public-spirited work and for its lucid Report. It is a comprehensive storehouse of
information which is of the utmost value to any student of the problem of capital punishment.
The House will recall the circumstances in which the Royal Commission was set up in 1949 by
the then Government, after the debates on capital punishment during the passage of the Criminal
Justice Bill through Parliament in 1948, and I should like to remind the House of the terms of
reference of the Commission, which were as follows: To consider and report whether liability
under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited
or modified, and, if so, to what extent and by what means, for how long and under what
conditions persons who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment should be
detained, and what changes in the existing law and the prison system would be required; and to
inquire into and take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice
may throw light on these questions. I think it is important that, in discussing the
recommendations of the Commission, we should keep in mind those terms 2065 of reference and
the fact that they were designed to preclude the Commission from considering whether capital
punishment should be retained or abolished.
The question which the Commission was, in effect, required to consider was whether any
practicable halfway house could be found between the existing law, under which every person
convicted of murder, except a person under 18 or an expectant mother, must be sentenced to
death, and the abolition of the death penalty. The Commission was also asked by the then Prime
Minister to consider whether any change should be made in the method of execution, and by the
Home Office to examine some subsidiary questions which did not strictly fall within its terms of
reference, such as the present requirement that notices should be posted on the prison gate before
and after an execution.
The Government have given very careful consideration to the recommendations made by the
Commission; and I think it will be convenient to the House if, at the outset of this debate, I give
some indication of the provisional views which the Government have formed. I use the word
"provisional" advisedly. The Government have not as yet come to any final conclusion about the

major proposals of the Commission. They propose to examine them again in the light of the
debate this afternoon, and they will be very ready to give full weight to the views expressed, and
the arguments put forward, by hon. Members.
The recommendations of the Commission cover a very wide field, but there are three which are
of outstanding importance. The first is that the statutory age limit below which the sentence of
death may not be imposed should be raised from 18 to 21. The second is that in all other cases
the jury should be given discretion to decide whether there are such extenuating circumstances as
to justify substituting the sentence of imprisonment for life for the sentence of death. The third is
that the test of criminal responsibility laid down in England by the M'Naghten Rules should be
wholly abrogated and that the jury should be left to determine, unfettered by any formula,
whether at the time of the act the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind, or was
mentally deficient, to such a degree that he ought not to 2066 be held responsible. Of these three
recommendations, the first and the third were not unanimous, but were supported only by a
majority of the Commission; while the secondas I shall point out later in more detailis put
forward in qualified terms which fall far short of a clear recommendation. I should like to say
something about each of these three main recommendations.
With regard to the first, that is, the age limit, the Commission recommend the raising of the age
limit by a majority of onesix to five. The main argument on which the recommendation of the
majority is based is the view that persons under 21 cannot be regarded as fully mature and,
however heinous their crimes, are often capable of reformation. The minority, on the other hand,
while they recognise that a youth who commits a murder at the age of 19 or 20 may be capable
of reform, and that in such a case reasons for clemency should always be sought and will often
be found, take the view that the right course is to consider each case individually on its merits
and not to exclude the operation of the death penalty by a rigid and arbitrary rule restricted to a
particular age.
Like the minority, and everyone else, the Government share the natural desire to spare a young
life wherever possible. But they are also disposed to agree with the minority that there are very
strong objections to raising the age limit, and, in particular, that it would be dangerous and
inopportune to do so at a time when crimes of violence on the part of persons between 17 and 21
are, unfortunately, so prevalent.
There has recently been a welcome decline in the volume of indictable crime generally, but the
statistics of offences of violence against the person are less encouraging. In 1938, the number of
persons between the ages of 17 and 21 who were found guilty of such offences was 163; in 1948,
that number increased to 405; in 1951, it went up to 492; and in 1953, the figure was 603. The
Government cannot think that this is a time when it would be right to remove a sanction which
may deter such young men from committing murder.
Mr. Frederick Lee (Newton)
It would appear that there is a contradiction in what the right hon. and gallant Gentle- 2067 man
is saying. He assured the House that the Government have not actually made up their mind. If
that be the case, how can he tell us that the Government consider, even if they agreed to it, that

raising the age limit may cause certain things to happen? Surely the consequence of that is to say
that the Government are not prepared, at this stage, to agree to the abolition of the death penalty
at all.
Major Lloyd-George
As I said at the beginning, the Government have come to provisional conclusions on the three
main recommendations, but they will take account of anything which is said in the House today.
I made it perfectly clear that their conclusions were not final, but provisional.
Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)?
This is rather an important question. I do not quite understand why the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman should wish to retain the death penalty for a class of youth upon a basis of statistics
which seems to show that that death penalty has been completely unsuccessful in restraining
them.
Major Lloyd-George
I was just pointing out that at a time when the figure is increasing it is not in the opinion of the
Governmentalthough the question may be argued both waysa good idea to remove
something which may be a deterrrent. Let me now go on to give the provisional conclusions of
the Government on the other main recommendations.
On the second of the three main recommendations, which proposes the vesting of discretion as to
sentence in the jury, the Commission expresses the view that the outstanding defect of the law of
murder is that it provides a single punishment for a crime widely varying in culpability. The
Commission goes on to say that what it refers to as this "rigidity" of the law is at present
mitigated mainly by the use of the prerogative of mercy, a method which it regards as open to
criticism on the ground that it leaves to the Executive a task which ought to be performed by the
courts and it has, therefore, sought for some other method of doing what is now done by the
exercise of the prerogative on the advice of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for
Scotland.
2068 The Commission rejects proposals for the division of murder into two degrees, on the
ground that it is impossible to frame a satisfactory definition of murder in the first degree as no
legal definition can cover all the multifarious considerations, relating to the offender as well as to
his crime, which ought to be taken into account (and are at present taken into account by the
Secretary of State) in deciding whether the supreme penalty should be exacted in each individual
case. The arguments of the Commission against the introduction of two degrees are closely
reasoned and they seem to the Government to be convincing. The Commission goes on to argue
that the only practicable way of limiting the present liability to suffer capital punishment would
be to leave the present scope and definition of murder unaltered and to give either to the Judge or
to the jury a discretion to decide in each particular case, in the light of all the information before
the court, whether the sentence of death is appropriate, and, if it appears to them that it is not, to
impose or to recommend a lesser punishment. It rejects, for reasons which seem to be good and

sufficient, the proposal that such a discretion should be vested in the trial judge. It concludes that
the alternative of entrusting such a power to the jury is said to work well on the whole in
countries where is has been adopted, and that, if it were adopted in Great Britain, a workable
procedure could be devised, and that this is the only practicable way of enabling the courts,
instead of the Executive, to take account of extenuating circumstances so as to correct the
rigidity which is the outstanding defect of the existing law. The Commission addand here
again I think it important to quote the actual words of the Report: We recognise that the
disadvantages of a system of 'jury discretion' may be thought to outweigh its merits. If this view
were to prevail, the conclusion would seem to be inescapable that in this country a stage has been
reached where little more can be done effectively to limit the liability to suffer the death penalty,
and that the issue is now whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished. The House
will observe that this does not amount to a positive recommendation, but only to saying that, if it
is thought essential to find a halfway house between the existing law and the abolition of the
death penalty, all the other proposals considered by the Commission must clearly be 2069
rejected and this is the only proposal which merits serious consideration. This proposal was the
subject of a debate in another place in December, 1953. It was severely criticised by
distinguished speakers with long experience on the Bench, including the Lord Chief Justice, and
by three former Home Secretaries.
The most serious of the many objections raised to the proposal were, briefly, these. First, that it
was inconsistent with the traditional conception of the functions of the jury, whose duty has
always been strictly limited to deciding the issue of guilt or innocence, and who have had no
responsibility for deciding the appropriate sentence; secondly, that it would impose on them a
responsibility which they were not equipped to discharge, since they would never have such full
information about every aspect of the offence and of the offender as is available o the Secretary
of State, and, even if they had, would lack experience of other murder cases, and would,
therefore, have no general standard by which to assess the culpability of the accused in the
particular case before them; thirdly, that it was not fair to ask 12 citizens selected at random,
whose duty was already onerous and arduous enough, to bear this additional burden; and, finally,
that it would lead to inequalities and anomalies in a field where the interests of justice
imperatively demand the maintenance of a uniform standard.
The Commission itself recognised that the disadvantage of the proposal might be held to
outweigh its merits, and stated the formidable objections very fully in its Report. The
Government feel little doubt that it is unworkable and that it ought to be rejected.
Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
Although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the Commission's recommendation does
not amount, in the alternative, to a recommendation to abolish the capital penalty altogether,
would he make it clearas I am sure he agrees about thisthat that is because the Commission
was precluded by its terms of reference from making any recommendation either way?
Major Lloyd-George

I thought that I had made that perfectly clear from the beginning. That was what the Commission
thought was the proper halfway house, and the only one which it could 2070 think of. I thought
that I had made it clear that it was precluded from making any recommendation.
There is one further point which I should like to make. It was widely suggested at the time of the
publication of the Report that the Commission had said that the adoption of this proposal was the
only alternative to the abolition of capital punishment. This is not so. What it said was that if this
proposal, which it regarded as the only possible halfway house, was not found acceptable, then
the search for a halfway house should be abandoned.
I pass to the third of the major recommendations, which relates to the criterion of criminal
responsibility in cases where a defence of insanity is raised. The view taken by the majority of
the Commission was that the present criterion contained in the M'Naghten Rules was so
defective, in the light of modern medical knowledge, that it ought to be changed, and that the
best course would be, not to frame a new and more up-to-date criterion, but to dispense with any
criterion and simply leave it to the jury to decide whether, at the time of the act, the accused was
suffering from disease of the mind or mental deficiency to such a degree that he ought not to be
held responsible.
The grounds on which this proposal was based appear to be that any attempt to reduce the
criterion of responsibility to words was, in the view of the majority, likely to be schematic and
inadequate, and will, in any event, be irrelevant, because, in practice, juries ignore the
M'Naghten Rules or any similar formula and simply ask themselves the question, "Is he mad or
not?" Three members of the CommissionDr. Radzinowicz, Dame Florence Hancock and Mr.
Macdonalddissociated themselves from this recommendation on the ground that, while the
M'Naghten Rules were in some respects inadequate, it had not been shown that some criterion
was not needed. In their view the advantage of a formula was that it served to limit the arbitrary
element and to promote uniformity, as well as to help the jury to decide between conflicting
views, whereas to have no formula at all would leave the decision, on which a man's life might
often depend, to the uncertain variations of ethical standards and emotional reaction which might
2071 influence the minds of members of the jury.
These members, though they fully recognised that no formula could be perfect, thought that the
objections to the M'Naghten Rules as they now stood would be substantially met by the adoption
of a formula set out in paragraph 317 of the Report, which the majority of the Commission
favoured to the extent of regarding it as a second best to dispensing with a formula altogether.
The Government have considered this question very closely. They feel little doubt that the view
of the minority, that in England some formula is essential, is to be preferred. They recognise that
the M'Naghten Rules are open to criticism, but they also note that the Commission itself
recognised that the theoretical defects of the Rules lead to little hardship or injustice in practice.
They are impressed by the difficulty of framing a satisfactory amendment of the Rules, and by
the wide differences of opinion on this issue among doctors, lawyers, and the general public,
which were reflected in the Report of the Commission. In the light of all these considerations the

view which they are disposed to take is that no advantage would be gained by disturbing the
present position and that it is better to leave matters as they are.
Having stated the provisional view of the Government on these three major recommendations, I
should like briefly to refer to the other recommendations of the Commission, which, as I have
said, cover a wide field. The most important, I think, are the recommendations that the doctrine
of "constructive malice" in English law should be abolished, with the proviso that principals in
the second degree and accessories before the fact to felony should remain liable to be convicted
of murder if the principal in the first degree is so liable; the recommendation that the law relating
to provocation should be amended to allow a jury to return a verdict of manslaughter
notwithstanding that provocation may have been by words alone; and the recommendation that a
person who aids abets or instigates the suicide of another personthat is, the survivor of a
suicide pactshould be guilty only of that offence, and not of murder, and 2072 should be
subject to a maximum sentence of imprisonment for life.
All these recommendations would involve legislation. Some of them, I think it will be agreed,
are not free from controversy, and some, at any rate, might be useful amendments of the law. The
Government will be glad to take into account any opinions which hon. Members may express on
these proposals today.
There are also a good many recommendations, especially with regard to the treatment of
prisoners awaiting trial or under sentence of death or serving life sentences, which would not
require legislation and which could be given effect by administrative action. A number of these
recommendations have been accepted in principle and effect is being given to them already so far
as is possible, although improvements in prison conditions, I am sorry to say, are inevitably
limited at the present time by shortage of staff and unsatisfactory buildings.
The only recommendation of this kind to which I think I need refer is the recommendation that
the mental state of every prisoner charged with murder should be examined by two doctors, of
whom one at least should be an outside psychiatrist and the other usually an experienced member
of the prison service. This recommendation has been accepted, and it is now the practice, where
there is reason to believe that any question of difficulty is likely to arise in connection with the
mental state of the accused, for steps to be taken to consult a psychiatrist from outside the prison
service.
So far, I have spoken of the recommendations made in the Report of the Royal Commission. But
I recognise that, if the proposal to give discretion to the jury finds little favour, the view may
well be taken that, as the Commission itself says, we are driven back on the major question
whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished.
There are two Amendments on the Order Paper which ask the House to express the opinion that,
for a period of five years, persons convicted of murder should be sentenced to imprisonment for
life, and that legislation to that end should be introduced forthwith. I do not know whether the
Amendments will be called.
Mr. Speaker

Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were 2073 to say that I have selected
the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S.
Silverman) and other hon. Members, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and
to add: taking note of the Report of the Royal Commission, is of opinion that for a period of five
years persons convicted of murder in the United Kingdom should be sentenced, in place of the
death penalty, to imprisonment for life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to
introduce legislation to that end.
Major Lloyd-George
In that case, Sir, perhaps I may be allowed to deal with itI am sure the House will be glad to
have an expression of opinion on that pointbut before I do so I should like, with the permission
of the House, to deal very briefly with my personal position in this matter.
I have always taken the view that, if a satisfactory alternative could be found, I should welcome
the abolition of capital punishmentand, when I say satisfactory, I mean satisfactory as a
deterrent and also something that is satisfactory to the public consciencebut that, until it was
clearly established that such an alternative existed, the death penalty must remain and must be
carried out in appropriate cases.
When the Criminal Justice Bill was before the House in 1948, I voted for the scheme suspending
the death penalty for five years, and I tell the House frankly that, in doing so, I was very largely
influenced by the statement made towards the close of the debate that Sir Alexander Paterson,
who was one of the most enlightened Prison Commissioners, had changed his views on this issue
towards the end of his life. It affected me, and it affected a good many other people, too. The
statement was refuted a few days later by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
There can, I think, be no doubt that, when Sir Alexander told the Select Committee in 1930 that,
in his view, life imprisonment would not be a tolerable alternative to the death penalty, he was
giving his personal opinion, not merely the opinion of the Home Office, and that this remained
his opinion until the end.
The views which I have consistently held have been reinforced by my experience at the Home
Office, with the responsibility for the maintenance of law and 2074 order in this country; and I
must add that the views that I shall express are the views of the Government.
The Government are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment, for three reasons. First,
although there may be differences of opinionand, of course, there areabout the deterrent
value of the death penalty in general and in particular cases or types of cases, they are not
disposed to reject the evidence of many experienced persons that it is a uniquely effective
deterrent to professional criminals. In 1948, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South
Shields told the House that the Government could not advise them to dispense with this sanction
at that time in view of the grave increase in crime and especially in crimes of violence. Since
then, there has been a fall in the total volume of crime, but this is largely due to a decrease in
offences against property, and, since 1948, there has been a continued increase in sexual offences

and offences of violence against the person. In these circumstances, the Government cannot think
that it would be right now to abandon the sanction of the death penalty.
Secondly, although the Government have carefully studied the views of the Royal Commission
on the question of imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty, they are not convinced
that the detention of some murderers for very long periodsI must underline, for very long
periodsand possibly for life, whether in an ordinary prison or in special institutions for
mentally abnormal prisoners, would not give rise to much more serious difficulty than the
Commission expects.
Some of the most heinous murderers are mentally abnormal, and it may be that they could
properly be detained in a special institution for long periods, but manysuch as poisonersare
mentally normal and would have to be detained in prison for a very long time, even for life. It is
unlikely that such men would be suitable for detention in an "open" prison, and their detention
for more than 20 years in the conditions of a closed prison would be likely to lead to serious
deterioration, as well as causing grave problems of security.
Thirdly, irrespective of these considerations, the Government have no doubt that it would be
entirely wrong to abolish 2075 capital punishment unless there were clearly overwhelming
public sentiment in favour of this change. The Government have no reason to think that public
opinion is in favour of abolition, or of suspension. Indeed, they believe that the contrary is true.
The Amendment which is to be called proposes that the death penalty should not be abolished,
but should be suspended for five years. I should like to say a word about this proposal. The
Government take the view that the suggestion that the operation of the death penalty should be
suspended for five years is entirely misconceived. Such a period would be much too short to
enable Parliament to form a reliable judgment of the effects of the change. Moreover, if the
experiment proved unsatisfactory, a difficult and confused situation might arise.
The suspension of the penalty would shift the onus of effecting a change in the law from those
who propose abolition to those who proposed restoration of the penalty. Even if this were
necessary and justified, it might be difficult to secure the passage of legislation to this end. In
effect, therefore, such a "trial period" would be likely to prejudice the whole future consideration
of the question, and. in fact, mean the permanent abolition of capital punishment under the guise
of what purported to be an experiment. The Government have no doubt that if a change in the
law were to be made, the right course would be to face the issue squarely and to abolish the death
penalty outright rather than to purport to suspend it for an experimental period.
The question of capital punishment is one on which strong conscientious feelings are held and
which it is proper to leave to a free vote, but it is my duty to tell the House that if the
Amendment were to be pressed to a Division the Government could not advise hon. Members to
vote for it.
Before I sit down, may I repeat what I said earlier in my speech, that while the Government have
come to the provisional conclusions which I have stated on the Commission's principal

proposals, we shall listen very carefully to all that is said today and we shall wish to take full
account of the views expressed in this House.
2076
Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)
May I ask the Home Secretary one question? As to the second ground of objection which the
Government hold, what is the position about murderers who are now reprieved? If the decision
about long terms of imprisonment provides such difficulties in the mind of the Government,
what is the position about murderers who are now reprieved? What is their fate? It cannot be an
insuperable objection that the future of these men is full of difficulty. I should like the views of
the Home Secretary on this matter.
Major Lloyd-George
I do not want to go into that at great length now, because my right hon. and learned Friend the
Attorney-General will probably deal with it, but the hon. and learned Member will appreciate
that there are peoplethis is the object certainly of the Home Secretary and it is supported by
everybodywho, it is hoped, can be rehabilitated and made decent members of society; that is
one of the most hopeful things that we have in this world. But there are other people, the hon.
and learned Member will realise, whom it would not be safe to let loose on society. Those are the
people who would set us a great problem. I am satisfied that it would be a problem, and an
extremely difficult one.
4.12 p.m.
Mr. Ede (South Shields)
I am quite sure that the House will recognise that, just as the Home Secretary found himself in
some personal difficulty at one stage of his speech, I too have a past in this matter. I shall
endeavour to discharge the task that now falls on me as openly and fearlessly as the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman did in explaining his personal position in the matter.
I join with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in expressing the thanks, I am quite sure, of
every law-abiding citizen for the great care with which the members of the Royal Commission
conducted the task that His late Majesty placed upon them of holding their inquiry, framing their
Report, and making recommendations. The document that they signed will remain for a very
long time as a mine of information to be argued about and to be considered, not merely by people
of this country but by people in other States who may have to consider the same problem.
2077 The Royal Commission's recommendations are framed in such a way as to enable us to get
clearly the exact position that we have to face in all the phases of this subject all the while that
capital punishment remains. The Commission dealt with all the things that come on to the Home
Secretary's table when a capital case is submitted to him for his consideration, and as far as am
concerned no words of praise and thanks can be too high for those distinguished men and women

who spent a very long time in considering these matters and who produced the Report for us. I
join whole-heartedly in what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said.
The Home Secretary dealt with the Government's provisional conclusions on three of the
outstanding matters, all of which we debate at the moment on the assumption that capital
punishment remains. I take it that it will be better to pursue that course, so that when you call the
Amendment that you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, we can then go on to consider, with the other
matters cleared out of the way, the subject which, I am quite sure, is uppermost in hon. Members'
minds. It is only right that we should give some consideration to these matters.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the question of the statutory age limit, the giving
of a discretion to the jury and the future of the M'Naghten Rules as the three subjects on which
the Government had reached what he called provisional conclusions. As I gather, on those three
matters the provisional conclusions of the Government are that on each of them the existing
conditions should continue.
I admit that on 14th April, 1948, at the opening of my speech, I said: We believe that the time
is not ripe for undertaking this particular reform. I do not myself believe that public opinion in
the country is in favour of this Clause at this time." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1948; Vol.
449, c. 1083.] As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, a speech made later by my hon. and
learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in which the authority of Sir Alexander
Paterson was thrown against the views that I was advancing, had an obvious impression on the
House. Such of us as were there that evening will admit that it was one of 2078 those occasions
when the kind of gasp went round the House that indicated that considerable weight had been
given to the refutation. I have said that because I want to be quite as frank to the House as the
right hon. and gallant Gentleman has been.
There has been this amazing piece of evidence about the effect of punishment on crime generally
in this country that was part of the same Act of Parliament. We abolished flogging for certain
offences. The offences for which a man could be flogged in this country were always most
severely limited. Rape was not punishable by flogging. It was only robbery with violence and
two or three other small crimes, like setting fire to one of H.M. dockyards.
Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)
Organising the workers.
Mr. Ede
The word "small" was, I admit, inappropriate. What I ought to have said was "infrequent
crimes."
There was one amazing thing connected with the profession of horse knackers, which had
become infrequent because the trade in horse flesh at that time did not pursue the lines that it had
done in previous years, when it was a fairly frequent offence. Another of the offences was living
on the immoral earnings of a prostitute. Flogging had not been very frequently employed in that

connection for a good many years. We repealed that. The House did not divide against that repeal
until, in another place, the Clause was altered and came back to us on Amendment. Even then, a
large number of Members on both sides of the House voted in favour of the repeal of flogging.
While it is true, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that crimes of violence have
increased, the astounding thing is that crimes of violence which were previously punished by
flogging have decreased, and it is crimes of violence that were never punished by flogging, in
any time that we need take account of, which have increased. The prophecies that were made in
another place that this would lead to a great increase in crimes for which flogging was the
punishment have been completely disproved.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman rested his case very largely on crimes of people between, I
think he said, 17 and 2079 21. It is a group of people the members of which, at every stage when
they were younger, were a matter of serious concern. It is a particular group which very largely
suffered from the influences of the uncivilised conditions during the war and the years
immediately following. There is no proof at the momentindeed, the proof is all the other way
that their successors at their earlier ages are as prone to juvenile deliquency as they were. In
fact, juvenile delinquency is falling to such an extent, that one of the problems, which the right
hon. and gallant Gentleman has to deal with, is redundant approved schools.
I hope we may take heart from that in the belief that the traditional good sense and good
behaviour of ordinary British citizens are now being restored, and that we are recovering from
some of the inevitable effects of the war years. As this group came into the picture in their later
years, it was to be expected that there would be an increase in violent crimes. It is an increasing
commentary that this increase has not been in the crimebecause really there is only one crime
that we need take into considerationfor which the severe penalty of flogging was abolished. I,
therefore, am myself not prepared, without a great deal more consideration, to agree that we
should pay too much attention to what happens to those in a particular age group who have been
difficult in the earlier age stages of their lives.
Now we come to the question of jury discretion. I am bound to say that when I read the
Commission's recommendation I had an instinctive feeling of revolt against it. I have not myself
been convinced that we can make it workable. It would after all prolong the agony for the jury,
and would make a further special demand on the powers of the jury to give continuous
consideration to the aftermath of hearing the evidence in cases like this.
I wonder what goes on inside the jury room. I was once foreman of a coroner's jury. I have sat at
quarter sessions and wondered by what processes jurors have, on occasion, managed to evade the
specific hints which have been dropped to them by the chairman in his summing up. But I had a
little enlightenment as to what happened, because, on at least two, and, I think, three occasions, I
had 2080 a letter from a juror after I had announced my decision about a recommendation.
The juror said, "You have let me down. I stood out for a long time against a verdict of guilty.
Then the foreman said, 'We have been here a long time and you are the only person standing out.
If we make a strong recommendation of mercy, will you then fall into line, and if you make a
strong recommendation of mercy you can rest assured that the Home Secretary will grant a

reprieve'." I did not grant a reprieve when, after consulting the trial judge and asking him the
grounds on the evidence for making a strong recommendation for mercy, the judge said, "I really
have not the remotest idea." That is what happened.
Let us be quite certain of this. Heavy as the responsibility is on the Home Secretaryand no
man who has held the office would wish to belittle the weight of the responsibility for a single
momentit would be far heavier on the juror who might have to decide whether there was to be
a statement that would mark a man out for execution. For instance, that statement of the jury
would have to be unanimous, at any rate in England, before this could happen. I do not think that
12 ordinary well-meaning citizens called together to discharge this heavy responsibility of
declaring guilt or innocence ought to have this further heavy responsibility placed upon them.
I read the recommendation of the Commission as getting as near as they could to saying:
successive generations have so dealt with this matter now that improvements which can be made
are so small in comparison with the tremendous issues at stake that it is up to those who have the
responsibility for making the political decision to make up their minds one way or the other. I
must regard the inclusion in the Report of the suggestion about the jury system as reducing the
possible alternatives to an absurdity, and compelling the House to face up to the main issue of
whether capital punishment should or should not be abolished.
I do not go so far as that with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on the third point, because I
think that to leave the M'Naghten Rules unreformed would be to ignore the plain
recommendations of the Commission, and, if I may say so, the weight of evidence that was
brought to bear on them. After all, the Rules 2081 were composed at a time when our knowledge
of the way in which the human mind works, and, occasionally, fails to work, was far less
complete than it is today.
I think we would all agree, without subscribing to all the intricacies of modern psychiatry and the
specialist doctrines of some of its professors, that we know a great deal more and that a great
deal more has been established than was the case when the M'Naghten Rules were framed. I
cannot help thinking that there would be an advantage to jurors if they had something more in
accordance with modern modes of thought than the M'Naghten Rules to help them in the
decisions they have to make.
I come to the matters which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned as among the lesser
recommendations. I agree with him that prolonged detention in the present prisons for the most
violent type of prisoner is something which humane people could not readily tolerate. I hope that
his experience will agree with mine that the ordinary murderer who is reprieved is among the
mildest mannered and best behaved inhabitant of Her Majesty's prisons and presents very little
difficulty indeed. He generally falls in fairly well with prison routine, is reasonably helpful and
can be generally regarded as a person who, after a period of punishment that is, in his case,
probably more retributive than reformative, can be released on society and is unlikely to give us
any further trouble.
There is a small, hard core of very violent people. Until the prison service is able to do
something rather better for them than at present I am not, at all sure that I do not sympathise with

the representations which were made to me by an Anglican clergyman of very high standing
about a prisoner who was under sentence of death. It appeared that this prisoner might be
reprieved. The clergyman brought to me the wish, expressed by the prisoner to him, that the
prisoner should not be reprieved as he did not wish to waste for years in prison. The reform of
the present system and the building of new prisons are matters which deserve early
consideration. I hope that the schemes prepared by the former Home Secretary will fructify
under the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's care and that we shall soon be able to consider this
phase 2082 of the subject without the misgivings about long detention that I have just expressed.
On the question of the deterrent effect of the death penalty, I must sayand I use these words
advisedly, because I have given a great deal of thought to this matterthat I do not think the
case for deterrency is proved either way; that is to say, I do not think that the people who say that
it is a deterrent can prove their case from analogy with other countries. Those who say that it is
not a deterrent have no statistics from this country, because we have never had the opportunity of
trying it. This is the conclusion to which I came, and I was Home Secretary for a longer period
than any other Home Secretary since the Great Reform Act of 1832.
Mr. Hugh Dalton (Bishop Auckland)
Well done.
Mr. Ede
I do not say that with any suggestion of flippancy, like the man who survived the French
Revolution and who said that that was his only achievement during the Revolution. I was in that
office for a long time, and I probably had at least as many cases to consider as any Home
Secretary in the last sixty or seventy years.
I came to that conclusion, apart from two or three men like Heath and Haigh, cool, calculating
gamblers in these matters, who managed to get away with it a surprising number of times. With
all the other men, if you had said to them on the morning they committed the crime, "Before
night, you will be in danger of the gallows, "they would have laughed at you. A little too much to
drinkand, after all, the amount of drink that puts a man off balance varies from individual to
individual very considerablyand a little sexual excitement introduced, and something is done,
a blow is struck, that places the man in jeopardy. He did not consider for a momenthe did not
have the chance to considerthe effect of the punishment that he might be incurring.
As far as I could see, very few of the people who stand in jeopardy are those to whom any
colloquial rendering of the words "malice aforethought" would have any real application. As the
right hon. and gallant Gentleman gains in experience he will possibly be able to check that 2083
statement. Therefore, I am not convinced that the deterrent has been proved either way.
I doubt very much whether, at the moment, public opinion is in favour of this change, but I
doubt, also, whether, at any time during the last hundred years, a plebiscite would have carried
any of the great penal reforms that have been made. The appeal in the time of Romilly was
always to the belief that public opinion would not stand it, but there are occasions when this

House has to say that a certain thing is right, even if the public may not at that moment be of that
opinion.
I want to deal with a matter that is entirely personal, just as the Home Secretary did. If ever there
was a clear case, when the papers came on to my table, that a man was guilty, it was the case of
Evans. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton dealt with this subject in a
book that was published in connection with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S.
Silverman), a book to which the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) contributed a foreword.
He wrote this: The most worrying aspect of the Evans case is precisely that Evans's guilt
appeared so clearly proved. No criticism can be directed against judge, jury, counsel or police,
and yet the apparently cast-iron case was unquestionably a false one. No single reason advanced
by Mr. Humphries in his address to the jury is relied upon by Mr. Scott-Henderson in supporting
their verdict. It does not matter in the least if Evans may have been guiltyof something upon the
basis of some other case. His trial proves once and for all that a case that appears absolutely clear
may yet be a false case. Let me recall what happened. It is the last thing to which I shall ask the
House to listen. Evans was found guilty of the murder of his infant daughter. He was charged, at
the same time, with the murder of his wife, but as he had been found guilty on the first case, the
second was never heard. He asserted that the man who had murdered his wife was the other man
living in the house. The evidence was overwhelming against Evans and then, years afterwards,
the bodies of six women were found in that house and the other man admitted the murder of
those six women. If those facts had been known to the jury at the time, they might perhaps have
found Evans guilty of murder in conjunction with Christie; I 2084 doubt whether they could have
found Evans guilty of murder in any other circumstances.
I was the Home Secretary who wrote on Evans' papers, "The law must take its course." I never
said, in 1948, that a mistake was impossible. I think Evans' case shows, in spite of all that has
been done since, that a mistake was possible, and that, in the form in which the verdict was
actually given on a particular case, a mistake was made. I hope that no future Home Secretary,
while in office or after he has left office, will ever have to feel that although he did his best and
no one would wish to accuse him of being either careless or inefficient, he sent a man to the
gallows who was not "Guilty as charged."
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
taking note of the Report of the Royal Commission, is of opinion that for a period of five years
persons convicted of murder in the United Kingdom should be sentenced, in place of the death
penalty, to imprisonment for life; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government forthwith to
introduce legislation to that end. The House will recall that the proposal made in this
Amendment, and, indeed, the proposal made in the following Amendment on the Order Paper in
the names of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is precisely the proposal which, on a free
vote of the House in 1948, the House accepted. It would now be the law of the land had it not
been for the rejection of the Clause in the House of Lords, and had the House of Commons had
its way in 1948 the hope which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)

has just expressed about present or future Home Secretaries would have been fulfilled in his own
case.
As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary said when he moved his Motion, the
House will recall that it was arising out of what Parliament did in 1948 that the Royal
Commission was set up whose Report we are now considering. He said, rightly, that in and by its
terms of reference the Commission was expressly excluded from considering or reporting upon
the question whether the death penalty should or should not be retained. Its terms of reference
were limited to the question of 2085 what modifications or qualifications ought to be made in the
law on the basis that the death penalty remained.
The House may recall that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who was then
Prime Minister, was pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Leslie Hale) as to
why he had limited the terms of reference of the Royal Commission in that way. My right hon.
Friend replied that he had not left it to the Royal Commission to determine the issue of capital
punishment because, in his opinion, that was not a question to be determined by Royal
Commissions but one to be determined by Parliament. I, for one, agree with him.
A year or two later, when the events happened with an account of which my right hon. Friend the
Member for South Shields concluded his speech, I sought to reintroduce, in the form of a oneClause Bill under the Ten Minutes' Rule, the proposal which Parliament had accepted in 1948.
That was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now Solicitor-General. His
ground for advising the House not to accept my Billand the House accepted his advicewas
that it was better to wait until the House received the Report of the Royal Commission.
We now have that Report and the Government propose to take note of itand that is all. I
propose lo take note of it and to see what light is thrown by its recommendations, limited by the
terms of reference as they were, on the question which the Commission could not consider but
which we must consider. In other words, what light does the Royal Commission's Report throw
on whether the death penalty should be retained or not? I doubt whether any of us who take part
in this debate will find anything new to say. This matter has been well canvassed and discussed
over a great many years. I think it is fair to say that all the arguments are known and that they
have been repeated over and over again; there are some good arguments each way, and the
question, ultimately, is where, in the last resort, does the balance fall?
I do not propose to go into all the questions which the House quite properly discussed in 1948. I
propose to look at the question again in the light of the Royal Commission's Report and see 2086
where we get then. But, first, I should like to say a word on the question which the right hon. and
gallant Gentleman very effectively, but quite fairly, put, namely, "Why do you not propose to
abolish the death penalty altogether? If your arguments are good and if the balance falls where
you think it falls, then you make out a case for abolishing the death penalty; you do not make out
a case for suspending it for five years."
I think that is an argument which it is one's duty to meet if one is making a proposal for a
provisional suspension for five years and not for total abolition. I propose to meet it in this way. I
take the three main grounds which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman gaveas he was careful

to say, on behalf of the Governmentfor rejecting the idea of abolishing the death penalty, and I
hope to persuade him that this five-year proposal provides the most convenient method of
dealing with each of the Government's main objections to abolishing the death penalty
altogether. When the Home Secretary said that the Government's decision was only provisional
and that they would consider very carefully all that was said in this debate, I hope he meant to
include in that not merely what he said about the Royal Commission's recommendations but
what is said about this Amendment, too.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's first point was that the Government are not in favour of
abolishing the death penalty because some crimes of violence are increasing and because we
ought not to abandon what may be a deterrent. That is, of course, a two-edged argument. As my
right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields quite rightly said, no one can prove a speculative
proposition. No one can establish, in fact, whether any murders were prevented by the existence
of the death penalty, or whether any more murders were committed where the death penalty was
not in force. Nobody knows. It is purely an inference which may be legitimately or illegitimately
drawn.
Suppose the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's figures had been different; suppose he had said
that since 1948 the rate of violent crimes had gone steadily down year by year. Would he not
have said, "Is this the time to remove so effective a deterrent?" It would have been a very strong
argument, and I 2087 should have thought a rather stronger argument than the equally
speculative propositionI think both are speculativethat "We must keep this powerful
deterrent to violent crime because we have got a powerful deterrent and violent crime is
increasing."
What I say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is: try it for five years and see. It is quite true
that even then the conclusion will not be logically watertight, but it will enable us over a period
of five years to see whether the trend is violently different, whether it is effective at all, or
whether there are more murders when we suspend the death penalty. If there are not, who would
want to keep the death penalty? Even "The Times" this morning, in what I hope, without
disrespect, I may call a particularly obtuse leader even for "The Times," says that nobody wants
the death penalty for its own sake.
There is one overwhelming argument which, if it could be established, might remove all
objections to the death penalty. If it were really established that we reduce the rate of murder by
inflicting the death penalty, one might say "Keep it by all means." But I say that if that cannot be
proved, and if we can show by a sufficient trial period that we can have the death penalty
abolished and not increase the number of murders then there is strong reason for thinking that the
experience of this country will be very like the experience of all other countries which have tried
it, which is certainly that the incidence of the rate of murder is not appreciably affected, either
way, by whether there is a death penalty or not.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's second point was that life imprisonment would be a
worse penalty than capital punishment. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman concedes that
there are some murderers who ought not to be hanged. He does not say that it is the worst
murderers who ought to be reprieved. He said that where there are extenuating circumstances the

murderer ought to be reprieved, and he therefore concedes that, by and large, his present practice
when he reprieves a man is an improvement, a mitigation of the penalty and not an aggravation
of it. If that is so, he has a period of five years in which 2088 he can experiment in every way
possible to find some form of penalty other than death which will fit these cases. Why not try it?
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's third argument was public opinion. He said that public
opinion is not yet ripe for the abolition of the death penalty, and he said, by implication, that we
must wait until it is. I say to him, with great respect, that it is possible to misconceive what the
situation is. What a man thinks at the beginning of an argument is one thing; what he thinks at
the end of the argument may be quite another.
I concede that if the Home Secretary walked up and down the streets of our big cities, casually
button-holed people standing at bar counters and asked them for a quick opinion, in favour or
against the death penalty, he would get a majority of negative opinions. But that is before the
argument starts. I think it is clear that no rational person, whatever his opinion at the beginning,
has heard the argument through both ways without, at the end of it, feeling very grave doubts, at
the least, whether this penalty can morally or politically be justified.
The period of five years gives the right hon. and gallant Gentleman just what he needs for his
third argument. It gives him, by an experimental, provisional period, a chance of educating the
public by the results of trial and so getting them accustomed to the state of affairs of which, one
gathers, he would be in favour if only he were satisfied that public opinion would support him.
The education of public opinion on these matters is a slow and difficult process and I can
conceive of no better way of educating and informing it, if that is what we want to do, than
showing them a provisional trial period of five years and, at the end of it, being able to say to
them, "You see, it is not so dreadful. The United Kingdom, our country, is not so far behind in
civilisation all those other countries of similar background and history and social make-up which
have been able to dispense with this penalty without harm."
Mr. George Porter (Leeds, Central)
Is it not a fact that there is positive proof that wherever there is the remotest contact between
people and the murderer, there is no difficulty in getting public 2089 opinion, in that particular
case and for that person, in favour of the abolition of the death penalty?
Mr. Silverman
That is probably true, and to that extent it assists the argument which I was developing.
I must say that I failed altogether to follow the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the final point
which he made. It may be that I misunderstood him. It seems to me that what he was advancing
as an objection to a five-year trial period was, in fact, an objection to abolishing the penalty
outright without a trial period. It sounds so violent a contrast with what I thought the right hon.
and gallant Gentleman intended to say that I may have it all wrong, and if that is so I shall be
grateful if he will correct me.

What I think he said was this: five years is too short. Supposing that, at the end of five years, the
case had not been established, we should then have to come back to Parliament to reimpose the
death penalty; and that might create a very difficult political situation and we might not be able
to do it. I think that was his argument. But, of course, the purpose of suspending it for five years
instead of abolishing it is to avoid that very thing. If we pass an Act of Parliament which
suspends it for five years and at the end of five years are satisfied that we have made a mistake,
then the death penalty is automatically restored without our coming back to Parliament at all. It
is only if we abolish it altogether and then change our minds that we have to come back to
Parliament to get it restored.
It seems to me that, unless II have misunderstood what he said, the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman got it completely the wrong way round. If we want to be able to restore it if the
experiment does not work, then for goodness' sake let us not abolish it outright but let us suspend
it for a trial period. We shall then be able to restore it without any political difficulties of any
kind.
That is all I want to say about that subject, and I come now to the Royal Commission's Report,
about which I shall be quite brief. It seems to me to be quite clear, I think beyond controversy of
any kind, that the Royal Commission was unanimous about one important thing. This was a very
distinguished Commission, whose members spent a long time and much effort on their task. I
should 2090 like modestly to concur in and endorse all the compliments and gratitude which
have been expressed to them by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. I
agree that here we have a storehouse of the whole of this controversy and that no future
examination of this problem will be seriously possible without reference to the Commission's
Report.
At the end of the argument, what did the Commission unanimously decide? It unanimously
decided that the present law was wrong and ought not to continue. And the Government have
decided to take note of that and to do nothingso far, provisionally; so far they have decided to
do nothing. I have quoted this before; I am fond of it and I will quote it again; the right hon. and
gallant Gentleman's distinguished father once said of an earlier Prime Minister, "The right hon.
Gentleman is continually stumbling across a great truth and picking himself up and going on as if
nothing had happened."
That is what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is doing. The Royal Commission tells him,
"Whatever you do about it is your business. We will make such recommendations as we can
make within the limits of our terms of reference. You may not like them. It is the best we can do
within those limits, and if you do not like them you must do something else. But what we are
unanimously telling you is that the present law is wrong."
If the present law is wrong, is the House of Commons going to refuse to change it? If we send
the matter to a Commission of this kind, in order to sift all the evidence, weigh everything in the
balance and present a Report and then, after two or three years, it comes back to us and says
unanimously, "This state of affairs is wrong and ought not to continue, "is the House of
Commons going to say, "Let it continue," or is it going to say, "Let it stop"?

In what respect did the members of the Commission say unanimously that it was wrong? It was
no great discovery; it was not very original. But they were not appointed to be original. They
were appointed to find out the truth, however obvious and well-known the truth was, and what
they reported is what we all knew beforethat is to say, that if we have a crime so varied as
murder, we ought not to have one rigid, automatic 2091 penalty for every form of that crime,
especially where the penalty is the capital punishment which we cannot recall if we make a
mistake.
They did their best within their terms of reference. We told them, "Do not tell us whether you
think it ought to be abolished. Tell us how you think it ought to be modified, if in any way. Tell
us how you think it ought to be qualified, if at all." The members of the Commission have said to
us, "Since you forbid us to tell you what we think about the death penalty itself, then we must do
our best to tell you how it may be modified or qualified to remove this defect that, by the present
law, you must wring the neck of everybody who is guilty of murder, no matter how great or how
little the moral turpitude involved in the particular case with which you are concerned."
The Commission examined all sorts of ways of doing that without abolishing the death penalty. It
said, "Why not have degrees of murder?" and went into that question with great care, but
unanimously decided that that does not work. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees, and
so do I. When the House of Lords defeated our proposal in 1948 it defeated it because it said,
"Here is a series of types of murder, abolish the death penalty in all other cases, but keep it for
these because public opinion will not tolerate any mercy." So I and my hon. Friends negotiated
with my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary and said, "Let us abandon our Clause and see
whether we can devise a new Clause in which we will retain the death penalty for just those
categories for which the House of Lords says we must retain it and abolish it for the others."
We produced a very remarkable document, doing our bestlike the Royal Commissionwithin
our terms of reference.
Mr. John Paton (Norwich, North)
And with the best legal advice.
Mr. Silverman
Yes, with the best legal advice from both sides.
Mr. Ede
Might I thank the hon. Member for accepting some of the responsibility? Hitherto, it has been
placed squarely on my shoulders.
2092
Mr. Silverman

I fully accept my share of the responsibility. My right hon. Friend came to me and said, "You
cannot have your Clause, the Lords will not give it to you. But if you like to try for something
else, try for something else." I said, "All right, I will try for something else." I accept
responsibility for that. We worked at it together and I accept my share of responsibility for this
ungainly conjunction of incompatibles which we formed into a Clause by way of amending the
penal code.
The House of Commons accepted it and we sent it back to the House of Lords. The very people
who rejected our original proposal on the ground that it would not cover the special cases, said,
when they received our Clause which specifically set out to meet those special cases, "This will
not work, no jury will be able to understand it." So they rejected that, also. [An HON.
MEMBER: "Abolish them."] I am not complaining. I think it might have worked, but I agree it
was a very difficult and anomalous thing.
I do not quarrel with the Royal Commission when it said, "This will not do, you cannot
categorise it." If we are precluded from saying that the death penalty should be abolished
altogether, if degrees of murder will not do, if special categories of murder will not do, what are
we left with? The Royal Commission gave the only possible answer in those circumstances.
Whether we like the answer or not, it was the only possible answer.
The Commission said, "Since you must differentiate and you cannot differentiate by categories,
you must differentiate case by case." That is the origin of the main unanimous recommendation
since we ought not to have the death penalty in all cases, deal with one case at a time and
judge each case on its merits. Short of abolishing or suspending the death penalty, the only
possible answer to that is to continue the present practice of allowing the courts to inflict the
automatic, rigid penalty and then leaving it to the Home Secretary to advise Her Majesty to
exercise the Prerogative of mercy to fit some other penalty to the crime if some other penalty is
better.
Of course, there is a radical fallacy there. We are using the Prerogative of mercy for something
which is confessedly 2093 not mercy at all. Mercy begins where justice ends and if we use the
Prerogative of mercy in order to do justice because the legal system does not do justice that is not
mercy at all. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had a little experience now of trying to do
it by way of Prerogative. I hope he does not think that those of us who from time to time have
pressed him and his predecessors very hard on individual cases have done so because we did not
appreciate how onerous a job he had to do, or sympathise with him, or sympathise with his
necessary protective devices to prevent his mind being influenced by pressure of one kind or
another. But the public will not understand that, nor tolerate it much longer.
I am not going to deal with the merits of any cases, but I take three and only mention them. I
defy any rational human being to find any common basis on which the three decisions can be
reconciled. Derek Bentley was short of 19 years; he was a mental defective. He had committed
no act of violence himself. If he was guilty of murder at allmy hon. and learned Friend the
Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thinks he was nothe was guilty of constructive murder
and not of murder in fact. That boy was hanged, yet the process is said to look for reasons not to
inflict the capital penalty. I say no more about it; there it is.

The other day there was a woman who was certified insane by the prison doctor. She was
hanged. A week or two later a farmer in North Wales was convicted on the clearest possible
evidence of murdering his partner because his partner wanted his own money back. He murdered
his partner so effectively that no trace of the body was ever discovered. That raised a legal
question which was fought out in the courts and was decided in the Court of Criminal Appeal.
No one thought of taking it any further[HON. MEMBERS: "They did."]although they might
have done so.
Mr. Elwyn Jones
I hesitate to intervene, because I was concerned, but the fiat was refused.
Mr. Silverman
At any rate, it was thought by the Attorney-General to be so clear that it did not raise a point of
sufficient public importance to justify 2094 taking it to the House of Lords. That man was
reprieved.
Mr. Philip Bell (Bolton, East)
I do not mean this offensively, but is it in order to discuss in the presence of the Home Secretary
and an ex-Home Secretary particulars of individual cases in which the Prerogative was
considered?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
There is no point of order about that.
Mr. Silverman
I am not asking any Home Secretary to discuss any of the cases; I am saying that if we do not
abolish the penalty, if, nevertheless, we want to vary the penalty, if, nevertheless, we want to
reject the recommendation of the Royal Commission that the jury or the court shall decide, then
we are driven back upon the present method of using the Prerogative of mercy as though it were
a judicial process.
When we examine how that works, we find that it does not satisfy the most elementary test of a
judicial process, which is that normal intelligent beings of some experience shall understand it.
Nobody understands it, and the practice prevents the Home Secretary from explaining it. So
where are we? We are left, then, with the Royal Commission's revolutionary proposal.
I agree with all those who say that this is a very difficult thing to do. It makes a change in our
law, not quite so revolutionary a change as some think, but it undoubtedly makes a substantial
change. It is hard to work and it places too heavy a responsibility on the jury, and all the rest of
it. Are we going to reject that too? If we do, then we are driven hard up against the question
which the Royal Commission has posed to this House, whose responsibility it is.

Now, then, do we propose to do what everybody knows ought to be done, that is, to differentiate
between crimes of different moral culpability? If we cannot think of any other way, we are driven
back on abolishing the death penalty altogether, or at least, as we propose, suspending it for a
provisional trial period. No one of the other recommendations matters in comparison with that.
All the other problems, the age of execution, insanity, degrees of moral culpability, and all the
rest of them, cease to be problems if the death sentence goes.
2095 It is only the penalty which makes it a problem; it is only the rigid capital penalty that
raises all these nice questions with which they are dealing. There is, in parenthesis, the method of
execution. It seems to me that the world would have lost one of its most valued and treasured
chapters of moral literature if the ancient Greeks had used the services of some ancient
Pierrepoint instead of a cup of hemlock. I doubt whether Plato would have had the material to
write those wonderful pages if Socrates had been hanged. But these are subsidiary questions and
the main one is the one with which this Amendment deals.
There is an occupational disease about Home Secretaries. I have known several Home
Secretaries deal with this matter in the nineteen years during which I have been a Member of the
House of Commons. There was Sir Samuel Hoare, now Lord Templewood. He was Home
Secretary when I first heard the House of Commons debate this matter, and he opposed the
abolition of the death penalty. Then, in the House of Lords in 1948, he supported its abolition as
he had always supported it before he was Home Secretary.
Then there is the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields. He always led the
fight for the abolition of the death penalty, but in 1948, when he was Home Secretary, he
opposed it. Now there is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. In 1948, he voted for this very
proposal which we are now discussing, but now, on behalf of the Governmentas he was very
careful to sayhe opposes it. He explained it, yes, but when he came to deal with the grounds, I,
perhaps mistakenly, read into it some doubt whether his mind really went with his words.
Major Lloyd-George
The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I must make it clear. When I said to the House that I was
completely misled by what was said in 1948, I meant it, and, if I may say so, I am not the only
one. The hon. Gentleman made some reference to what happened on that occasion. I am not sure
that the Clause would have been carried if a statement had not been made which completely
misled several people.
Mr. Silverman
My hon. and learned Friend will reply to that later, but the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has
not said that he would have voted
2096
Mr. Paget

May I put this question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman? Had not the right hon. and
gallant Gentleman declared himself in favour of abolition before the debate was ever held?
Major Lloyd-George
No, I am not aware of that, and, if I may, I will answer the hon. and learned Gentleman. The
opinion which I held, and I repeated it today, I still hold. If a satisfactory alternative were found,
then I should be satisfied. The evidence given by Sir Alexander Paterson whom the hon. and
learned Gentleman mentioned was that, in his opinion and with all his experience, there was no
alternative. He did not regard long imprisonment as a humane alternative to capital punishment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that that view had been completely altered, and that is what
affected me.
Mr. Paget
This point has been put, and I think it convenient that it should be dealt with. In winding up the
debate in 1948 I was mistaken, not in saying that Sir Alexander Paterson, before his death, had
changed his mind on this issue but in the smaller sphere of saying that he had joined the Society
for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. Sir Alexander Paterson attended the funeral of Mr.
Corbett which was carried out in the Quaker fashion where the friends of the deceased rise and
make a statement. Mr. Ayles, who was a Member of this House, was also there. On that occasion,
Sir Alexander saidjust before his deaththat he now believed that the time had come to
abolish capital punishment.
Mr. Silverman
Sir Alexander Paterson is, unfortunately, deceased. We have to make up our minds for ourselves,
not on the basis of what Sir Alexander thought, but on the basis of what we think ourselves. If
the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tells me that he would retain the death penalty because he
thinks it a more merciful thing than the present alternative, then I am bound to believe him, but I
am bound, at the same time, to say that I am very greatly surprised to hear that opinion expressed
by a Home Secretary who does reprieve now and again from the death penalty to life
imprisonment in what he thinks are the most deserving cases. Therefore, while I do not question
what he says, he will forgive me for saying that I do not find it very convincing.
2097 To conclude, I beg the House to give this thing a trial. About deterrents, I think that Francis
Bacon said the last word some 300 years ago. He said There is no passion in the mind of man so
weak, but it makes and masters all fear of death. I think that is true, and that it is accepted as true
by all of us in our own experience of life. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, then get rid of it.
I would like to see this House, not by a party political decision and not rgimented in any way,
but with each of us exercising our own conscientious judgment as we think fit at the end of the
argument decide that, at any rate for five years and as a provisional experiment, we should bring
to an end this barbaric and obscene futility.
5.30 p.m.

 Mr. Christopher Hollis (Devizes)

I beg to second the Amendment.
The one ambition in the minds of all hon. Members is to discover the means by which murder
shall be as infrequent as possible. Even if the Amendment had not been called, it would have
been very difficult to discuss the Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment
without considering whether hanging is or is not a necessary and effective deterrent. For whilst I
appreciate everything that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary said about the
terms of reference of the Commission, nevertheless almost all of the Commission's
recommendations obviously depend upon the answer to that question.
Let us take, for instance, the recommendation that the age for hanging should be raised from 18
to 21. Unfortunately, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, a very large proportion of murders
are committed by people between those ages. Therefore, if one takes the view that hanging is a
necessary and effective deterrent, one can obviously say, "Why should we be deprived of
protection against this class of people who are most likely to murder us?" On the other hand, if
one takes the view that hanging is not a necessary and effective deterrent one is in favour of
raising the age to 21, but equally logically one can say, "Why not abolish it altogether?"
We have, therefore, to face the question whether hanging is a necessary and 2098 effective
deterrent or not. It is a subject to which I have given attention for a very large number of years.
Through my necessarily amateur inquiries into the experience of abolitionist countries some
years ago, I reached three conclusions. The first was that it was very difficult, if not impossible,
to find a country where the murder rate had increased after the death penalty had been abolished.
Secondly, where there was already a trend of decrease, that trend continued after abolition. The
third, which interested me particularly, was that when one had States of the same sort next door
to one another, such as in Australia and America, some of which had and some of which had not
abolished the death penalty, the curves of increase and decrease of murder coincided with
surprising fidelity irrespective of whether the States were or were not abolitionist.
Therefore, I reached a conclusion which I afterwards found much more eloquently summarised
in Lord Temple-wood's book, where he said: The statistics upon which I make my assertion that
in no country has the abolition of capital punishment increased the murder rate, are based upon
figures taken over a period before and after the abrogation or repeal of the death penalty. These
figures not only show that there has been no increase in the rate of murder, but also that there has
been no check in any downward curve where the rate of murder was already falling at the time of
abolition. The experience of the thirty-six abolitionist States clearly shows that abolition does not
increase the number of murders. I do not go so far as to say that it reduces the number of
murders. I restrict myself to the assertion that it does not increase the number. That was the state
of inquiry which Lord Templewood had reached at the time the Commission reported. Therefore,
I came with great interest to the Report of the Commission to see whether it supported Lord
Templewood's assertion or not.
Appendix 6 of the Report deals with foreign experience considered country by country. In the
case of the United States, Professor Sellin sums up: The important thing to be noticed is that,

whether the death penalty is used or not, or whether executions are frequent or not both death
penalty States and abolition States show rates which suggest that these rates are conditioned by
other factors than the death penalty. In the case of Belgium, the Report states: In so far as these
statistics are a reliable guide, they do not suggest that the abeyance 2099 of capital punishment
has had an adverse effect on the number of murders. The phrases referring to Denmark and Italy
are substantially the same.
Since we last debated this subject, New Zealand has turned from a condition of abolition to a
condition of capital punishment, but it returned at a time when the murder rate was already
falling. The Minister of Justice, who moved the Motion for the renewal of capital punishment,
specifically stated that he did not base himself on statistics. There is only one example in all
history of an apparent increase after abolition. That was in the three Swiss cantons of Aargau,
Solothurn and Thurgau in 1874, where in the next two years, the murder rate went up from 1.9 to
2.4. However, if one takes the murder rate for a period of 24 years after that and compares it with
the 24 years before, it went down. There was this one solitary instance of a small increase. Apart
from that, the evidence seems overwhelming that Lord Templewood's generalisation is justified.
The Commission itself sums up in three sentences the deductions from these statistics when the
Report states: Prima facie the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to
normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no
convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so. The Commission also states: We agree with
Professor Sellin that the only conclusion which can be drawn from the figures is that there is no
clear evidence of any influence of the death penalty on the homicide rates of these States. The
general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures
we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide
rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall. Therefore, I conclude that the substantial result of
the Commission's inquiries is to support Lord Templewood's contention.
There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever to imagine that, contrary to the total experience of
country after country, abolition would be followed by an increase in the murder rate, certainly
not an increase on any dramatic scale. In the same way, some of the other incidental points which
hon. Members and other people reasonably and fairly put forward in favour of capital
punishment are effectively answered in the Report.
2100 My right hon. and gallant Friend very fairly drew attention to the passages of the Report
which bear witness to the fact that the police are opposed to the abolition of capital punishment.
As far as it goes, I accept that as an argument on the anti-abolitionist side, because we all admit
the desirability of carrying the police with us in any reform. On the other hand, we have to
consider not only what the police think but whether the police are right.
On that matter again, some years ago I made some inquiries about the experience of gang
warfare and the murder of policemen in certain abolitionist countries in Scandinavian countries
and in Holland and Switzerland. I received the reply that such things are unknown. They are
phenomena found almost solely in countries which have capital punishment.

The case seems so very strong that it is important to consider what are the two answers to the
appeal to foreign experience. The two answers are these. On the one hand, there are some people
who tell us that foreign experience is irrelevant to this question. We all perfectly well understand
that statistics and facts must be used with care, that it is a false logic to say that, because in a
single instance A is followed by B, B is necessarily caused by A. We know that each country has
its peculiar problems. We also know the way in which it is legitimate to use facts and statistics.
Where we have a large number of instances where there is such a sequence of A being followed
by B again and again, one is entitled to wonder if A is not the cause of B.
In this case, we have as remarkable a cross-section of world population as one could imagine.
The experiment of abolition has been tried in thickly-populated countries like Holland and in
thinly-populated countries like Norway; in agricultural countries like Denmark and in industrial
countries like Belgium; in Latin countries like Portugal and in Nordic countries like Sweden; in
English-speaking countries like Queensland and some American States; in Christian countries,
and in non-Christian countries such as Travancore. One could not imagine a more complete
cross-section. If, from all these countries with their 2101 varying experience one gets this
unvarying lack of great difference after the abolition of the death penalty, we are entitled to say
that the frequency of murder has not so much to do with capital punishment but that other factors
are clearly more important.
Another point raised is that our capital punishment is, perhaps, more merciful and more scientific
than the punishment adopted in some other countries. When the matter was debated seven years
ago, I recollect that Lord Simon made the point that the present prison system in Italy contained
certain features which would be intolerable in this country. No doubt he was perfectly correct,
but it is very difficult to see what his point proved. We are under no obligation to imitate the
undesirable features of the Italian prison system. There are abolitionist countries such as Sweden
and Switzerland which have extremely good prison systems. If we want to go abroad for models,
we can surely go to the best models rather than to the worst. We need not, however, go abroad
for models. It is a matter for very careful consideration what we should do in detail, but it is not
our concern at this moment.
What we have to establish is that an alternative of the present system is not an insoluble problem.
I understood my right hon. Friend to say that if only he could be provided with convincing
evidence that there was an alternative he would like to be an abolitionist. I would with respect
advise him to look at page 229 of the Report, where he will find a discussion of the opinions held
in his day by Sir Alexander Paterson. I do not wish to go into it all now, but in paragraph 653 the
Home Secretary will find this: The Home Office at that time did not dissent from that view. But
in giving evidence before us, though they still said that 'prolonged detention for more than ten or
twelve years makes it increasingly difficult for [the prisoner] to re-establish himself in outside
life and increases the risk of mental or physical deterioration, ' they added that developments in
prison administration in the last twenty years have materially altered the conditions of
confinement for prisoners serving long sentences, and continued: 'While therefore the
Commissioners remain of the opinion expressed [in 1930] that a very long sentence of
imprisonment is and must always be a dreadful thing, they do not consider that in present
conditions its effect on prisoners would be such that it ought not to be contemplated'. We entirely
appreciate the candour with which my right hon. and gallant Friend is 2102 dealing with this

case but, in all friendliness and open-mindedness, I would ask him to consider whether that
Home Office opinion does not provide him with the answer he confessed he was seeking, and
whether he cannot join us in the Division Lobby tonight in favour of the abolitionist cause which
he admitted having so deeply at heart.
There is another point. People say: "If these be your opinions and if you think that capital
punishment by hanging is of comparative irrelevance to the number of murders, I see that you
are not greatly keen on hanging, but why do you make such a fuss of it one way or the other?
Why do you think the matter so important?" In answer to that, I will say just three things. The
first is that my own interpretations of my religious views are such that I would not say that in all
circumstances is the State forbidden to take human life; but I would say that the State is
forbidden to take human life unless it is abundantly proved that it is necessary for it to do so.
Hon. Members must make up their minds as to what importance they attach to that aspect of the
problem. It is obviously not a point for detailed discussion in this House.
My second point is this. When I spoke on this matter seven years ago, I said that I did not think
that in modern circumstances in this country there was a grave risk of an innocent man being
hanged. I said that that was not one of the arguments upon which I based by case. I must confess
that some things that have happened since have made me a great deal less comfortable about that
view. I had intended to say two or three brief sentences about the Evans case, but after the speech
of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) it would be indecent for
anyone else to intervene on that topic.
My third point is that in considering the effect of hanging we have to consider the effect on three
different classes. First, we have to consider the effect on the murderer. Then we have to consider
the effect on any officers who, in one capacity or another, are called upon to take part in the
execution. On that there is very little controversy. Everyone agrees that it is profoundly painful
and distressing to have to take part in such executions. I thinkindeed, I knowthat people
who do 2103 not believe in abolition join with those who do in mitigating as many details of
such executions as they can. On the other hand, should hanging be proved to be necessary, then I
believe we have a right to say to those people that, unpleasant though it may be, they must carry
out this unpleasant task. The whole issue is, of course, whether or not hanging is necessary.
Thirdly, the effect on the public at large should be considered. No one who follows English
public opinion today can seriously doubt that there is, throughout the nation, a morbid obsession
with the topic of murder. Many will have read the George Orwell essay "The Decline of the
English Murder, "in which he notes that the murders of our grandparents' day had, at any rate,
their comparatively intelligible motives, but that a horrible feature of our life to day is the
growing prevalence of the murder of mere beastliness.
Mr. Robson Brown (Esher)
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way, but the statistics in Table I, in page 329, show
quite clearly that of 146 recorded murders tabled therein 90 were of a form and kind where there
was obviously some kind of premeditation and beastliness is not mentioned at all; shame and

disgraceone; sexual passionsnone. The figures do not agree with my hon. Friend's
contention.
Mr. Hollis
There have certainly been a number of murders recently which I should consider beastly
murders.
Mr. M. Follick (Loughborough)
A sexual murder is a beastly murder.
Mr. Hollis
No special point turns on the argument. My general point, which nobody can dispute, is that
there is an obsession with the topic of murder in our national life at present. Many people say,
"This is just human nature, and there is nothing that you can do about it." However, if we turn to
the Scandinavian countries or Holland, we find that the whole atmosphere is very different. The
method of splashing murder cases in newspapers as in this country is quite unknown in those
countries. I have no doubt that a large part of the morbid interest in murder in this country comes
from the drama of the situation in that a man is on trial for his life. I am perfectly certain that if
the deterrents are 2104 to be effective, they should be as humdrum and undramatic as possible.
If we were to abolish capital punishment for the moment I believe we should have a great
improvement in the public attitude towards crime. That in itself would be a good thing, but not
sufficient as an overriding case for abolishing capital punishment. However, we should have a
general improvement over the nation, and in the long run, if other factors were favourable, it
would lead to a decrease in a number of murders.
Murder cases appeal to the million; and this in their case only means that they read the
newspapers and meditate on the details. But I believe that this morbid fascination is likely to be
enough to push the small number of psychopathic individuals just over the border, and placing a
dramatic aura around murder is just the way to make murder more common. If hon. Members
want authority for that, I have two authorities for them according to their taste and outlook.
Those who like modern psychology can go to Dr. Jung, and those who do not like modern
psychology can go to Dickens and read "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Barnaby Rudge," and they
can then take their choice as to the authority which they accept.
Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will remember that when we debated the
matter seven years ago what was in many ways the major speech against the abolition of the
death penalty was that by Lord Waverley, who at that time sat in the House as Sir John Anderson.
As everybody recognised, he spoke with a peculiar degree of authority on a topic of this sort.
Lord Waverley made a very remarkable speech on that occasion. In making the key speech
against the abolition of capital punishment, Lord Waverley frankly admitted that he thought that
hanging had no deterrent effect in the case of constructive murder, crime passionnel and political
murder. Thus, by the confession of the most responsible advocate of capital punishment, a very

large proportion of the crimes for which people were condemned to death were crimes for which
capital punishment was irrelevant.
I believe that ever since Lord Waverley's speech the House and the country have been under an
obligation at least to do something about the prob- 2105 lem. I believe that the obligation has
been generally recognised. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the late Government sought
to discover whether there was a halfway house between abolition and the present law. The late
Government made an experiment with a new Clause, but that was not happy. The present
Commission was then set the same task, but, through no fault of its own, it hasI believe that
this is the general feeling in the Housefailed.
The Commission has recommended the repeal of the M'Naghten Rules. There is a great deal to
be said for that, but it is not a fundamental change in the situation. The Commission has tried to
discover whether it is possible to divide between two sorts of murder, but it has decided that it is
impossible to do that, and I believe that that is correct. I believe that the House generally agrees
that the Commission is correct. The Commission has recommended, though with no very great
enthusiasm, an experiment at jury discretion. I do not feel much enthusiasm for that, and it does
not appear that the House feels much enthusiasm either.
I believe, therefore, we are now faced with a situation in which something has got to be done.
There is an obligation of honour to do something. An honest attempt has been made to find a
halfway house, but it has failed. It is demonstrably untrue that catastrophic consequences will
follow abolition. Much the simplest solution to the problem is that of abolition.
It is very important to solve the controversy, because the controversy itself is a very large part of
the trouble. Nothing has made a greater contribution to keeping this country in an unhealthy
condition than the simmering on of this wretched, miserable controversy. I do not think that
anybody can doubt in his bones that abolition will come before long. The House would render a
great service to the country if it expressed the opinion that it should go now.
Several Hon. Members
rose
Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Mr. Basil Nield.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Basil Nield (City of Chester)
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) divided his speech into two parts. In
the first part he presented his 2106 case for the Amendment with great clarity, and in the second
part he proceeded to discuss some of the proposals in the Report of the Royal Commission.

 Mr. Charles Pannell (Leeds, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Something which occurred a moment ago aroused
some interest, and I think the House would like your guidance. Once when I was charged with
the duty of winding-up a Bill the Chair ruled that I could not be called if a Privy Councillor was
on his feet, and the Table at that time informed me of the absolute rights of Privy Councillors. I
do not believe in those absolute rights. However, what I want to know is why on one occasion
the rule goes one way and on another occasion it goes another way. This is not a political matter.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) was on his feet
when you called the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Privy Councillors are generally called when they rise. However, they have no right; it is a custom
to call them.
Mr. Pannell
Is that in the Standing Orders?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker
It is not in the Standing Orders. The Chair is entitled to call whom it wishes; and I called the hon.
and learned Member for the City of Chester.
Mr. Nield
I hope the House will want to hear what I have to say, and I am very anxious to hear what the
right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) has to say in due course.
I was pointing out that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne divided his observations into two
parts. I was about to say that I wished to make the major part of my speech upon the general
proposals, or one aspect of them, in the Report. However, it is obviously proper, in my view, that
I should express my own opinion upon the extremely important issue raised in the Amendment.
The hon. Member uttered words to the effect that if it could be shown that the removal of the
death penalty would have the effect of increasing the number of murders his objection to it
would be swept away. Am I wrong in saying that?
2107
Mr. S. Silverman
The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong. He has got it the wrong way round. I said that I
should be prepared to tolerate the continuance of the death penalty if it could be shown that its
retention prevented murders.
Mr. Nield

I do not think that that is very different from what I said. What the hon. Member means is that if,
by abolishing the death penalty there is going to be an increase in these crimes, then nobody
could tolerate it for a moment. Of course he takes that view. Of course my hon. Friend the
Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) takes that view.
Some of us will have seen that only today some unfortunate woman has been foully strangled
within a few miles of this House; and if we do anything which involves even a risk of increasing
hideous offences of this kind, we clearly do the greatest disservice. It is because I am convinced
that to do away with this penalty would, or might, increase the number of these capital offences,
that I must oppose the Amendment.
It has been rightly saidI agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields
(Mr. Ede)that it is extremely difficult to prove whether the death penalty operates as a
deterrent. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne made the same observation. On the other
hand, those of us who, by reason of our calling, are brought into touch in the courts with these
cases must form an opinion from our experience. All I can say is that it is my convinced view
that this is the most compelling deterrent of all.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers (Kensington, North)
rose
Mr. Nield
May I finish this sentence. I do not want it to be thought that I am seeking to avoid any question?
I suggest one line of thought which is very important. It is thatagain in my opinion, and it must
be sucha great many criminals are deterred from carrying arms, because they know that if they
do and, in an emergency use those arms, they may be faced with a capital charge.
Mr. Rogers
I should just like to know if the hon. and learned Member held the same view about the abolition
of flogging.
2108
Mr. Nield
I did not. My recollection, and I was a member of the Standing Committee which dealt with the
matter upstairs on the Criminal Justice Act, is that we were in a large measure in agreement on
that aspect.
I should say that the final, ultimate, and most cogent of all deterrents is the contemplation of the
death penalty. I think it right to express these views after, let it be said, many years experience in
the courts and having been engaged in many of these cases. My hon. Friend the Member for
Devizes, in his speech, pointed out that one important aspect of the Royal Commission's Report

was that dealing with criminal responsibility on the part of those who are mentally abnormal. It
is correct that in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Report the Commission discusses that question, and it
is to that question that I desire to address myself now.
I should immediately say to the Home Secretary that I do so because I am not convinced that the
provisional view, to which he has given voice on behalf of the Government, is right on this
aspect of the matter. It has for a very long time been recognised that if a man, at the time of
committing an unlawful act, is so mentally disordered that guilt ought not to be imputed to him,
he ought not to be held liable to conviction and punishment under the criminal law. No one
surely can deny that humanity requires that that should be so.
One recollects that the traditional definition of murder is that which comes from Coke in the 17th
century. It starts with these words: When a man of sound memory and of the age of discretion
unlawfully kills with malice aforethought. Of course, the phrase "of sound memory" sounds
rather strange to modern ears, but I have no doubt that in the context in which it is used it means
"of sound mind and understanding." It is thus implicit in the definition of the offence itself that
only a person of sound mind ought to be convicted of the crime.
Under the present procedure, as hon. and learned Gentlemen will know, when a man is found
insane, the jury is required to give a special verdict, which is that of guilty of the act but insane at
the time. In my view, and I have held it for some time, that is not logical and 2109 I agree with
the proposal contained in the Commission's Report that in such circumstances the verdict should
be one of not guilty. A person found insane should be acquitted of the offence, there being
retained, of course, the right of keeping the acquitted person under restraintso long as his
condition requires that to be done.
This may seem a somewhat small procedural matter, but I think that it will be recognised as one
of principle. I hope that the Government may think it right to take steps to see that this matter is
changed and that a verdict of not guilty is substituted for the present special verdict.
It will be realised that the law presumes a person to be sane until the contrary is proved. It is one
of the few instances where the burden of proof is upon the accused person to establish his
insanity, if that is his defence. Here, of course, is the real problem, because the range of mental
abnormality may be from some minor eccentricity to mania. The fundamental and intensely
perplexing problem is what must be proved in order to establish insanity, which would amount to
a defence.
For well over 100 years the test which has been applied in the courts is the test laid down by
what are called, I think inappropriately, the M'Naghten Rules. From these rules is drawn the test
upon which every jury is directed in every case of this kind, and I dare say there may be many
hon. Members who do not recall how these rules came into being.
The position is that a man called Daniel M'Naghten, who suffered from a delusion that he was
being persecuted by Sir Robert Peel, shot and killed Sir Robert Peel's secretary, a Mr.
Drummond, in mistake for Sir Robert Peel. He was tried for murder and acquitted on the ground
of insanity, and the trial caused public concern. Thereupon, the House of Lords asked the judges

of the day to express their opinion as to the criminal responsibility of those who suffered from
insane delusions.
The judges did express their opinion, and it contained these words: To establish a defence upon
the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of the committing of the act, the
party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to
2110 know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not
know he was doing what was wrong. May I ask the House to notice this: from these rules which,
as I say, have been the guide in these questions for so long, in fact, since 1843, it is clear that the
fundamental requirement is that there should be shown to be a disease of the mind. I would
suggest that is clearly right. It should remain so.
But the rules go on to say that, having established a disease of the mind, the defence must
continue so as to prove a defect of reason of the sort described. It is around these words "defect
of reason" that controversy has ranged over a number of years. Is it too strict a requirement? May
there not beand let me say that I am convinced there arecases where a man knows the nature
and quality of his act and knows that it is wrong, but, by reason of a disease of the mind, cannot
prevent himself from committing it?
May there not be, not merely a defect of reason but a defect of will which should constitute a
defence? In this connection it will be remembered, at any rate by my hon. and learned Friends,
that it has been decided that an irresistible impulse, or an uncontrollable impulse, is not a
defence, and I have always doubted the righteousness of that. Logically, if there be a disease of
the mind which renders a man incapable literally of resisting an impulse, I cannot in logic see
why that is not a defence. I ventured to say that in the evidence which I gave before the Royal
Commission.
The M'Naghten Rules in this connection have been criticised by very distinguished persons and
bodies of persons for a long time, along the lines that if a man is prevented by disease of the
mind from controlling his own conduct, that should amount to a defence. It was Sir James
Fitzjames Stephen who took this view very clearly in years gone by, and indeed for this there
was judicial support; because one reads in the Commission's Report that in 1840 a man called
Oxford was tried for shooting at Queen Victoria, and Lord Chief Justice Denman, directing the
jury, said that the accused should be acquitted, if some controlling disease was, in truth, the
acting power within him, which he could not resist. That, I think, is a matter 2111 It will be
within the recollection of some hon. Members that in 1922 the Lord Chancellor of the day set up
a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Atkin, as he then was, to inquire into this
problem. It is to be noticed that among the evidence called before that committee was evidence
from the British Medical Association to the effect that a disease of the mind which rendered a
man incapable of resisting or controlling his conduct should be a defence.
That committee reported to that effect when it said: It should be recognised that a person charged
criminally with an offence is irresponsible for his act when the act is committed under an
impulse which the prisoner was by mental disease in substance deprived of any power to resist.
No doubt the Commission whose Report we are considering was impressed by the evidence
which they had upon this subject.

As it seems to me, the principal argument against any alteration of the M'Naghten Rules would
appear to be this: they have worked well for a long time; they have been liberally interpreted, and
indeed they have been stretched by the jury if circumstances appeared to require it. For my part
and I would urge my right hon. and gallant Friend to observe thisI feel that in a matter of
this importance, when a man may either be acquitted or sentenced to death, the rules should be
adequate to embrace the sort of case which I have put to the House; that liberal intepretation or
stretching should not be necessary, but that the rules should cover it.
In this connection the Commission has presented two alternatives, the members of the
Commission being divided in their views. On the one hand it is suggested by a minority that the
M'Naghten Rules should be amended and extended so as to add that insanity is proved if disease
of the mind renders the accused incapable of preventing himself from committing the offence.
On the other handand this is the recommended proposal; as it were, the preferred proposalit
is suggested that the M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated and the whole question left at large
for the jury to say, looking at all the circumstances, if they find insanity or no. I 2112 am not able
to support the latter proposal. I feel that a formula should be devised so that the jury may have an
objective standard by which to decide the issue.
On the other hand, I certainly incline to the view that the most serious consideration should be
given to the question of giving effect to the former alternative, namely, that a formula devised for
the guidance of the jury be adopted, and the M'Naghten Rules extended in the way proposed by
the Commission so as to include these other cases where, owing to disease of the mind, the mind
does not go with the act, so that there is no offence. Were this change made, it might well be that
it would provide a further protection for those whose mental affliction should in justice excuse
them from criminal responsibility.
6. 19 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice (Sheffield, Neepsend)
I desire to intervene shortly in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member
for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
I think that we all start from one common ground of agreement, whatever view and whatever
conclusion we may come to regarding the question of abolition or not. That is that there is
something utterly repellent in the infliction of the death sentence. According to our particular
inclinations we use words like "immoral," or "uncivilised," or "shocking," but broadly speaking
what we are all pointing to, whatever adjective we may choose, is the fact that we are deeply
disturbed at the idea that a human being is deliberately and solemnly done to death by the will of
society, in whatever circumstances.
In his speech the Home Secretary used a word which I should like to borrow. It is a dangerous
one, but I think that it is apposite in this context. He referred to the question of onus. His
approach to the matter was that much as he disliked the death penaltyas I am sure we all do

he felt that it would be unsafe to abolish it unless he was certain that some equally effective
deterrent could be put in its place.
Is not that really putting the onus in the wrong place? If we start from the assumption that there
is a practice which is inherently barbaric, and which everybody, deeply and profoundly, feels
ought 2113 to be dispensed with if it possibly can be, is not the only justification for its retention
convincing and irrefutable proof that without it society would be seriously harmed?
In adopting the view which he has done, and which he says is that of the Government, the Home
Secretary is really treating the Report of the Commission as if it had not been made. The
question surely is whether the death sentence is such a unique deterrent that, inevitably, if it is
dispensed with society must suffer harm and innocent victims be made sacrifices to murderous
instincts on the part of individual miscreants.
It is upon that precise question that, after the most exhaustive investigation of all the evidence on
both sidesincluding that consisting of what one might call personal reaction and personal
conjecture and that consisting of statisticsthe Report has come down in favour of the view that
it is impossible to draw any conclusion of any validity as to the effectiveness of the death penalty
as a deterrent, and the relative possible effectiveness of alternative penalties.
I put it to the Home Secretary and to the Housebecause we are all proceeding to exercise our
judgment on a free vote and independently, as we should in a matter of this sortthat that leaves
the matter in this position: ex concessis here is something which is inherently horrible.
Investigation has shown that it is impossible to draw any safe conclusion to justify it.
It is said that the death penalty is a very good deterrent. So far as I am aware, that is really the
basic argument which is put forward in support of it. That is obviously what was uppermost in
the minds of the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr.
Nield). I think that everybody would accept that, broadly speaking, those people who believe in
the retention of the death penalty test this question by asking themselves, "Is it or is it not a
unique deterrent." The Report entirely cuts the ground from under the feet of those who believe
in the death penalty for that reason.
Some hon. Members will agree with me, and others will violently disagree with me, that the final
and ultimate test is not necessarily whether or not it is a 2114 deterrent. I do not believe that the
fact that the death penalty may be a good deterrent is, of itself, necessarily and alone sufficient to
justify its retention. If it were enough to justify barbarity to point to the fact that it was an
effecive deterrent, it would surely be an equal justification for even more barbaric and severe
penalties.
Nobody in this House or in the country would for a moment suggest that in order to provide the
most effective of all deterrents we should reintroduce some form of physical torture. Indeed, if
anybody made such a suggestion to those who most ardently believe in the retention of the death
penalty, the reason why that suggestion would be rejected out of hand and with indignation
would be that it was in itself uncivilised and abhorrent. But those are precisely the grounds upon
which I protest against the death penalty.

Where is the line to be drawn? If the death penalty itself is uncivilised, why draw the line at the
death penalty and say, "We shall accept that uncivilised thing, but we shall not proceed further
and accept the infliction of sonic sort of physical pain which would be an even more effective
deterrent"? That is why, at the outset, I do not accept the question of whether or not the death
sentence is uniquely effective as a deterrent as being a conclusive test.
I urge the further consideration, which was developed by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr.
Hollis), that one must measure against any advantageif there is oneor any effective deterrent
power in the case of the death penalty, the disadvantage which consists in the harm done to
society by the infliction of the death sentence. This is a matter which depends upon personal
impression and conjecture. On this point I certainly have with me the hon. Member for Devizes,
whose reaction is entirely the same as my own and, I believe, the same as that of many people.
One has to consider what happens when a murder is committed. A manhunt begins; the people
become enthralled by the fact that a man is being chased; the picture of the wretched creature
sometimes appears in the newspapersa horrid-looking object who is known by everybody to
be at bay and running for his life; he is almost inevitably apprehended, and there is then 2115 a
morbid interest as to what he will say. Then begins the battle in the courts, and the varying
fortunes from day to day as the evidence points this way or that. Then there is the speculation as
to what the jury's verdict will be, then the appeal, and after that the presentation of petitions
bearing the signatures of those who sympathise with the convicted man.
Then, finally, come the ghastly and unutterable happenings of the night before and the morning
upon which the man goes to his death. It is said that ordinary people are not conscious of all that,
but we have only to go into any gathering of ordinary people to see them all bent over the
newspapers, reading all the macabre detailsand the spice of it is that a man's life is at stake.
That is why all this is blazoned over the newspapers; that is why it is such excellent copy, and
that, I suggest, is why it has a brutalising effect upon society.
One must approach matters of this sort with no hysteria, and it is doing a disservice to the House
to overpaint the picture. I hope that no hon. Member thinks that I am doing so. I am trying not to.
Our society is built up upon a sense of kindliness, of a dislike of the infliction of suffering, a
hatred of brutality and the infliction of death.
These murders unfortunately happen from time to time, and the same procedure goes on each
time. The whole account is given in the newspapers, and all the lurid and graphic details are
drunk in by millions of people. My personal conjecture is that, in the long run, little by little,
imperceptibly and without our being conscious of it, it is bound to blunt that sense of kindliness
upon which our civilisation rests.
One has only to look back at the history of the last 50 years to realise what a delicate fabric
civilisation is, and also to realise how utterly dangerous is anything which tends in the least to
undermine the foundations on which that fabric rests. So I urge that consideration, as did the hon.
Member for Devizes, as constituting a counter-balancing disadvantage that should be weighed in
the scales, even if it is thought that it is shown and demonstrated that there is an advantage to
society in the added effectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent.

2116 One cannot look at it wholly in isolation. We must consider it in its context, and we must
weigh the good, if any, and the bad that comes from it. I put it to the House that the bad
outweighs, and I believe in the long run easily outweighs, the good. The evidence has been
exhaustively examined already. The Commissioners state as their considered opinion that the
statistical evidence is quite inconclusive. They might possibly, as an hon. Gentleman opposite
pointed out, have gone a little further in the direction of saying that a conclusion can be drawn
from it, because they point to the record obtained from States in America where conditions were
comparable, in some of which there was a death penalty and in some of which there was not.
As they point out, in paragraph 64 of their Report, in those States there was, broadly speaking, a
corresponding fluctuation in the figures of violent crime which seemed to exclude the operation
of the death penalty as a really effective influence in determining the figures for violent crime. At
any rate, they said that the figures, so far as the statistical side of the matter goes, will not lead to
any result.
The rest of the evidence, I think one must describe it, without any offence to any of those who
gave it, is evidence dependent on a purely subjective approach. It is a guess. The Royal
Commission said that, in its considered view, the evidence, so far as it could tell, led to this
conclusion: that, prima facieand that means probably, or far from certainthe death penalty
was a more effective deterrent than other penalties in the case of normal people.
In this House, we are normal but we are not the sort of people who are to be deterred. We are not
inclined to crime. I put it to the House that that conclusion by the Royal Commission is one in
the face of which it is unsafe for the Home Secretary or the Government to say that the death
penalty ought to be retained because of its deterrent value.
I would also put this consideration before the House. I believe that a great deal depends on what
society gets used to as the supreme penalty. At the moment, we are used to the death penalty as
the supreme penalty, but suppose that we had no death penalty, and that instead it was recognised
that all that lay before 2117 a murderera person who committed the worst of all crimeswas a
long period of imprisonment, so long as really to terrify the ordinary person.
I think it may well beagain, I may be mistaken, and one cannot dogmatise on matters of this
sortthat, once society had become accustomed to that as the supreme penalty, it would possess
great and perhaps equally deterrent power, not because it was a long term of imprisonment, but
because it had become accepted as the worst thing that society could do to one and the supreme
penalty that could be imposed upon one.
When we discussed this matter in 1948, we were, after all, still in the shadow of the aftermath of
the war. It had ended some three years before, and it is now 10 years since it ended. We have got
back to peace-time habits and to the ethics of peace-time existence, so far as we ever shall for
many years to come, and perhaps in our lifetime, because blood is still being spilt in many areas
of the world at this very moment. That being so, it behoves society to make up its mind definitely
whether it wants this penalty to go on. It is a proceeding which, by its character, is not one which
can just be accepted as part of the normal course of events.

We cannot justify the death penalty because it is of long standing, and because it is that to which
we are accustomed. If men are to lose their lives, they must lose their lives only as the result of
the considered will and expressed and determined purpose of society, after carefully going into
the matter. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the
Member for Nelson and Colne.
As the House will be aware, there is a similar Amendment on the Order Paper in the names of
certain right hon. and hon. Friends of mine and myself, which is in identical terms, except that it
omits reference to imprisonment for life as an alternative to the death sentence. That difference
was deliberate, because it was our purpose to leave open the question of what the alternative
should be. The Home Secretary has said, and many people think, that there is something even
barbaric in a long period of imprisonment, such as must be inflicted on the worst criminals
poisoners and so on.
2118 Many people say that that is uncivilised in itself, and that they are not prepared to accept it.
In our Amendment, we deliberately left open what the alternative should be. Obviously, it has to
be long, but it need not necessarily be so long as to cause the deterioration of the culprit. At any
rate, if the alternative sentence is longand, of course, it must be long, and everybody accepts it
surely, it is a matter for prison reform so to alter the conditions in which the culprit would live
during his years of imprisonment as to prevent them being such as to be likely to cause a
breakdown in his spirit.
For these reasons, we put down this Amendment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson
and Colne put down his Amendment, because, there being uncertainty as to the deterrent value of
the death penalty, and that being the only justification, if there can be any justification for such a
thing, we think that there should be a trial period in order that society may be able to resolve that
uncertainty by its own experience.
The Home Secretary says that five years will not give us the answer we want. If so, let it be
longer. Let it be 10 years. Let it be such period as can place society in a position in which, with
confidence, it may answer the all-important problem which is before us. For these reasons, I very
much hope that a majority of hon. Members will feel that it is their duty to go into the Division
Lobby tonight in support of the Amendment.
6.39 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald (Chertsey)
I am sure that no one would for a moment doubt the sincerity and conviction of the right hon.
and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr.
S. Silverman), and those who are associated with him. I very much hope that, if I put forward a
different and contrary view, I may have the same indulgence and leave of the House, since I
speak with equal sincerity.
I have perhaps the advantage that, unlike most of those who have spoken so far, I have no
previous record. There are others, of course, who have, and I think that it is perhaps rather

significant that there is this difference of opinion, this changing of mind. It seems to show that
people's minds on this subject and in this House are still in a state of flux. 2119 That, I think, is a
matter which we ought to take into account when considering the Amendment, because I feel it is
necessary to bring the House back for a moment or two to the Amendment.
We have really heard very little at all about the Amendment. Most of the discussion todayand
certainly some very interesting, attractive, stimulating and moving things have been saidhas
been on the question of whether capital punishment should be abolished or not. The Amendment
expressly and carefully refrains from suggesting any such thing as that. It is said that there is to
be an experiment. Therefore, I very respectfully venture to warn hon. Members who have not
made up their minds upon the questionand I think that there is quite a number of them here
that they should be very careful what they are doing when they come to vote this evening. After
all, it is to them that the arguments should be addressed today.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne does not want a five-year experiment. He wants capital
punishment abolished now. The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend does not want an
experiment. He is convinced about it. We have only to listen to him to realise that. Then there are
those, on the other side, whom nothing will convince that it should be abolished. But the people
interested in the subject this evening are those who have not made up their minds, and, quite
frankly, the appeal of the Amendmentif it is to appeal to hon. Members in that positionmust
be on the basis that the five-year experiment is going to do something. I ask the House to
consider quite calmly and quite dispassionately what it is going to do.
The object, normally, of an experiment is to gain experience. What is the experience that we shall
have gained at the end of five years? Does anybody seriously think that the next five years are
going to produce statistics of any greater assistance than those which we now have? Thinking
about it in, perhaps, a more concrete form than we have been hearing about it in the last hour or
two, what are we really going to have before us at the end of five years which will help us to
make up our minds any more than we can now?
2120 We are going to have five years' time, but we shall not get five years' experience, because,
after all, some of the best murders of 1955 may well have been committed already, and in the last
year there will, perhaps, be a different consideration in the minds of some people. We are told by
the Report that interesting and useful figures are those of crimes of murder believed to be murder
by the police. Whether that is a good and reliable thing or not, it is, at any rate, something which
the Commission thought useful. I find that over four years those figures were 173, 141, 147 and
119.
What do those sort of figures teach us? Those being the sort of figuressuppose we have A, B,
X and Ywhich we shall take over four years of the experiment, what inference is anybody
going to draw from them? None whatever. If one looks at the figures of the convicted for the
same period, we find 30, 25, 36 and 28no trend of any kind in the four years before the
Commission's Report. No information is provided by those figures.
So what position are we going to find at the end of the five years? We may possibly have some
statements alleged to have been made by convicted people or something that somebody thought

of from talking to them or from looking at them, or the report of some psychiatrist. What
position are we going to be in? We shall be in the position that we shall not be able to form any
judgment at all from statistics, as the Report of the Commission shows that it was not. What is
going to happen then?
I suggest that we ought to think of the speech which would be made in 1960 by the right hon.
and learned Member for Neepsend. Cannot hon. Members hear him getting up and saying, "What
right has the House to put back this dreadful thing which we have taken away unless it can prove
it is necessary to put it back?" [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to hon. Members
because by their applause they are making my point so clearly. What we are going to do by this
Amendment, if it is accepted, is to create a fait accompli. [Interruption.] If any of my hon.
Friends had any doubt as to the object of the Amendment, they have now had the answer given to
them.
Mr. S. Silverman
I respectfully suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he got it the wrong way
round. 2121 If we were to abolish capital punishment altogether in 1955, and wanted to reimpose
it in 1960, then, indeed, we should have to do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.
But if this Amendment, or legislation to implement this Amendment, were carried, then, in 1960,
the death penalty would be automatically restored unless the House of Commons or Parliament
intervened to extend the period.
Sir L. Heald
I think that the House took my point, and hon. Members opposite have saved me time in making
it any further.
There is another point of a more general character I wish to mention, which is that in this country
we have never taken kindly to experimental legislation. It is not the work of statesmen, but of
mere politicians. Some of us have had experience of what happens when experiments have to be
unscrambled. It very often produces some most unsatisfactory results, into which I cannot go
further at the present time.
Experimental legislation carries in its train the necessity for other experiments, and I should like
to know, in due course, whether my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary would be
able to give an assurance that, if the experiment were put into force, he could be certain that he
would not have to arm the police. That, I think, is the sort of consideration that one has to bear in
mind. If we are going to try experiments, then let both sides take part in them, because,
otherwise, we might find ourselves taken somewhat to task by the people of the country.
I have spoken as regards the negative practical effect, and I would just add the point that no
Home Secretary, and no one with any administrative experience of this matter, has suggested that
we should get any valuable information or experience from such an experiment. That is an
interesting fact. After all, if the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who gave a slight
indication of the way in which the weathercock was turningalthough he did not say anything

very definitehad felt that this would be a really valuable and useful experiment which would
produce material upon which the House of Commons might be helped to make up its mind,
would he not have said so very clearly? Perhaps which- 2122 ever of my right hon. Friends
replies to this debate may be able to give us a little information on that point. I hope that he will.
As regards the question of the onus of proof, I would remind the House of what was said on that
subject in the previous debate, which sums up what I want to say in the clearest possible way,
when Sir John Anderson, as he then was, dealt with the subject. He had been asked whether this
was something which would give assistance in arriving at a conclusion. This is what he said: As
regards the proposal that abolition of the capital sentence should be tried for a period of five
years, to that I am absolutely opposed. I do not believe that it can provide any useful lesson. He
went on to say: I should regard it merely as an evasion of the real issue, an evasion which would
quite subtly shift the onus of proof from where it ought to be."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th
April. 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1005.] That is what I was saying before, and it certainly is not an
original thought of my own.
The same thing was put into words by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt in another place.
He said: But, whatever the conclusion we ultimately reach on that problem" that is on the
question and the abolition of the death penalty, I feel that we must face up to that problem
frankly and boldly, and must not try to arrive at the abolition of capital punishment by a mere
side issue or subterfuge."[OFFICIAL R4EPORT, House of Lords, 16th December, 1953; Vol.
185, c. 150.] I venture to suggest that it would be a matter for very wide consideration as to
whether intentionally or not, it does not matter, the Amendment is not a mere subterfuge. It is not
a matter of conscience in any way when we are considering whether or not an experiment is
worthwhile. It is a matter of conscience as to whether we vote in favour of the abolition of
capital punishment or against it.
Tonight no one will expect for a moment those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken
in favour of the Amendment to vote in any other way except one. I certainly do not expect
anything I say to have the slightest effect upon them. But I do say that anyone who has not made
up his mind on this 2123 subject ought to think very carefully indeed before he accedes to the
temptation of easing his conscience by saying, "That is all right; we can let it run for five years."
I do not believe that it is a question of letting it run for five years at all. I believe, as has been
stated quite widely outside this House by representative organs of public opinion, that it is
merely an illusion to think that this is an experiment. It is an attempt, quite genuine and perfectly
proper, to take the House by storm tonight on this Amendment.
If hon. Members are prepared to accept in principle the total of itpermanent abolition of capital
punishmentthen of course they are perfectly right in supporting the Amendment. But if they
are not, then I say they have no right whatever to vote in favour of it.
6.55 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I think that the principal point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L.
Heald) was dealt with by the intervention of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S.
Silverman). If his emphasis is on the onus of proofand he made a big point of thatI say that I
feel that the onus of proof is on those who want to hang a man.
As to his other point about the five yearsI admit it quite franklyI hope that in those five
years there will be a good deal of public discussion before any irrevocable step is taken. I go
further and say that if the right hon. and learned Member or any other hon. Member is not
satisfied that five years is a long enough period, it might not be asking too much if they would
seek to amend it and let us have a longer period.
In the Report of the Royal Commission, the members come down as near as they can, at every
stage, in favour of advocating abolition, but they could not do so because of their terms of
reference. Not being able to do that, they resisted the temptation, but they came to their most
important finding in paragraph 65. I was surprised that the Home Secretary did not refer to that at
any time in his speech. I would remind the House that the last words in paragraph 65 go to the
root of the matter because a great deal in the speeches we have heard has been on 2124 whether
capital punishment is a deterrent or not.
The Report states: The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear
evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led
to an increase in the homicide rate, or that its reintroduction has led to a fall. That, surely, is the
most important sentence in the whole Report. Is it surprising that the Commission should have
come to that conclusion? After all, in the debate today, we have had affirmation from the hon.
and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) that, in his opinion, capital punishment
is a deterrent. But we have had no one seeking to argue or bring evidence to that effect. What
evidence has come before us has been in accordance with the findings of the Royal Commission.
We have the fact that we should not think of potential murderers reacting to deterrents as do
ordinary men. We know that one half of the men and women tried for murder each year are
found to be insane. We must remember, too, in connection with this word "insane, "that Christie
wasto put it mildlya trifle odd but not legally insane. They are not ordinary normal people.
Secondly, we have had pointed out the fact that in the course of the last 130 years or 140 years
we have had a change, in that capital punishment used to be applicable to more than 200 crimes,
and as the deterrent of capital punishment has been lifted from those offences they have not
increased; they have declined in number.
We have had reference made to flogging. The fact is that since flogging was abolished those
offences which were previously floggable have also declined in number. We have the illustration,
which was given in the Report, of the adjoining States in the United States, Rhode Island and
Massachusetts are next door to each other. In Rhode Island, there is no death penalty. In
Massachusetts, there is a death penalty. The racial origin of the people and type of communities
in the two States are indistinguishable one from the other.
Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

No.
Mr. de Freitas
I know both States well, as does the hon. Gentleman. Does 2125 he say that Rhode Island is very
different from Massachusetts?
The fact is that in both States the murder rate is almost exactly the same, and it has been so since
1920. If we take two other States, New Hampshire and Maine, which are also States next door to
each other, with a State line between which has nothing to do with history or race or anything
except the incidence of settlement, we find the same. One State has capital punishment and the
other State has not. Again, the trends are almost the same.
In the face of that evidence, of the arguments that have been advanced, and of the concluding
sentence of the paragraph which I have just read, to the effect that the Commission came to the
conclusion, after examining all the evidence, that there was no evidence that the abolishment of
capital punishment had led to any increase in the homicide rate how can it be said that it is a
deterrent? We require the discharge of a heavy burden of proof.
I hope that the Home Secretary will deal with one point made by the right hon. and learned
Gentleman the Member for Chertsey, because it worries me. The point is whether the police
would be in danger if this experiment were carried out. We can only go on what evidence we
have, to show whether, when capital punishment has been abolished, there has been an increase
in armed robbery or in the carrying of arms by robbers.
In paragraph 255, the Select Committee says: We have had no evidence that after the abolition
of capital punishment in other countries there has been any increase in the number of burglars
arming themselves. I should like the Home Secretary to deal with the point because it is
important.
I make no apology for supporting the proposed experiment. I have said why. No one has
produced evidence that there is a possible disadvantage to the community. I know that we are a
unique country, but I cannot see that we are so unlike other countries that we should be the one
exception to all the others, and that if capital punishment were abolished for this short period we
should run the risk of increased violence during those five years.
And there would be the possible advantagewe cannot put it higher than 2126 thatthat some
innocent man or woman who might otherwise be executed would have his life. We have heard
references today to the case of Evans. There are other cases in recent years which have caused a
good deal of disquiet. In view of the awful finality of the death penalty, this experiment is
justified. There is no evidence that there would be any increase in murders in the five years, and
we are quite certain that during the five years no innocent person would be executed.
Mr. Osborne
The hon. Gentleman is supporting this proposal as a five-year experiment?

 Mr. de Freitas
That is so.
Mr. Osborne
What type of evidence would the hon. Member like at the end of that five years to justify the
reimposing of the death penalty?
Mr. de Freitas
I do not believe that I can go much further than what I have said earlier. In those five years there
will be a good deal more public discussion. I mean that. I want public discussion. I do not think
the public understand the full implications of the matter, and the reasons for and against.
Mr. Osborne
It is important to those of us who are not absolutely certain about what to do to have an answer
on this point. After those five years of experiment, and if the hon. Gentleman has not made up
his mind conclusively, what evidence would he like from the statistics of those five years to
convince him that it is necessary to go back to where we are today?
Mr. de Freitas
I have made up my mind on quite different grounds in favour of the abolition of the death
penalty, but I believe there should be a period of public discussion of the matter.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who seconded the Amendment, referred to one or
two European countries. That was an important point. I came face to face with the attitude of
other Europeans when I had to help European lawyers to draft a Convention on Extradition
which covered capital offences. One of the complications was the acute repugnance that those
Continental lawyers had for anything to do with the death penalty.
2127 Many Continental countries have clauses in their extradition treaties saying that they will
not extradite anyone if he is to be charged with offences which involve the capital penalty. In the
case of Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, the Saar, Luxembourg,
Germany, Austria, Italy Switzerland and Portugal, we find that not one of those countries has
capital punishment. We should consider whether we differ so much in culture and outlook from
the Scandinavian countries and Holland that we could not learn by their experience. Surely it
cannot be said that we are any more industrially overcrowded or have greater social problems
than Belgium. Belgium has much greater overcrowding and greater industrial concentration than
we have. Surely we have something to learn.
Let us look at the negative side. We find ourselves in these islands bracketed with Spain and
France as the only two countries in Western Europe which still have capital punishment. Surely
that must make us think about the matter. It is no accident that it was during the time of

Mussolini's Government in Italy that capital punishment was reintroduced by the Fascists. The
Fascist Minister of Justice said, in reintroducing it, that he was not doing so because of statistical
evidence of any value, but because it conformed to the whole spirit of Fascism. I do not want to
press that point too far.
I support this Amendment because of the delicate balance of civilisation to which my right hon.
and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) referred, and because in this age of
mass destruction
Mr. Osborne
There is still capital punishment in Russia.
Mr. de Freitas
Of course. They have it in many totalitarian countries. I am delighted that my Lincolnshire
neighbour has appreciated one of my points, which is that it exists in countries where the State
seeks complete domination over the people. That is why the first thing the Italians did after the
war, 'when the Fascist rgime had gone, was to abolish the death penalty. That is why it was
abolished in Germany immediately after the war.
In an age of mass destruction, and especially in the age of the hydrogen 2128 bomb, it is
important that we should treasure anything which makes us regard human life as the greatest and
most precious thing there is, as something which the State should not be permitted in any
circumstances to take away.
7.8 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel H. M. Hyde (Belfast, North)
I find myself very largely in agreement with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas). I am
particularly impressed by his reference to the concluding sentence of paragraph 65 of the Report
about the effect of the abolition and the reintroduction of capital punishment on the homicide
figures.
The hon. Member and myself have both served on the legal committee of the Consultative
Assembly of the Council of Europe. I can endorse from personal experience what he said about
the absolute and violent repugnance of most Continental lawyers to the death penalty. It is not so
strange that I should feel as the hon. Member does, because I am proposing to speak in support
of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to
which I have already put my name on the Order Paper. Before doing so, I want to say a brief
word about the Report itself.
It is a very remarkable Report, particularly in its appendices. I am certain that it will be regarded
for many years to come as a most important and valuable reference work on the great,
controversial subject of capital punishment.

As the Report points out, there is perhaps no single class of offences which differs so much in
character and culpability as that of murder as defined in our law. The murderers may be men,
women, youths, girls, or they may be hardly older than children. They may be normal, feebleminded, neurotic or insane. The crime may be understandable or pitiable or, on the other hand,
callous or brutal. It may be unpremeditated or very carefully planned, or it may be committed in
the course of carrying out another crime. There may be no murderous intent at all and the death
of the victim may depend on an accident. Yet by the ancient doctrine of constructive malice, of
which we have already heard something tonight, the killing is legally murder.
2129 Finally the underlying motives may show a wide range of human emotions, such as
cupidity, revenge, fear, lust, jealousy, anger, and even political fanaticism, as I know from my
experience in Ireland. Or there may be no intelligible motive at all. Yet for all these varieties of
murder our courts today have no alternative but to pronounce sentence of death once the accused
has been found guilty by a jury. And unlike some other countries where capital punishment is
still imposed, such as the United States of America, there are no degrees of murder in the United
Kingdom. Our law still demands a life for a life as it did in primitive times, regardless of the
circumstances.
Of course, the law does not always get a life for a life, and that is due to two particularly
mitigating factors. The first of these is the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy. If we look
at the figures given in the Report of the number of murders between 1900 and 1950, we see that,
so far as males convicted of murder were concerned, about 40 per cent. were reprieved and, so
far as women, about 90 per cent. The details are all given in the Fourth Appendix to the Report
with some interesting and striking examples. Then there is the second mitigating factor of the
reluctance of juries in certain cases to see the death penalty passed. The Report quotes two
distinguished judgesLord Justice Denning and the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard
referring to the fact that juries have refused to bring in a conviction where they have not thought
it appropriate, although their verdict might be contrary to the facts of the case.
It has appeared from the interesting debate we have had so far this evening that there is a fairly
widespread feeling in this country that the supreme penalty should be reserved for the more
heinous offences. The Royal Commission has made a number of recommendations to which
reference has been made. There is the proposal to abolish the doctrine of constructive malice,
which is an ancient doctrine but which has now been completely outgrown by the needs of
modern times. Then there is the proposal that the defence of provocation should also include a
case where provocation is by words alone. Thirdly, it is suggested that the survivor of a suicide
pact should 2130 not be regarded as guilty of murder unless he or she killed the other party.
I do not imagine that great exception can be taken to those relatively minor but by no means
unimportant proposals. The proposal for the raising of the age at which an individual can suffer
capital punishment from the age of 18 to 21 is perhaps more controversial. Of a major character
are the proposals which were referred to in a particularly striking speech made by my hon. and
learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield), to revise the M'Naghten Rules in
cases of insanity or mental abnormality.

Of the two proposals, it certainly seems preferable that, rather than sweep away the M'Naghten
Rules altogether, there should be an additional proviso which brings in the conception of
irresistible or uncontrollable impulse. A recent case which is in the minds of everyone in this
House is that of Straffen, a young man who went to Broadmoor having killed one girl and,
having broken out of Board-moor, proceeded to kill another little girl. There is no doubt that
Straffen was fully conscious of the nature and quality of his act and that he knew that what he
was doing was wrong. In that respect the M'Naghten Rules did not cover his case, but it was
demonstrated to be perfectly clear that Straffen was an individual of a very low mental standard,
and it would have been a monstrous miscarriage of justice to carry out the death penalty which
was passed on him at Winchester Assizes.
Finally, there is the most controversial proposal in the Report, that which leaves to the jury a
discretion, once the accused has been convicted, to decide whether there are any extenuating
circumstances. The general opinion, which has been expressed tonight, was summed up in the
leading article on the subject in "The Times" this morning, that this proposal may be taken as
still-born.
The real issue, which is brought out strongly at paragraph 611 of the Report and has already been
quoted, is whether capital punishment ought to be retained or abolished. If it is agreed that it
should be abolished or suspended for a trial period, then all these other recommendations,
admirable in their way, are not really necessary. Since, however, the Royal Commission was
expressly precluded from considering the question of 2131 whether capital punishment ought to
be abolished or not, in the circumstances it did the best job it could in establishing what has been
called a half-way house.
This issue as to whether we abolish capital punishment or not is one which must be faced,
however, and we must face it tonight. I propose to face it by going into the Lobby in support of
the Amendment to suspend the death penalty for a trial period of five years. Let me say straight
away that I have been impressed by the arguments from this side of the House that suspension
for this trial period might be tantamount to abolition. The matter was very clearly stated in the
leading article in "The Times" of today, which said: In practice, suspension and abolition are
identical. If either was followed byand considered by Parliament to have causeda notable
increase of murders, it would be necessary to repeal it without waiting five years; if there was no
such increase the Act of suspension could as well be permanent, since nobody wants to preserve
the death penalty for its own sake. I have no intention of traversing the familiar ground of
argument in any detail for or against capital punishment. I will content myself with stating
briefly why I am against it and why I am in favour of the Amendment. This is a matter to which I
have given considerable thought over a period of some years.
In the first place, I am not satisfied that capital punishment is a truly effective deterrent or has the
unique deterrent effect which is claimed for it by its advocates. Those who support it claim that
without the death penalty there would be an increase in murders, and those includeand our
attention has been drawn to this by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretarythe
police, prison officers and some judges whose views are summarised in paragraph 61 of the
Report. I must say that I am not impressed by this argument at all.

Similar arguments were put forward in the last century when it was proposed to abolish hanging
for such offences as stealing 5s., cutting one's name on Westminster Bridge or impersonating an
outpatient of Guy's Hospital. On the occasion of the proposal to abolish the death penalty for
those offences. the then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Ellen-borough in another place,
declared that 2132 if this Measure were allowed to pass into law, no man's property would be
safe.
On the contrary, I think that experience has proved that the death penalty is not more effective in
preventing murder than other penalties which can be substituted. such as life imprisonment. I
know that some previous speakers have alluded to life imprisonment in certain circumstances as
causing a deterioration in the prisoner's constitution. On that, I think it is worth while looking at
what Mr. Pinker, of the Central After-Care Association, said in examination before the Royal
Commission, in paragraph 655 of the Report: In the old days, if a man had served 10 years, I
think there was a very great danger of his becoming institutionalised. Under present
conditions I think that a man could serve 10 years in one of our modern prisons and go out and
fit in with modern conditions quite easily. That view has been supported by the Howard League
for Penal Reform, who consider that a prisoner could be detained for even longer than 10 years
without any ill effect.
The value of deterrents can be assessed in two ways, first of all as it affects the individual, and
secondly, as it affects the crime rate in general. On its effects on the individual, the Report has
something interesting to say in paragraph 59: We have been told that the first thing a murderer
says when he is arrested is often, 'Shall I be hanged?' or 'I did it and I am ready to swing for it, '
or something of that kind. What is the inference to be drawn from this? Clearly not that the death
penalty is an effective deterrent, for he has not been deterred; nor that he consciously considered
the risk of the death penalty and accepted it On the second question, that of general deterrents,
we should look at the experience of other countries, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said. All the
major European countries, with the exception of France, have abolished capital punishment, as
also have certain of the United States of America and certain of the Commonwealth countries.
When evidence was given before the Select Committee which considered this matter some years
ago, the Belgian Ministry of Justice representative said: The average of capital sentences has
never been higher than it was during the period when the instrument of capital punishment was
actually in use. The lesson has been learnt that the best means of inculcating respect for
human life is to refrain from taking life in the name of the law. 2133 More recently, before the
Royal Commission, Dr. Paul Cornil, the Secretary-General of the Belgian Ministry of Justice,
referred in his very interesting evidence to a series of robberies with murder which occurred
quite recently and for which the death penalty was demanded in his country. The SecretaryGeneral explained that the then Minister of Justice refused to accede to this demand, and then he
said: And then a strange thing occurred. Almost suddenly that series of robberies died away
without any apparent cause. Whenever I relate this incident I cannot refrain from pointing out
how narrowly we escaped a grave danger. Suppose for a moment that this man had been put
to death, and then that special kind of crime had disappeared almost immediately, what a victory
for the advocates of capital punishment! They certainly would not have hesitated to conclude that
this improvement was due to the deterrent effect of capital punishment, and it is quite probable
that the death penalty for the common law criminal would have been reinstated and retained for a
long time. I only want to refer to one other person who appeared before the Royal Commission,

and that is Professor Sellin of the United States who has made a special study of murder statistics
all over the world. He gave as his conclusion that whether the death penalty is used or not, both
death penalty States and abolition States show rates which suggest that their rates are conditioned
by other factors than the death penalty.
That brings me back to the sentence from the Report which the hon. Member for Lincoln quoted
the sentence to the effect that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures which have been
examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or
that its reinroduction has led to a fall. That is all I wish to say on the subject of deterrents.
There are two or three other reasons which have actuated me to feel as I do on the subject. One is
the reason to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Lincoln, namely the
possibility of a miscarriage of justice, the possibility that an innocent man may go to the gallows.
I am prepared to admit that this possibility is remote, even that it is very remote, but I do not
think it can be dismissed. Until human judgment becomes infallible, there will always be a
certain risk of an innocent person being hanged so long as we retain the death penalty for murder.
2134 Take the case of Oscar Slater, who was condemned to death in 1909 for a murder which he
did not commit. Admittedly Oscar Slater was reprieved, but for weeks his life hung by a thread
and he spent 19 years in prison before his innocence was conclusively established.
There are other casesnot very many of them, but there are other casesone of which has
already been mentioned, which are not free from doubt. There is the case of Timothy Evans, of
which I will say little, because the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) mentioned it
in his very interesting speech. I will say nothing of it beyond this: had I been a member of the
jury which sat at the trial of Timothy Evans in 1950, and had I known the true facts about Mr.
Christie, I might have hesitated before concurring in the verdict of "Guilty."
There is also the case of Norman Thorne, who was convicted of murdering his girl friend in
1925. His defence was that she had committed suicide and that in a fit of panic he had buried her
body. Three expert witnesses gave very striking evidence confirming the suicide theory. But, in
spite of that, Norman Thorne was hanged. Then there was the case of Walter Rowland, the
murder in an air-raid shelter in Manchester in 1947. Rowland was executed in spite of the fact
that another man confessed to the crime, subsequently withdrew his confession, but was
convicted of another murder, found insane and sent to Broadmoor.
Reference has been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis),
to the effect of executions on prisoners and prison staffs, and in this connection a former Home
Secretary, Lord Templewood, said that in his opinion there is no doubt that, in spite of much
official evidence to the contrary, executions have a most disturbing effect upon the inmates of a
prison, whether staff or prisoners. If anyone wants to know what that effect is like, in my humble
judgment he cannot do better than read the moving verses in "The Ballad of Reading Gaol."
Although they were written 60 years ago, they are as true today as they were in 1896.
There is one other point which has not been mentioned, and that is the effect of executions on the
relatives of executed persons. It inflicts the most terrible suffering on the innocent relatives of a

con- 2135 demned person. The late Stacey Aumonier, the writer, put it like this: Have you ever
tried to visualise the feelings of a mother on the night before her boy is to be hanged? (and no
crime is going to kill maternal love; rather it will make greater claims on the protective instinct).
The agony and horror which you and I, representing the State, must inflict upon this perfectly
innocent woman must be more terrible than any pain the murderer can inflict upon his victim.
And as with the mother, so may it be with the wife, the lover, the sister, the father, the brother,
the children and even the loyal friend. To all these people life must become numbed and
meaningless at the time, and for ever after a haunted wilderness where the demons of revenge for
ever lurk. I can bear that out from personal experience from my conversations with the father of
Derek Bentley, whose life has been ruined by the terrible affair in which his son was involved
and whose wife has had a complete nervous breakdown.
It may be said, "What of the murdered person's relatives?" But how can capital punishment
alleviate their suffering? A second death cannot undo the first. Capital punishment does nothing
for the murdered person's relatives. But to reorganise our prison industries and make the
murderer work in prison to help to support his victim's dependants, as is done in Sweden, would
be a much more sensible way of showing sympathy with the murdered person's relatives than
merely advocating vindictive punishment.
I come to my conclusions. Tonight I will go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Nelson and
Colne, and others who support his Amendment, with a clear conscience. I am convinced that the
retention of capital punishment is a retrograde action today and I believe in my heart that
suspension for this trial period of five years would be a great step forward along the road of
civilisation and humanity. I am certain that it is only a matter of time before we in the United
Kingdom follow the more enlightened example of most Continental countries and relegate the
hangman and the horrible tools of his trade to the barbarous past.
7.38 p.m.
Mr. M. Turner-Samuels (Gloucester)
I have listened anxiously and carefully to the very long speech of the hon. and gallant Member
for Belfast. North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde). Although he made his 2136 observations very well and
as a forensic effort it was much to be admired, his speech has left me in the position of being
unable to detect any cogent ground that justifies support of the Amendment.
The House should recognise the context in which we are having the debate on the Amendment.
In the ordinary way, in a debate on the Report itself, there would be no vote at all. What we
should do, quite properly, would be to scrutinise the contents of the Report and make suggestions
and criticisms in order that the Government might have guidance; but the one thing which would
not happen normally would be a vote.
What is the essential issue which confronts the House in this debate? Not this Report at all, but
the Amendment which has been put down because an opportunity has been taken, through the
present debate on the Report, to resuscitate a discussion which we had in 1948. As I shall show

in a moment, there is no vestige of reason why we should change the opinion which the House
finally then registered.
Mr. Paget
Hear, hear.
Mr. Turner-Samuels
Unless we can show that public opinion has changed between then and now, or some other good
reason, we have no right, because of some sentiment, to do what we individually would like to
see done and completely ignore what public opinion wants.
Mr. Paget
rose
Mr. Turner-Samuels
I will not give way. There is not much time. A good deal of time has been taken already.
We heard a speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F.
Soskice)a most attractive pronouncementbut am I not right when I say that the appeal which
he made was more to the heart than to the head? How did he approach it? I sympathise with him.
I should not like anyone to think that I had not got feelings of humanity and mercy. Of course,
"humanity" and "mercy" are holy words, but mercy should season justice and not weaken it. That
is the aspect of it to which we must come.
What did my right hon. and learned Friend do? His whole case was based upon this sort of
reasoning, and anyone 2137 who looks at HANSARD tomorrow will be able to confirm it. He
said that the death sentence is repellent. We all agree that it is repellent, but what I say is that
murder is also repellent. What we are faced with is not only the question of the death sentence
being repellent but the question whether the death sentence has something of a deterrent nature
which makes what is even more repellentmurderless likely to happen.
My right hon. and learned Friend then said that we are confronted with the terrible picture that
human beings are being killed by society. He said not a word about human beings being killed by
other human beings. That sort of argument and that sort of sentiment will not really do in a grave
matter of this kind when the House is not so much sitting as a popular assembly, as it usually is,
but when, as it has to on occasion, it has changed its role and becomes, as it were, a judge in the
matter.
Let us look at the next thing that my right hon. and learned Friend said. He urged us to picture
the plight of the culprit, and he drew a picture of a hapless individual under the terrible ordeal of
the death sentence. But what about the unfortunate victim and the victim's bereaved family?

My right hon. and learned Friend then went on to say that when these things happen we get
gatherings of people and we see a morbid interest being taken by them in the murder which has
occurred. I can think of another gathering. I can think of the melancholy gathering of the family
of the murdered man. That surely must be considered as well. The conjuring up of the
sentimental ideas to which I have referred really will not do. My right hon. and learned Friend
said that ours is a society which is based on non-brutality. Certainly, and if we can prevent
murder from happening, we are enforcing that very principle. What the House has to consider
tonight is whether we shall contribute to brutality by removing the death sentence, instead of
doing the contrary.
The most compelling test to decide the matter of suspending capital punishment has not really
been developed tonight. It has been argued that there are no figures, or any evidence even to
indicate that capital punishment is a deterrent. I beg to differ. I hope in a moment to demon- 2138
strate that there is very concrete and definite evidence in figures. The important thing that we
have to consider in this respect is crimes of violence, and by that I include murder, which is the
major crime of violence, but that is only a matter of degree. We must take into consideration all
kinds of violence, because that is an element which is important in considering the question of
the removal of the death penalty.
There has been a steady rise in the number of crimes of violence. I will give the House the
figures, and I beg it to observe the steady rise because I believe this to be the crucial test of the
whole question. The figures are: 1948, 3,183; 1949, 3,303; 1950, 3,839; 1951, 3,929; 1952,
4,127; and 1953, 4,285. The figures for 1954 are not yet available.
This is a responsible assembly, and hon. Members are here to protect the public and not to satisfy
any personal sentiments that they may have about this matter. Let us start from that point. It
seems to me that if we are dealing with murder and the removal of the sentence for murder, we
have to look at the rest of the crimes of violence and see what effect they have on the question of
murder and capital punishment. The figures which I have given include murder, manslaughter,
wounding and other offences of violence against the person. I have given the House the figures
which disclose a scale which is definitely upward. If we take the extreme figures we find that
there is an advance of well over 1, 000.
Now let us look at the figures for murder. In 1948 there were 40 cases; in 1949, 33; 1950, 38;
1951, 22; 1952, 41; and 1953, 26. Again, the figures for 1954 are not yet available.
I submit that the question of the suspension of the death penalty cannot be separated from the
question of the position as regards crimes of violence. It is clear on the official figures I have
quoted that there has been a decline in the number of murders. Surely I am entitled to say that if
there has been a decline in the number of murders, then capital punishment apparently has some
deterrent effect, because it is perfectly clear on the other hand that imprisonment has not deterred
crimes of violence other than murder, because the figures for other crimes of violence have all
gone up steadily.
2139
Mr. Ede

As I said in my speech, the convictions for the crimes of violence which were formerly
punishable by flogging have gone down with the lowering of the penalty. The hon. and learned
Gentleman is giving us the number of convictions for murder. It would have been interesting if
he had given us the figures of murders known to the police.
Mr. Turner-Samuels
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see the point of his intervention. I was
dealing purely with the statistics for crimes of violence. I was not referring to crimes which were
subject to flogging or anything of that kind at all.
I am dealing merely with the fact that the figures show a steep rise in the number of crimes of
violence. I ask the House to note that it is quite obvious that imprisonment has had no deterrent
effect on acts of violence. That is shown by the increase. Murder, however, has gone down. I am
in my submission, therefore, entitled to argue that, as murder has gone down, there is some sort
of deterrent somewhere, and I am entitled to believe on the facts that the deterrent is capital
punishment. After all, death is the strongest deterrent, and there is no reason to suppose that it
does not exert its dreadful influence in this lethal sphere. That appears to me to be an absolutely
reasonable deduction to make.
Mr. Paget
Will my hon. and learned Friend tell us with what penalties we started?
Mr. Turner-Samuels
It is surely axiomatic that, as long as crimes of violence are upward, no legislative body
responsible for public security and order could weaken the sanctions of the criminal law. We
have no other interest in this grave matter except to do what is right.
Let us look at the serious problem of penology that will arise, if capital punishment is abolished.
I put it to the House that we shall have to revise the whole penal scale. That may sound a very
tall order, but it will nevertheless have to be done, because otherwise there would be such a
disparity between the penalty for murder and the penalties for lesser crimes that the public would
not tolerate the position of disproportionate scales of punishment.
2140 It must be obvious to hon. Members that the penalty for murder must be much more severe
than the penalty for other crimes. In that context it is proposed, instead of having capital
punishment, to substitute imprisonment for life, or, as it is put in the Report, during Her
Majesty's pleasure. What does that mean? The answer, as will be found in this country and
everywhere else. is that the offender will usually serve nine years' imprisonment at the most, and
probably less.
I can give the House two cases in 1949, one where in the case of murder only four years was
served and another in which only five years was served. It is on record that since 1949 no
sentence, as a rule, has been longer than nine years. The reason is clear and reference to it has

already been made. It is that such is the effect, of moral and physical deterioration, on the
individual concerned that it would be cruelty and torment to allow the sentence to go beyond that
period of confinement.
If it were made more severe than that, it would be substituting a punishment worse than capital
punishment. It is accordingly, the duty of the House to compare this period of four to nine years'
imprisonment with that given for other crimes. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr.
Ede), when he was Home Secretary, introduced a very valuable Criminal Justice Act under which
there were several important penal reforms. One of them created what is now known as
preventative detention.
That is used in cases where there is such a persistent criminal that it is perfectly clear that, unless
he is put away for a considerable time, he will be a menace to the public. He has to be sent to
prison for a long term so that the public may be protected. It is quite common now, as those who
are concerned with the administration of criminal law know, and as those who read their
newspapers can easily ascertain, to send people to preventative detention for 10 years, or even
longer.
Preventive detention may be for a series of crimes, such as housebreaking and breaking and
entering premises, but all definitely below the gravity of murder. That is frequently happening
and indeed it is necessary, because, as I have said, these people have to be put away so that 2141
the public may be protected. In manslaughter cases sentences of 10 to 14 years' imprisonment are
in proper cases imposed. Look at the case of fraud. One does not like to recall unhappy
memories, but the House will recall only recently that there was one familiar case where seven
years' imprisonment was given. It is not many years ago when a sentence of imprisonment for
fraud of 14 years was imposed. I do not want to mention names, because it would be cruel to do
it. For housebreaking, particularly where there is the carrying of arms, the Court has to impose a
very severe sentence indeed.
Is it right therefore in these circumstances to do away with capital punishment and substitute
imprisonment for life and put murder in the same scale as these other crimes to which I have
referred? That really is the issue and the simple fact and that is what the House has to face and
decide. In my submission, public opinion would not tolerate the position for a moment. Public
opinion would not tolerate there being a lesser scale than at present for crimes of violence. Is
anyone going to persuade the House, in a position where crimes of violence are rising, that now
is the time to reduce the present penalties? Yet that would have to happen, if the punishment for
murder were approximated to the punishments for other crimes, because public opinion would
rightly insist that other sentences should be reduced accordingly.
Therefore, I really do ask the House to consider that before it goes into the Lobby tonight on an
Amendment which comes to us, not because anything more has happened than was the case
previously when this House debated it, but comes to us, because of the discussion on this Report.
It is an Amendment which has been put down by those who fervently desire to see the abolition
of capital punishment. I do not criticise them for that. Their humane instincts apparently tell them
that capital punishment is something to which they cannot subscribe and of which they would
like to see the end.

But that is an abstract matter. It is not to be decided by that abstract test, but by this positive test
and this test alone: is the removal of capital punishment in the light of crimes of violence as they
are today going to make murder all the more likely? Are we to take away 2142 what in the
figures appears to be a strong deterrent, namely the fear of the death penalty? That is the issue.
Nothing I have heard tonight and nothing on record and nothing I have seen so far in the Report
would justify mealthough I abhor the death penalty as much as anybody elsein not carrying
out what I feel to be my duty to go into the Lobby tonight and vote against the Amendment.
8.0 p.m.
Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has stated a
case towards which I am sympathetic in principle, although I do not think I quite agree with
some of the arguments he adduced in favour of it. Certainly, I do not suppose that anybody in
this House likes the death penalty, and I have a feeling that this issue is one similar to many
which we have to face up to in this House sooner or laterthat if we cannot always have the best
we ought to have the one that is least bad.
Tonight, I find when considering this matter that, however much one may dislike the death
penalty, one has to consider whether anything which would be put in its place would be less
barbaric. The right hon. Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) made an extremely moving and
sincere speech which must have impressed the House, even those Members who disagreed
strongly with it. He spent some time dealing with the appalling effects of life imprisonment,
though life imprisonment is, in fact, not more than 10 or 12 years in the end.
I have looked most carefully through the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the prison chaplains, because one thing we have to face up to
when dealing with this subject is that murder is not merely a crime against the State. Many of the
witnesses emphasised that this also is a crime against God as well as the State. So it seems to me
that here we are automatically put in a difficulty, because if it is true that the crime is a crime
against God as well as the State, then are we right in solely judging this matter through the State?
The Archbishop of Canterbury did say something before the Royal Commission which I think is
of the utmost importance in this debate. He said, in answer to 2143 question 4130 on page 338 of
the evidence given before the Commission: Positively society is upholding a fundamental
principle and embodies it in its lawthat the supreme, in the sense of the least reversible crime,
is to kill a fellow citizenand it upholds that law by the gravity of the penalty. I think all of us
would agree that murder is an extremely grave crime to commit. I am not the least impressed by
those who say that the only reason for retaining the death penalty is as a deterrent to others.
I do not believe that to be the reason why we ought at this stage to retain it. I believe it is because
there is no other form of penalty to be found which is going to be fairer to murderers of the
future than that penalty which we have exercised in the past. It is a question of somehow
matching the penalty to the crime, not in the sense of An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth

because in my understanding of Christianity I should say that that cannot possibly be justified at
all.
Mr. Philip Bell
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will realise that it is necessary to be careful with that
quotation. It does not really mean taking an eye for an eye, but that not more than an eye should
be taken. One is not bound to take an eye, but one must not take more.
Major Legge-Bourke
I cannot resist the temptation of observing that I do not see what more we could take than a
man's life.
Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)
That is a new interpretation.
Major Legge-Bourke
What I am trying to emphasise is that, when a murderer is condemned, whatever the penalty is it
ought not to be imposed in a spirit of vengeance, but the penalty which is imposed upon him
ought to match the enormity of the crime.
There is one extraordinary omission in the evidence put before the Royal Commission by the
Archbishop of Canterbury and the prison chaplains. Apparently none of them put before the
Commission any evidence relating to the difference in the state of mind of a person after he has
been convicted compared with before his 2144 conviction. I thinkand I have thought about this
a great dealthat one is inevitably faced with the fact that murder is a crime against society and
that society has set up machinery to deal with the crime.
It is the responsibility of the State, as representing society, to prosecute the person accused of
murder and either to secure his conviction or to establish his innocence. But once that stage has
been reached, I wonder whether it is right solely to leave it upon the State to decide what ought
to be done with him. I should have thought it was a matter of considerable interest to all
Churches, irrespective of their denomination, to discover whether, when a person had been
convicted, there was any sign of repentance or not.
I do not think that any jury could possibly judge that, nor can I believe that any judge should be
asked to do it. The only people, in my opinion, who could possibly judge it are those who are
experienced in examining the spirit of men and women. Therefore, I would argue that, if we are
prepared to accept murder as a crime against God and the State, the Churches cannot wash their
hands of what happens to a convicted murderer.
There may be those who say that no man, having committed an appalling crime like murder,
could ever become sufficiently a new man in order to have truly repented for the enormity of his

crime, and that he must be given a very long time indeed to become a new man so that someone
can assess whether one murderer should be treated more leniently than another. Of all things
about which we must be sure, however, what stands out is that whatever the law decides on the
issue of convicted murderers, there should be no unnecessary delay.
I feel that if there is any deterrent in a penalty the conviction of life imprisonment is greater than
the death penalty, though I will add that it is very hard for any of us here tonightat least I hope
it isto visualise what would be our reactions if we had been pronounced guilty of murder. Our
estimate here of the state of mind of a convicted person must be purely hypothetical. But my own
feeling is that I would fear a long term of imprisonment more than the ending of the matter very
quickly.
2145 I am supported in that view by the evidence given before the Royal Commission by one of
the prison chaplains from Edinburgh. He actually quotes a man whom he calls "a lifer" as saying
how much better it would be to have the whole thing settled by being hanged. That comes
actually from a man who is serving a life sentence, and what he has said was conveyed to the
Commission. I think it is something which ought to make this House think. There are men who
believe it is more cruel to condemn people to life imprisonment than to hang them. [HON.
MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members doubt that let them read the evidence which was given
before the Royal Commission by this prison chaplain from Edinburgh.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has seriously suggested that this
suspension of the death penalty for five years is worth a trial, and some hon. Members, who I
think are supporting the Amendment, said that if it be a question of difficulty because of the
present prison conditions, those conditions should be improved. If anyone admits that the
conditions in the prisons are such that long imprisonment is likely to be more cruel in certain
casesnot allthan hanging would be, I say that this is not the time to implement the terms of
this Amendment.
However much I regret the fact that we are faced with this appalling issue; however much I feel
that murder is an appalling crime which ought not only to be the concern of the State but also of
the churches; however much, in other words, I may disagree with the present legislation, I say
that what is proposed in the Amendment is infinitely worse. I do not believe that the prisons
today are so organised as to make its proposal a humane thing to do. Although I believe that in
the long runperhaps 20 years ahead, who knows?capital punishment will vanish from this
land, I say that the arguments in favour of it being abolished now have not been made
conclusively; and I do not believe that they can be so made for some time to come until even
more thought has been given to this matter.
As the Government have asked for our views, which we hope they will consider, I would ask
with all sincerity that they approach the leaders of the Churches. I 2146 ask the Government
seriously to consider whether something should be done to bring in the Churches to consider
whether a convicted murderer who is really penitent should receive better treatment than a
murderer who is completely unrepentant. That is the great omission in the Report of the
Commission and in the evidence of the Churches given before the Commission. I consider that to

be essentially a Christian matter, for surely one of the greatest of the Christian principles is that a
sinner who repents should be given another chance.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)
One of the suggestions in the Report is that the jury should be invited to say whether a man
should hang or not. The judges have no option. Is it now seriously suggested that we should call
in the Archbishop of Canterbury to decide a problem of that kind? That would seem to be the
suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
Major Legge-Bourke
May I make it absolutely clear that I would leave it entirely to the State to decide whether a man
be guilty or not? All I suggest is that the Churches should have a say in deciding what should
happen to a convicted man.
Mr. Allen
I am obliged for that intervention. That is the point I was trying to make.
Of course the jury will decide, as they do now, whether a man be guilty or not. There is now an
automatic death sentence by the judge. One of the suggestions in the report of which I heartily
disapprove is that it should be left to the jury to decide the penalty. I think that would put far too
great and grave a burden upon the jury. The duty of a jury, especially in a murder case, is
burdensome enough without putting that dreadful decision in its hands, especially as some of us
know how some juries come to a conclusion.
I doubt if there are any lawyers who have not had some inside information about what happens
in a jury room, and most of us could surprise the House with stories. But to suggest that the
Church should have any means of intervening or of deciding on the sentencedeath or
imprisonmentis a suggestion which so 2147 far is unique to the hon. and gallant Member for
the Isle of Ely.
Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)
And will remain so.
Mr. Allen
I do not know whether there are any hon. Members of this House who are in a state of mind to be
persuaded one way or another. I made up my mind in 1931, and I have never wavered since,
although I have given consideration to all the evidence. In that year I had the burden, the almost
intolerable burden, of defending a murderer in circumstances in which no one could say whether

he be guilty or not. Day after day, during the hearing of the evidence in the magistrates' court, I
said that there was no evidence against the man, and it went on for seven days.
At the end of that period I was still convinced that there was no evidence against this man
charged with murder, and I said so, but the magistrate did not agree. The case went before a jury
at Liverpool. We had five more long days there, and in my view there was no evidence given
then against that man. After an absence of less than an hour, a Lancashire jury found that man
guilty of murder, and an audible whistle went through that court as they announced their verdict
because members of the jury[Laughter.]
Mr. Ellis Smith
I hope that HANSARD will record that.
Mr. Allen
had made up their minds before the witnesses went into the witness box by statements made in
the Press during the course of the proceedings in the lower court. Although people outside had
changed their view, the jury were unconvinced.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) knows the
circumstances. It was felt throughout south-west Lancashire that the man was doomed. Never
had the Court of Criminal Appeal reversed the decision of a jury on evidence. It had reversed a
jury's decision on matters of law or misdirection, but never had there been an occasion where a
jury had convicted a man of murder and where the Court of Appeal had said, "There is no
evidence whatsoever, and we are going to let this man off." But the 2148 miracle happened, and
the Court of Appeal did say, "There is only suspicion, there is no evidence."
That was a case of touch-and-go, a case of a man whom many people believed to be innocent
and many believed to be guilty, and who was saved practically at the last moment. I am
convinced, from the cases of which I have read, such as that of Adolf Beck and the Slater case,
that there is a sufficient chance of a grave miscarriage of justice in murder cases to justify at least
the abolition of the death penalty for a five years' trial period.
Quite recently, in my court at Blackburn, an appeal came from the magistrates' court in the case
of a man aged 70 convicted before the magistrates, and rightly on the evidence, of stealing lead.
The evidence given by three witnessesa man, his wife, and another personwas that this man
had been seen coming away from a school with stolen lead in his possession. In the face of that
evidence the magistrates could do no other than convict him, and they sentenced him to six
months' imprisonment.
He had spent between six and nine weeks in prison before he came, on appeal, before the quarter
sessions. His case throughout had been, "I am innocent. I was never there. I did not touch
anything." When counsel for the prosecution rose he did not persist in saying that the man was
guilty. He said, "The police admit that there has been a very grave miscarriage of justice here. All

those three witnesses were wrong in their identification. A man has now come forward and has
confessed, and this man, we say, is wrongly convicted, and the appeal should be allowed."
That was a case of stolen lead. The magistrates were quite justified in their decision, and, had
that been a murder case, with three witnesses to identify the man a jury would have been justified
in finding him guilty.
Mr. S. Silverman
That was precisely so in the case of Rowland.
Mr. Allen
Yes.
This happened at Blackburn Quarter Sessions. The police were quite satisfied that the man who
had come forward and admitted having committed the crime was guilty, but that did not alter the
fact that 2149 the other man had spent over six weeks in prison, convicted of a crime of which he
was wholly innocent.
I would leave this thought in the mind of anybody who has doubts about this matter. Supposing
that that man, instead of being accused of coming away from a school with stolen lead, had
allegedly been seen coming away from the scene of a murder, and three witnesses had identified
him and he had been found guilty? Is it likely that the real murderer would have confessed his
guilt?
Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
On a point of order. Can you give Scottish Members some guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? The
Motion before the House is in the name of the Government, and it includes the name of the
Secretary of State for Scotland. Many of us would like to know if there is to be a statement upon
Scottish law by the Lord Advocate.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris)
That is not a point of order.
8.23 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)
I think that I have heard something of every speech that has been made in this debate. I want to
say at the outset that I cannot support the terms of the Amendment. I have heard some very
convincing and sincere speeches in favour of it, but my feelings at present are certainly inclined
very definitely the other way. I cannot help feeling that the House has to assume the
responsibility of maintaining the peace, and I should certainly hate to feel that we were in any

way responsible for allowing the death of some innocent person rather than the death of some
convicted murderer. I cannot see any justification for the removal of the death penalty.
Before this debate began, I did not wish to discuss the broad topic which has taken up all but one
speechthe question of abolition or no. I wanted to remark upon one or two points contained in
the Report and some of the suggestions which have been made for Parliament to concern itself
with. I should say, first, as a kind of declaration of interest, that I have been in practice as a
psychiatrist, examining offenders on remand from the courts, although not on capital charges.
Secondly, I was for a few years the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the late Home Secretary,
2150 and I should like the House to take it from me that I am not in any way briefed by him or
by any of the efficient officials who served him. The opinions which I am expressing are
personal ones.
Dr. H. Morgan (Warrington)
When did the late Home Secretary die?
Dr. Bennett
He is the late Home Secretary as seen from this place. His translation to another place brings
effectively to an end his life in this House. I may be speaking somewhat parochially.
As the question of insanity and mental abnormality takes up 84 out of 212 pages in Part I of the
Report, dealing with the liability of murderers to suffer capital punishment, I feel that this side of
the question is one which should properly have attracted my attention, and I want to remark upon
two points. One is the general problem of criminal responsibility and its assessment, and the
other is the examination of the prisoner and the disposal and treatment of the abnormal prisoner.
The M'Naghten Rules have been discussed at great length in the Report and in this House this
afternoon. It is generally understood that they are a help in dealing with the definitely criminal or
definitely insane. They are clearly useful, but they have frightful shortcomings, and these relate
not only to people who are borderline cases or are difficult of assessment. I should like to give
one example to show how very misleading these Rules can be.
The case I have in mind is that of a man who was suffering from a depressive psychosis. This is a
really thorough insanity, and the sufferer is sunk in gloom and obsessed with the belief that he
has committed the unforgivable sin. He feels disgraced, full of self-reproach, and that he is unfit
to live. That form of insanity is commonly of a temporary nature. It can occur in a perfectly
decent citizen and is quite easily curable.
If such a man murders his wife and family in such a state of mindas has occurred on more than
one occasionhe certainly knows the nature of his act and also that it is unlawful, but he is
driven to act by his own internal delusions and his belief in his divine inspiration, or whatever he
may claim, and he feels that he can save his family from the contami- 2151 nation of association
with himself only by ridding the world of them.

That man must be guilty of murder, and must be condemned to death under the M'Naghten
Rules. It is very fortunate that juries are not bound by this rigid doctrine. In paragraph 234 of the
Report, the Lord Chief Justice is quoted as having said: I think a jury can always be trusted to do
justice, where it might be impossible to bring the case strictly within the M'Naghten Rules, but
everybody would say that the man's acts were the acts of a lunatic. In paragraph 322, the Lord
Justice General is quoted as saying something similar, namely, However much you charge a jury
as to the M'Naghten Rules or any other test, the question they would put to themselves when
they retire is'Is this man mad or is he not?'. It is very fortunate that we have that discrimination
from this otherwise inflexible rule, because if the really insane can be convicted of murder as
being sane, it stands to reason that those deranged in lesser degree run much greater risk.
It must be faced that the M'Naghten Rules are dangerous and misleading, and only
approximately do the job for which they were intended. But then comes the problem of what
shall we substitute, and what alternative can we find, and the answer, of course, is "None." I have
tried to think of formula, and I know that many much more intelligent men than I have tried, and
that nobody has got anywhere near it. We are still where we were when Lord Blackburn wrote in
1874 these words, which are also quoted in the Report: To that I can only say that on the question
what amounts to insanity, that would prevent a person being punishable or not, I have read every
definition which I ever could meet with, and never was satisfied with one of them, and have
endeavoured to make one satisfactory to myself; I verily believe that it is not in human power to
do it. You must take it that in every individual case you must look at the circumstances and do
the best you can to say whether it was the disease of the mind which was the cause of the crime,
or the party's criminal will. We cannot find a substitute formula, and of that we may be satisfied.
We cannot do without a formula at all, and I think that is established in the Report. We cannot
abrogate these Rules, so what can we do?
2152 The first thing we can come to is the concept of the irresistible impulse, to which my hon.
and learned Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) referred earlier in the debate.
That was suggested by the British Medical Association in paragraph 264, and, of course, when
we talk about the irresistible impulse, we are immediately reminded of the unresisted impulse. So
I think that it is not possible to argue that the irresistible impulse is the best way to evaluate the
less obvious forms of derangement.
As my hon. and learned Friend also said, diseases of the mind should not only be referred to as
defects of reason; the term should be broadened to cover defects of will. Most mental diseases, as
we know them nowadays, are regarded as defects of the emotions, and in these diseases I think it
is true to say that the emotions govern the will. The difficulty there is that, if the control is
supposed, as it is, to be vested in the reason of man as a reasoning being, and the emotions are
supposed to be controlled by the reason, I think that the will is supposed to be controlled by the
reason, but when the will is controlled by the emotions, surely that implies a defect in the reason.
Therefore, to that extent, the definition in the M'Naghten Rules will have to cover any other form
of mental derangement. I hope I have not made that even more obscure than it was before.
The intention or idea of the principle of the irresistible impulse, I am sure, is a good one, and we
all know that, but I think that it would entangle a jury in a welter of hypothetical motivations,
and provide a happy hunting ground for the preferring of insincere pleas of irresistibility which it

would be very difficult for a jury to refute. It requires altogether too much hypothecating and too
much subjective imagining for a juryman to put himself in the other fellow's place. In fact, it is
too subjective a test, even in the modified form which the Commission recommend in its Report.
Can we think of any more objective test? Juries are certainly not qualified to split hairs on
psychiatric issues, but they are qualified, as I see it, to judge sanity and to recognise conduct
within normal limits, and, therefore, they can be expected to see the prisoner objectively. I
suggest to the House this idea as a modi- 2153 fication of the M'Naghten Rules in place of that
suggested by the Royal Commission. I should say that, if the answers to the first two existing
questionswhether the man knew the nature and quality of his act, and whether he knew it was
wrongis "Yes," it will be possible for the jury then to ask this further question: "Were the
actions consistent with sanity?" If the answer is "Yes," the picture is clear, and the case goes
along the ordinary course of justice.
If the answer is "No, "it would seem to me that it would then be possible for the jury to bring in a
finding in some such terms as these: "We find the prisoner guilty on the facts of the actions with
which he is charged, but we do not consider his actions to be entirely consistent with those of a
sane man, and, therefore, recommend him to mercy."
If there cannot be any degrees of murder or a division of the trial into two parts on the question
of sanityand I am sure that there should not beand if the judge is not to have the discretion,
which I am sure he should not have, then he must pronounce the sentence of death in the
modified form suggested and the Executive would then take note of the jury's opinion and of the
judge's observations on it. I do not think that that would commit, limit or trammel the Secretary
of State any more than would any other recommendations at present, and it would allow the
finding of some form of partial irresponsibility which has not yet been postulated.
The other point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that I certainly support the
Commission's proposals that the prisoner should be examined psychiatrically by independent
consultants. I have worked with the prison service, and I know that it is completely unjust to say,
although it is a widely held opinion, that prison doctors are on the side of the prosecution
because they form part of the custodial machine. I do not believe that, but that is the feeling.
Therefore, it is most important that the examination of a prisoner should also be conducted by an
outside consultant.
I think it equally important that senior prison medical officers who are qualified in psychiatry
should also render a report. The report of the outside consultant and of a senior prison medical
officer, together with the reports of the custodial staff, 2154 would, I believe, constitute a very
strong body of psychiatric opinion on the prisoner. This would still, of course, allow the
important right of the defence to call whom it pleased, but it would discourage attempts to
produce psychiatric opinion for the defence which might not be particularly sound. It is well
known that the defence sometimes tries out psychiatrist after psychiatrist until it finds one who is
willing to try to sustain an unsustainable defence. It can be said, in fact, that many are chosen but
few are called. I think, therefore, that this system would go far to meet these abuses which, I
must say, disfigure our Sunday papers and do not do either the law or psychiatry any good.

In past years, I have spent a lot of time in trying to form some opinions about the psychopath. It
is very difficult to identify him, and it is only in recent years that people have agreed that there is
such an entity at all. Even now the definition is a very loose one. I am a little surprised that in the
Report there is no reference to one quality which would help juries to determine what is a
psychopath, and that is the fact that, although there are no typical psychopathic crimes, there is a
thread which runs through all psychopathic misdemeanours, which is the lack of gain from what
he has done.
In crimes committed by psychopaths, whether murder or lesser offences, the gain is nearly
always negligible, and is outweighed by the loss in the not very long run. That being so, it surely
adds to the belief that the psychopath cannot be regarded as sane. I think it important to bear that
fact in mind if we are in future, as the Commission says we should, to regard the psychopath
more readily as an abnormal entity.
Although I plead sincerely for this unattractive category, the explosively psychopathic or
epileptic people, I am not pleading merely for their lives. It is often regretted that psychiatrists
are inclined to do so regardless of the facts. I think that we should try to look after these chaps if
they are to be condemned and sent to one of the special type of colonies such as that which has
recently started building and which I welcome most wholeheartedly, the East-Hubert
establishment, which has been wanted for a long time. One thing that 2155 I should like to say in
that connection is that it is no use sending people to this kind of colony if they are not to have
treatment. One thing about which I am sure is that we cannot carry out treatment if we do not get
co-operation, and we shall not get co-operation if we cannot get some sanctions, and we shall not
get any sanctions against these people unless we have indeterminate sentences. Dr. Strup of
Denmark has pointed that out.
It is easy to see why that should be so, because, after the prisoner has been through the ordeal of
the trial, he is greatly relieved on being sent to a relatively pleasant colony. He then becomes
rather high-spirited and entirely scornful of the surroundings, and he will then become intolerant
of the administration. If he has received a finite sentence for a number of years he is going to
wait for the end of that sentence, and good behaviour is not going to make it much better for him.
He knows that the end is coming. If he knows that he has to wait to be allowed out on licence
and that he will receive privileges only in return for good behaviour and a willingness to conform
on his part, I feel that the chances of carrying out treatment and reforming and reclaiming the
man are very much better than they otherwise would be.
So, although psychiatrists are commonly regarded as soft-hearted, and sometimes even as softheaded as well, I put these two requests alongside each other. One is that the psychopath should
be regarded more readily as responding to clemency, and the other is that he should be detained
during Her Majesty's pleasure. I do not think that hanging or imprisonment will do any good
with regard to the abnormalities of these borderline cases. I feel that he should have the
opportunity to overcome them.
Those of us who occupy ourselves in psychiatry know very well how inexact a science it is.
Indeed, many people say that it is not a science at all. Although it is obviously a very slippery
and imprecise subject and very difficult to get a hold on, and, although many psychiatrists regard

the law and its processes as very clumsy, I hope that the shortcomings of each of these
professions will be regarded with tolerance by the other. I certainly cannot do better than refer to
the final 2156 words of the minority Report of the Commission, which were: as Stephen said
70 years ago: In dealing with matters so obscure and difficult the two great professions of law
and medicine ought rather to feel for each other's difficulties than to speak harshly of each other's
shortcomings.'
Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North)
I was very interested in the hon. Member's attempt to explain the M'Naghten Rules, and I should
like to know whether he realises that in asking that the jury should determine the sanity of the
prisoner he has, in fact, reached the same conclusion as the majority Report of the Commission,
that the M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated and the question left to the jury.
Dr. Bennett
I thought that I regarded it as an expansion of the M'Naghten Rules, not an abrogation, because
they can still be used and their findings are still valid. But in the indeterminate case that adds a
little more precision to what otherwise would be quite cloudy.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. John Paton (Norwich, North)
I do not propose to follow in detail the argument of the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham
(Dr. Bennett), but I shall refer to the most important argument put forward when I am dealing
with the subject of the M'Naghten Rules.
It seems to be the opinion in this House that one necessarily must be a lawyer if one is to speak
with authority on a matter of this kind. The speakers to whom we have listened from the back
benches today have been chosen from the legal profession. I wholly dissent from the idea that
lawyers have any special qualification whatsoever for determining the issue involved in this
question.
It is not a legal decision which we have to make tonight. It is a social decision, a political
decision, a moral decision, and while it is true that lawyers who have special experience of the
criminal courts are entitled to give us the benefit of their experience, I rather resent the attitude of
so many of them that they have a monopoly of authority in a matter of this description. I protest
against the idea that this is a question to be decided by legal pundits.
I want to use the time at my disposal to comment on the speech made by the 2157 Home
Secretary. He said that he had been greatly impressed with the value of the Commission's Report.
So have I, but I show it by treating the Report much more seriously than did the Home Secretary.
After telling us what a valuable survey it was, the Home Secretary informed us that he proposed
to do nothing about its main conclusions.

He emphasised properly that the main subject at the back of the discussionwhether or not
capital punishment should now be abolishedwas precluded from the consideration of the
Commission, but it must have struck everybody who read the Report that that question
overshadowed all the arguments and the discussion that took place during the deliberations of the
Royal Commission over a long period of time. The Commission could never get away from it or
divorce its discussions from it, although it was actually precluded from mentioning it in the
Report.
At the time the Commission was appointed, I deplored that its terms of reference were so
narrowly drawn that they would vitiate the work of the Commission and make it impossible for
the Commission to come to proper conclusions on the matter it was examining. The
Commissioners themselves comment that when they came to examine their terms of reference
and tried to give effect to them they discovered that they were engaged upon an extremely
narrow quest; and their conclusions bear that out.
Today the Home Secretary gave us what he called the "provisional" views of the Government. If
the statement that he made, the arguments he used, the manner he adopted, and the precise form
in which he gave us the information, express the provisional views of the Government, I ask
myself what the expression would be of the Government's definite and final views. Nothing
could have been more decisive than what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said.
He singled out three main points. One was the proposal of the Commission to raise the deathpenalty age from 18 to 21. It was deplorable that he should have to inform the House that the
Government proposed to set their face definitely against that quite reasonable proposal.
Everything that the Commission was con- 2158 sidering and had been asked to do was
concerned with limiting the application of death sentences and making hangings fewer rather
than more. That was the purpose of bringing the Commission into being. When the Commission
makes this proposal to the Home Secretary that we should cease to hang minors, young lads, and
I suppose young women, the provisional reply of the Government is that they propose to do
nothing about it.
Again, with regard to the M'Naghten Rules, the Home Secretary told us that he proposed to do
nothing, although those rules were drafted upon a formula composed by judges 100 years ago,
long before the immense modern development in psychology and psychiatric science. None of
these things was dreamt of when the M'Naghten Rules were formulated. For many years there
has been discussion in important committees on these matters. The Atkin Committee which sat
33 years ago under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Atkin was mentioned today. Its main
proposal was that the doctrine of uncontrollable impulse should be added to the existing
provisions of the M'Naghten formula.
I was astonished to hear the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham,
who has left us now, no doubt in order to get some much-needed refreshment. The real logic of
what he was arguing was in favour of the first proposal of the Commission, namely, that the
M'Naghten Rules should be abrogated.

Everybody knows that they are incredibly rigorous and inflexible. Everyone knows that the result
of their application in the courts is to confine evidence as to the sanity or insanity of the accused
within too narrow limits. No one disputes that. The discussion which is taking place now is
whether we are to extend the Rules, whether we can find a formula for their extension that will
satisfy the judges. That is the point at issue.
Nobody would attempt to defend the present formula except that nothing better can be found,
and the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham seemed to argue for the extension of the
M'Naghten Rules, though perhaps not to cover what he said he found it impossible to find a
formula for the doctrine of uncontrollable impulse. But is there anything to prevent us
expanding the formula in such a way 2159 as to allow a court, on a question of sanity or of
insanity, to take into consideration all the extra factors and considerations that were brought
within the examination of the prisoner's sanity by the Home Office Medical Commission
subsequently appointed?
Why should that process not take place in the trial court, instead of it being deferred until there is
a condemnation to death and someone is sitting in the condemned cell? I suggest that this is one
thing to which the Home Secretary might have turned his attention, instead of giving us the
completely negative reply which he gave us earlier.
Now I want to refer to the third main point made by the Home Secretary, that of giving a jury
discretion, of allowing a jury not only to decide a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but, having
reached a verdict of guilty, further to consider whether there are extenuating circumstances of
such a kind as would justify that jury in deciding that a man or woman should not be hung.
I say at once that I share the doubts of all who have spoken about that proposal, because it does
something that is revolutionary in the practice of our courts: it puts upon a jury not merely the
burden of deciding on questions of fact placed before them at the trial as to whether or not the
accused is guilty; but, having found the accused guilty, they are then asked to embark on a
further examination of a totally different kind for which I think a jury is completely unfitted,
because they are asked in the second examination to find out and assess the culpability of the
prisoner.
In fact, they would be asked to apportion blame, to make an assessment of his moral
responsibility. That is an enormous burden which no one who understands the jury system would
suggest should be added to the existing responsibilities carried by juries. In condemning this
proposal the Home Secretary said he did so because he believed it was unworkable and because
he thought it represented a half-way house; in other words, that the Commission was proposing
to try to limit the death penalty.
I want to bring to the notice of the House what the Commission said on this subject. In paragraph
595, the Commis- 2160 sion saysand this is the problem that we are trying to meet: It is not
questioned that the liability to suffer capital punishment under the existing law is rigorous to
excess. We cannot but regard it as a reproach to our criminal law that this excessive rigour should
be tolerated merely because it is corrected by executive action. The law itself should mitigate it.

That is the problem that we are trying to meet by this so-called half-way house. It is "a reproach
to our criminal law" that we are trying to remedy.
The Commission went on to say: We are satisfied that as long as capital punishment is retained,
this" that is, jury discrimination is the only practicable way of correcting the outstanding
defects of the existing law. The Home Secretary turned that down, but he made no mention of
any possible alternative to correct those outstanding defects of the criminal law that the
Commission was trying to meet. [Interruption.] I cannot stop in the middle of my argument. I
have sat here all day. I have been waiting here about six hours trying to say this.
The point is that the Home Secretary, in rejecting that idea, offered nothing in its place.
Therefore, apparently he is prepared to allow those grave defects characterised in those terms by
the Commission to continue unchanged in our existing system. That is not good enough, and the
Home Secretary will have to think again.
I have one further point to make, and then I will resume my seat, because I know that my hon.
Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Follick) wants to speak. Sir Alexander Paterson's
name has been quoted in this House. It was quoted by the Home Secretary when he said that in
the 1948 debate his opinion had been influenced by discoveries that he had made about Sir
Alexander Paterson's views. In my opinion, there is a profound misconception about what Sir
Alexander Paterson actually said. Hon. Members may study the words for themselves in the
1930 Select Committee Report.
Sir Alexander Paterson was saying then that a lifetime of imprisonment under the penal
conditions existing then was not a good alternative to the death penalty. But he was not arguing
that the death penalty should remain indefinitely. What he was 2161 really suggesting was that
the death penalty was better than the penal conditions then existing. It was, in fact, a criticism of
our prisons.
Sir Alexander himself lived long enough to see the main objectionable features to which he was
referring removed from our prison system, and I very much doubt, if he had been able to speak to
us at any time during the last seven or eight years, whether he would have repeated the words he
uttered in 1930. Therefore, let us not have him cited again in that connection.
It is surely a very significant thing that for 100 years now the continuance of this penalty has
given rise to commission of inquiry after commission of inquiry. There has been a periodic heartand-soul searching by large sections of the people about the nature and the consequence of this
penalty, and I suggest that a penalty which carries with it such an utter repugnance among great
sections of our community is a penalty that brings the law into contempt, and I hope the House
tonight, on a free vote, will vote in favour of the Amendment.
8.59 p.m.
Sir Beverley Baxter (Southgate)

I have been asked to sit down at nine o'clock. It is not ten seconds to nine and I see no reason
why I should not obey my orders. But perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Northampton (Mr. Paget)we are comrades for the daywill allow me a couple of minutes,
however, because I feel very deeply on this subject, no less deeply than I felt six or seven years
ago when we did away with hanging.
Today's debate has not been as emotional as the previous debate, and I think that very lack of
emotion shows that we realise that the gallows are under sentence of death. I do not care what
the result is tonight; the gallows have a short time to live, and I believe that is a splendid thing.
It would not be the first time that this country had shown a great example to others, although I
know that other countries have abolished hanging. We are living in an era of the scorched spirit;
the finest brains of our country are dedicated to the manufacture of implements to take life. It has
to be done and we do not criticise it; we are thankful that they are there.
2162 But here is a chance for the House to give a declaration of faith in the human spirit. I
profoundly believe that the hanging of criminals and the publicity which makes heroes and
spectacular figures out of these wretched creatures is a bad thing. Once we take away hanging
there will be a change in the criminal classes, too.
Just before the previous debate I went to see the governor of one of our prisons in which hanging
takes place. I mentioned this in the previous debate. Let me remind the House what he said. It
was, "I hope you fellows in the House of Commons will do away with the gallows because of the
wild excitement which debauches the rest of the criminals when an execution is taking place.
The man who kills is the aristocrat among criminals. Do away with the death sentence and he
becomes the lowest form of criminal in the criminal world. The criminal world will turn against
him."
The county chief constables have an association, and I can tell the House what was said to me by
one of the most important chief constables of a county in Great Britainand I will give the
Attorney-General his name if he wants it. This man said, "We meet and discuss this problem. We
have an association. I can tell you that 80 per cent. of the county chief constables want to do
away with the death penalty."
I have thus quoted two men in the front line in the war against murdera man who has to
superintend the hanging and a man representing those who have to fight the crime. I would put
that fact against all the utterances of bewigged and begowned lawyers who have spoken in the
House today, and for that reason, among others, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nelson and
Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Many times from this side of the House I have shouted to him to sit
down. Today I hoped that he would go on, and he did.
9.4 p.m.
Mr.R.T.Paget (Northampton)

We have had a long and interesting debate, and I shall say something about the speeches of those
who have taken the view different from mine. I will deal later with the speech of the right hon.
and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), and I will also deal with the speeches of my
hon. and learned Friend 2163 the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), whom I regret
not to see in his place, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major LeggeBourke).
As far as I could understand it, the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
Gloucester was this: crimes of violence which were not capital had increased in number, murder
had not increased; therefore hanging was a better deterrent than other deterrents. How the
movement of two variants shows the different effects on two constants constant throughout the
period I do not quite follow. However, actually that is not quite necessary, because my hon. and
learned Friend's unique capacity for being wrong did not let him down. He got the statistics
backwards. In fact, cases of wounding decreased slightly and cases of murder went up slightly.
My hon. and learned Friend can draw what conclusions he likes from that.
I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely enter the Chamber, because I
wish to say something about his point of view. Apparently, he was not particularly concerned
with the death penalty as a deterrent. He wanted it because the penalty matched the enormity of
the crime. I have heard that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is news to me that
imitation is the sincerest form of reprobation. I cannot for the life of me see why, because on
religious grounds, on social grounds and on grounds of our emotions we regard killing in cold
blood as the worst of crimes, we should choose for that very reason to imitate and commit the
crime ourselves. That is a point of view which I have never been able to follow.
I also found it a little odd that the hon. and gallant Member should say, "Well, of course, I
assume that capital punishment will be abolished in the next 20 years." Why should it fail to
match the enormity of the crime less 20 years hence?
Major Legge-Bourke
rose
Mr. Paget
I am sorry, but I have too little time to allow me to give way.
I now want to turn to the speech which concerns me most and which certainly caused me the
most distress, and that is the speech of the Home Secretary.
2164
Major Legge-Bourke
rose
Mr. Paget

I am very sorry, but I have such little time that I cannot give way. I should like to have the
attention of the Home Secretary.
Major Legge-Bourke
rose
Mr. Paget
Very well, I will give way to the hon. and gallant Member.
Major Legge-Bourke
I wanted to tell the hon. and learned Member that I certainly did not think that the argument that
the punishment matched the crime would be any less forceful despite the fact that in the future
the country might very easily abolish the death penalty.
Mr. Paget
Do not let us go on with that because time is rather short.
I want now to deal with the speech which, naturally, distressed me most. The Home Secretary
told me that his vote on the last occasion was given because I had deceived him. That surprised
me. I have been on the terms on which one is here with hon. Members on both sides of the
House, but during the last seven years I had never heard from the right hon. and gallant
Gentleman or anybody else the suggestion that I had deceived him. I was also surprised because,
in the days before 1948 when we were working on the amendment of the law that we then
brought forward, one of the persons on our inner committee and one of the first signatories was
the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's sister. In those days I was certainly under the impression
that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was a firm opponent of long standing of capital
punishment. I am sorry if I was wrong.
However, my surprise makes my regret none the less, and I want, if I can, to put my offence right
with him. Let me see how I deceived him on the last occasion. Sir Alexander Paterson, in
evidence in 1931 before a Select Committee of this House, said the then prison conditions were
such that he regarded a life sentence, or a sentence long enough to be a sufficient substitute, as
more cruel than death. That observation in Sir Alexander's evidence had a profound effect on the
House. I informed the House that, as a result of the prison reforms very largely introduced by Sir
Alexander himself, that no longer held good and that Sir Alexander was of opinion before his
2165 death that the prison system had so improved that the long sentence which would be
necessary could now take place without the deterioration he had feared in 1930.
I gave the wrong reasons for that conclusion, although I still believe it was Sir Alexander's
opinion at the time of his death. Whether that be so or not, the only relevant question was this:
had the circumstances changed between 1931 and 1948 to such an extent that the long period of

prison, which must be an alternative to death, was no longer crueller than death itself? That was
the question in 1948. It is the question today.
On this, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Home Secretary need no longer rely upon the
opinion of Sir Alexander Paterson. He has got the opinion expressed by his own Home Office. I
refer to the Report, paragraph 653. Sir Alexander's evidence is quoted. It ends: 'I gravely doubt
whether an average man can serve more than 10 continuous years in prison without
deterioration'. Then the Report goes on: The Home Office at that time did not dissent from that
view. But in giving evidence before us. though they still said that 'prolonged detention for more
than 10 or 12 years makes it increasingly difficult for (the prisoner) to re-establish himself in
outside life and increases the risk of mental or physical deterioration, ' they added that
developments in prison administration in the last twenty years have materially altered the
conditions of confinement for prisoners serving long sentences, and continued: 'While therefore
the Commissioners remain of the opinion expressed (in 1930) that a very long sentence of
imprisonment is and always must be a dreadful thing, they do not consider that in present
conditions its effect on prisoners would be such that it ought not to be contemplated'. So I can
therefore
Mr. Osborne
Read the next four lines.
Mr. Paget
Very well. The Scottish Home Department were less sanguine. Mr. Cunningham told us that
'those with considerable experience of prison administration would view with grave concern a
sentence of imprisonment extending beyond 10 years.' The Home Secretary has an assurance
from his own Department which he said I wrongly gave him last time and which convinced him.
I hope therefore that his 2166 conversion at the end of this debate will be as sudden and dramatic
as he would make us believe it was last time.
I believe that there are three main reasons why we should abolish capital punishment. They are
practical, legal and moral. So far as the practical is concerned, I think that there is only one
question really concerned. Is capital punishment a greater deterrent than other forms of
punishment? In other words, does capital punishment mean less murders? I would concede
immediately that there may be casesProfessor Sellin gave this evidence before the
Commissionin which the idea of hanging does actually and of itself stop the murder. There
may be such cases, but they are rare. Cases where murder is caused by capital punishment are
rare, but they exist. I will mention two or three of them.
First there is the case of Marjoram, who was executed in 1930. He was one of those types of
persons who was imprisoned for a small offence, and while in prison had cleaned out the death
cell which had been occupied by a man called Fox, who had murdered his mother. Marjoram had
admired Fox, and he announced that he would commit a murder more dramatic than Fox's. When
he came out of prison he tried to murder a policeman but lost his nerve. Then on Blackheath he
murdered a perfectly innocent girl. He achieved his ambition to occupy the cell which Fox had

occupied, and he was taken to the gallows making a joke with the hangman, which obviously he
had rehearsed in his imagination for a long time before.
There was another man called Rhodes who deliberately killed because his exhibitionist complex
made him wish to feature in an execution. Another case of quite a different sort was that of
Heath, one of the most savage and horrible murderers of our time. Heath, a sadist, killed a
woman called Mrs. Gardner, probably accidentally. He treated her most cruelly. He tied her up
and beat her, and she suffocated. That probably was not his intention, because he had done that
kind of thing before. Finding a body on his hands, he thought he could make a defence of
insanity if he killed another woman. He attacked a young girl called Miss Marshall and murdered
her in a wood with terrible savagery. He left clues to connect himself with the girl. 2167 There
was no semen or anything like that to indicate that there was any sexual aspect to the second
murder. This was a murder by a man to make a defence of insanity because capital punishment
existed.
Those sort of cases are, of course, rare, but there is another type of case which exists more
abroad than here, and that is the gang case. Nothing suits a gang leader better than capital
punishment. Once a man has written his name in blood he is no longer in a position to betray his
comrades, because both he and they know that if he betrays them they will all be avenged by the
law. For that same reason, in a revolution how constantly does one find fearful atrocities
committed because leaders want to commit their followers to actions so grave that there can be
no turning back. In that sense capital punishment has been part of the cement of the gang and
places where gangs rule, like Chicago, New York and Paris, are capital punishment areas. Those
are examples where it is a direct cause.
But I think more important is where capital punishment is an indirect cause, one of the things
that contributes to a murder, one of the things which brings a man to the emotional state in which
he would commit murder. When, as we often hear it said, we can look to ourselves and say, "I am
sure that the prospect of hanging would stop me, "we are making a completely wrong test,
because it is quite unnecessary to have anything to stop ourselves. With the vast majority of us it
would be possible to abolish the death penalty and to put a reward in its place, and still we could
not be made to commit murder, because it would be horrible to us.
One of the natural inhibitions of mankind which makes our society possible is this incapacity,
this national instinctive loathing of killing in cold blood. It is not peculiar to ourselves. If one
watches two wolves fighting, one will find that the weaker wolf will suddenly stop and offer his
neck to the stronger. The stronger wolf will growl and make a fuss, but he will not touch it,
because this inhibition against striking when the most vulnerable point is offered applies to the
wolf pack, as to many other animals, and to a great number of human beings. Therefore, 2168
when we look for a deterrent, we do not need to look for one which will affect the ordinary
person; but one which will affect that very small percentage of humanity which, in any event, is
capable of committing murder, that is, the unbalanced section of humanity.
In the Report on Capital Punishment, it was said by the psychiatrists who gave evidence that
persons who are neither psychiatric nor mental but display a gross defect in reality sense include
persons having strong suicidal tendences, conscious or unconscious, and persons within whom

the urge to exhibit themselves is strong. Those are precisely the sort of persons who commit
murderpeople who have a suicidal urge, because a failure to respect one's own life is
associated with a failure to respect the life of others. That is why we find a third of the murderers
immediately commit suicide.
It may be said that they prefer that to hanging, but the same amount commit suicide in countries
where there is no death penalty. There is that association between homicidal and suicidal
tendencies. It is the egotist; the person who builds up his own drama; who dramatises himself;
who brings his own emotion up to the exaggerated importance that brings him to action; that is
the man who can kill. It is the death penalty in its dramatic aspect, the masochistic idea of the
gallows and its drama, that helps to build up the state of mind which makes that man kill. It is a
contributory cause.
Many of us who have defended murderers have found this statement recurring, "I made up my
mind I would swing for her." The average murder is by a man of a woman in circumstances of
self-dramatisation"I made up my mind I would swing for her." That is what helps to build up
the state of mind which can do this essentially abnormal act, an act abnormal to humanity.
Thus I say that when we look at these statistics we find that the Commission has not faced what
the statistics really reveal. It has merely said, "In these statistics we can find no evidence at all
that the death penalty reduces murder." If we look at those statistics we shall find, as a
recognisable statistical trend, that there is less murder and less homicide when the death penalty
is not imposed.
2169 I have dealt with the practical alternative. The Commission who examined this question has
no doubt at all that the present systemnot of 1931 but of todayis adequate to deal with these
long sentences. If there is any doubt about that, is it to be suggested that our prison system is so
much worse than that of all the other countries who have abolished the death penalty and who
have experienced no difficulty in connection with it? Again, is our character so much worse than
the characters of those across the sea who have had no difficulty: in dealing with the matter since
they abolished this terrible penalty?
That is my practical objection to the death penalty. I am convinced in my heart and mind that, so
far from stopping murder, the death penalty is a cause of murder. In the last debate, it was put
with tremendous force that an innocent man can never hang in this country. I am not going to add
to what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon. Certainty is not available to mankind. God may
know; mankind can only assess the probabilities. Our law is not based upon certainty; it is based
upon a balance of probabilities, and when a jury finds a man guilty it says very little more than,
"On the balance of probabilities we believe him to be more likely guilty than not guilty." It is not
a question of certainty, and juries are directed that they need not be certain. They have not got to
exclude every other possibility.
Let me read the summing up of Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones in the Merrifield case, which resulted in
an execution. The Judge said: Counsel for the defence has said to you more than once that the
prosecution must exclude every chance and every possibility that the inferences they ask you to

draw are mistaken. That is not the law. You need only deal with such possibilities of error as you
think reasonably likely.
Sir L. Heald
Would the hon. and learned Member say whether there is a reference to the balance of
probabilities in that summing up? If not, from where does he get it?
Mr. Paget
What else does what I have read mean? Let us examine the evidence in that case. Professor
Webster, who had been chief of the Forensic Laboratory at Birmingham for 20 years; who had
been the prosecution's witness in every 2170 murder case on the Midland Circuit since I and, I
believe, the former Attorney-General came to the Bar, and had been relied upon by the
prosecution as the foremost pathologist in the Midlands, gave evidence in that trial that the
deceased lady had died a natural death. Against his evidence was that of another pathologist, who
said that she had been poisoned.
The jury, coming to a conclusion upon an issue between two expertsand an issue upon which,
frankly, they were not competent even to express an opinion, upon the direction which I have
read found Mrs. Merrifield guilty, and she was allowed to hang for a murder which Professor
Webster said had never taken place. There is the finish of it. So much for certainty.
Now, in conclusion, I want to sayand I am absolutely frank about thisthat, whatever others
feel, I shall still feel the way I do because I believe that murder is wrong, that killing in cold
blood is wrong, and that we do not make a right by putting two wrongs together. In our hearts
and souls we know, when we see these executions taking placeand all who take part in them
knowthat we have been in contact with something that is profoundly evil. I believe profoundly
that we do not match good by doing evil and that which we know to be evil. To kill unnecessarily
here is the word which is wrongand here I will deal with the point of the former AttorneyGeneral's argument[Interruption.] I gave five minutes to the other side.
I will now deal with the arguments of the former Attorney-General, who said: "You want to
change the balance of proof. It is for you to prove your case. It is you who want to change the
established law." In a deeper sense, it is not we who want to change. It is the Government who
want to change. They want to make the most vital change of allthe change from life to death.
That is the change which the Government ask us to make, and I would say that before we have a
right to kill people in cold blood, we must be surenot doubtful, not wonderingthat there is a
real and over powering reason for that which we wish to do. Nobody has suggested such a
reason. The burden of proof should be squarely on the Government if they want 2171 to kill.
That burden of proof has not been taken.
9.35 p.m.
The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) thought it proper to conclude his
oration by saying that the burden is on the Government if they want to kill. I do not accept that as
a correct description of this debate, and I may say to him, too, that he has given me less time in
which to answer the debate than he said he would.
I have a task to fulfil for which I do desire to have a little timebecause not only have I to reply
to what has been said on the main debate on the Commission's Report, but also to what has been
said in the course of the debate of the Amendment. It would, indeed, be discourteous of me if I
did not spend a little time in making some reference to the main recommendations of the Report,
which, after all, is what we started out to discuss today.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary referred to the three main
recommendations of the Commission and to the Government's position with regard to them. I
was interested to see that, assuming that the death penalty remains, there was no real criticism of
the Government's provisional decision in regard to the recommendation about youths between 18
and 21. I was also interested to see that the Government's view upon the Commission's
recommendation with regard to jury discretion has really been accepted in all quarters of the
House.
The discussion that did take place upon the recommendations of the Report was upon the
M'Naghten Rules. I must say that I wish that we had had a longer time to discuss these rules,
because they are of great importance, and I should have liked to have said a good deal about
them myself. All I can say now is that what has been said will, of course, be most carefully
considered. I think the House agrees that if there is a formulaand I think that the balance of
opinion is that a formula is useful to a juryit would be extremely difficult to find one which
improves upon the M'Naghten Rules and so could be used to replace those rules.
2172 With those preliminary observations, I now turn to the main issue of today's debate, the
question of the Amendment. Opinion in the House, so far as I can judge, having heard most of
the debate, really falls into four distinct groups. There are those who are in favour of the
abolition of capital punishment and who support the proposal for suspension, perhaps because
they think that that is more likely to be accepted by the House. On the other hand, there are those
who holding equally sincere convictions, who are opposed to the abolition of the death sentence
because of what they believe would be the serious results which would follow that step. Then
there are those who are not convinced one way or the other, but who think that this so-called
experiment should be tried; and there are those who are also not convinced one way or the other
but who are satisfied that this is no time for such an experiment.
The Home Secretary expressed the Government's view, and there is no need for me to repeat it. I
wish to say, however, that I hate murder trials quite as much as does the hon. and learned
Member for Northampton. I have never attended one unless it was my duty to do so, and I have
never understood the desire of some members of the public to witness the spectacle of a person
being tried for his life.
I doubt whether there is anyone with experience of such trials who is not affected by them, and
who does not thoroughly dislike them. But, in approaching this question, we really should try to

put our personal feelings on one side and not let them affect our judgment on what, I believe, is a
most important issue, and one which may affect not only the lives of a number of people in our
land, but also the maintenance of law and order.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) said, and said correctly, that
we all have a hatred of brutality. We all wish that there were no murders committed in this land
of ours, and one hopes that the day may come when that will be the position. But before I deal
with the detailed arguments, I wish to say that I do not think that the real issue before the House
is raised by the terms of the Amendment quite as clearly as it could be. I think that the 2173 real
question before the House tonight is the question of whether or not this House is in favour of
abolition.
The Amendment asks the Government to introduce legislation, the effect of which could only be
to take away the death sentence. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman),
who moved the Amendment, said that in five years the situation should be reviewed. Of course,
Parliament can always review the situation in less or more than five years, but that is something
which, I believe, is put in to make the pill a little more attractive to those who are a bit uncertain
about it.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said, "We suggest suspension so that the Government of
the day will not have to bring in a Bill to bring back the death penalty." But I feel sure that those
who are now supporting the Amendment would certainly take action just before the period of
that suspension lapsed, and that then we should probably find some of those who have made
such eloquent speeches tonight saying, "You cannot put back the death penalty. The experiment
has been for far too short a period." This is what we say in answer to the proposal so eloquently
put forward by the hon. Gentleman: The issue really isare we to suspend the death sentence
now? Is the House in favour of that, whatever may happen in the future, because we cannot bind
another Government. The Amendment is, I think, put in this form to make it attractive to those
who are not convinced, but who say to themselves, "Why not try it?" I hope to satisfy them that
there are, indeed, weighty reasons for not doing so.
I am sorry that the Royal Commission was not invited to give its conclusions on this question. As
has been said in the debate, the members of the Commission were deliberately precluded from
doing so. The Leader of the Opposition made the reason quite clear. The reason he gave was that
the Commission would be bound to produce a majority report and a minority report, a somewhat
odd and unconvincing reason to me. But if we had had a majority and a minority report, we
should, at least, have known with certainty which way the majority went and what their reasons
were.
The Commissioners were, however, led by their terms of reference to have regard 2174 to some
evidence on this issue. Their Report as to that evidence and what they say about it, is, I think,
most valuable. If they had had to express a conclusion on this issue, they probably would have
had to go into it much more fully and deeply instead of treating the evidence as incidental to their
main inquiry.

I hope that no one will think that I do not regard those who have voiced objections to capital
punishment as not being entirely sincere and as not having voiced them on conscientious
grounds. Before I say anything about the objections, may I summarise quite briefly what I
believe to be the only possible ground, and the true ground, for the retention of the capital
sentence. It was put quite briefly by Lord Waverley in this House in 1948. He said that the
justification for the capital sentence must be sought in the protection of society, and in that
alone."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 998.] That is the gauge, that is the
test. That of course, raises the question: Is it a deterrent, and if it is to what extent is it a
deterrent?
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend said in his speech that the onus is on those who
seek to retain it to justify its retention. His view was that it has not been proved to be a deterrent
and, therefore, that it should go. I would urge, on the other hand, that the correct approach is
surely this: we have had this law for many a long year, and those who wish to change it have to
prove their case for the change.
When we read the conclusions of the Commission and the evidence, we see how difficult it is to
prove the case either way conclusively. We get a different answer according to whether we ask
the question one way or the other. I would say myself that if it is a deterrent it is only if it is an
effective deterrent, that it can be regarded as a weapon for the protection of society. When we
read the Report and the passages cited in it we see that the view is held by a large number of
responsible people that if it has a deterrent effect at all it has a unique deterrent effect.
I will not take up time by reading the whole of the passage written nearly 100 years ago by Sir
James Stephen, which is set out in the Report, in paragraph 57. 2175 It is said thereand I will
not quote the whole of it No other punishment deters men so effectually from committing
crimes as the punishment of death. This is one of those propositions which it is difficult to prove,
simply because they are in themselves more obvious than any proof can make them. He was
talking of the death penalty as a deterrent. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members may not agree
with him.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)
Why was the penalty abolished for sheep stealing?
The Attorney-General
He was dealing with the death penalty generally as a deterrent, as contrasted with other
deterrents. [Interruption.] I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to address this argument
to them in answer to the arguments that have been advanced. They may not accept it and they
may disagree with it, but I hope that they will allow me to put it in the short time available to me.
My view, and the view that has been expressed throughout the years, is that there is no other
punishment under our laws that has, or can have, such a deterrent effect. One knows that that
cannot be proved up to the hilt, but surely it must be so, as a matter of common sense, when one
contrasts the death penalty with a term of imprisonment.

It is no answer to that statement to say, "We have so many murders committed each year, and it is
no deterrent at all." One might equally say that because we have so many burglaries committed
each year imprisonment is no deterrent at all. I have never heard it suggested until tonight that
the imposition of the death sentence has increased the risk of murders being committed, and I do
not think I could find anything in the Report in support of that statement.
The truth isto summarise the positionthat the death sentence has a deterrent effect which
varies according to the nature of the individual. The Commission has said, in paragraph 68, that
that was its prima facie conclusion. It also refers, in paragraph 59, to the general indirect effect of
the death penalty.
The police say that there is one particular category to whom the death penalty is a deterrent, and
that is the criminals. The view has been expressed 2176 that criminals are directly deterred by it
from using lethal weapons to accomplish their purpose or to avoid arrest, and that, indirectly, it
induces them not to carry weapons lest the temptation to use them be too strong. That is the view
of the police, whose duty it is to protect society, and whose experience and knowledge of the
criminal classes should be accepted. Great weight should be attached to their considered view.
It is also the view of those who are in the prison service. Let me give the example of a reprieved
murderer serving a life sentence, a violent brute; and there are some. Suppose that while serving
his sentence he kills a prison officer. If there is no death sentence, the worst that can happen to
this double murderer is that he goes on serving the life sentence which has already been imposed
upon him. Surely we should not weaken the protection which the law gives to those in the prison
service. We owe them a duty not to do that. We rely upon them to see that those who are
reprieved do not escape.
Some murderers will commit a second murder. [Interruption.] Yes. Does anyone on the
Opposition side doubt that if Straffen escaped there would be another small girl's life in danger?
Surely we should not weaken that protection.
Take another instance. What about the professional criminal who knows that the next time he is
convicted he will be sentenced to preventive detention for maybe 10 years. If capital punishment
goes, may he not be tempted to use violence to avoid capture, violence which may result in
death? A reprieved murderer now usually gets from nine to 10 years. Of course it may be said,
"Well, if the death sentence is abolished, the life sentence will really mean a life sentence and not
a sentence of from nine to 10 years." That, I gather, is what hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest.
The right hon. and learned Member for Neepsend drew attention to the fact that in the
Amendment which bears his name there is no reference to the alternative. With great respect to
the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he dealt with that very vaguely. He said that, of course,
these people must be kept in custody for a long time, but that they must not be kept in such
conditions or for so long that deterioration to health results.
2177 But the problem which would confront us is not the problem that now arises in relation to
persons who because of mitigating circumstances are reprieved; the problem with which one
would be confronted would be the detention in safe custody, and maybe for a very long period,

of those who would not now be reprieved because of the brutality of their crimes, and who could
not be allowed any liberty because of the risks that might be involved.
It does not really matter whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes to give those
institutions names other than prison institutions; it does not matter whether special provision is
made in special places for that category of person, because I find it difficult to believe that
prolonged detention in such places, maybe for 10 or 20 years, would not result in deterioration in
health. Reference has been made to what Sir Alexander Paterson said on that issueit was quite
clearand what the Commissioners said has also been referred to.
I think the Commission was a little optimistic as to what would be the result of prolonged
detention. In my view, there is no satisfactory alternative at the present time to the death
sentence, either as a deterrent or as an alternative punishment for the convicted person, an
alternative which would satisfy the public conscience.
I am cutting my remarks as short as I can, and I say in conclusion that one cannot ignore the
increase in crimes of violence to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred in moving this
Motion. I submit to the House that, in view of the figures he gave, this is not the time to try the
experiment proposed in the Amendment. It is not the time either to abolish the death sentence or
to suspend it, and it is not the time to reduce the protection to society, whether it be the
protection that the law affords to warders, to men, women, or children.
Those in favour of abolition base their arguments on many grounds, and chiefly on the use of
statistics, as I think the House will agree after listening to this debate. They compare country
with country and statistics before and after abolition in a particular country. However, I am sure
the Commission was right when it said that it is almost impossible 2178 to draw valid
comparisons between different countries, that interpretation of the relevant statistics involves
doubt and difficulty.
We are asked now to take a chance, for it cannot be provedand I think the House accepts this
that in this country the suspension or abolition of the death sentenceits removal as a
deterrentwould not result in some person being murdered who would have remained alive if
the death sentence had remained. That, I say, cannot be proved. It cannot be proved that that will
not happen, and we are asked to take a chance, to run the risk that some such persons will be
murdered.
I do not believe that the mass of the people in this country want us to take that risk. I do not think
that they want the protection of society weakened in any degree. I think they regard the death
penalty as essential for the preservation of the security of life in our society. Before any such
drastic change is made, there should be clear evidence that it is the public desire. I do not think
that there is any indication that public opinion on this issue has changed at all since 1948.
Mr. Paget
Still give them Barabbas?

 The Attorney-General
Over the years our history has shown us that we have continually reduced the severities of our
criminal law. There was the reference earlier to hanging for sheep stealing and so on. That is our
history. We have pruned and pruned, and now we are being asked to prune still further. In the
present state of our society, I do not believe that that can safely be done.
We are, as I say, invited to take a chance. Indeed, that is recognised, because it is recognised by
this Amendment that it is not proved that abolition will not result in someone being murdered
who, if the death sentence stood, would remain alive. I ask hon. Members opposite in all
seriousness to consider this point. I know, from listening to their speeches, how they feel. But
have they considered at all what the results would be if the experiment which they are asking the
House to make failed? I do not suppose that any one of us would suffer as a result of it, but if
there are cases where the death sentence is now a deterrent, then I suggest that suspension of the
death sentence is a most dangerous 2179 and risky step in the present state of our society.
Knowing, as we do, the rising figures of crimes of violence, and that the figures for the first nine
months of 1954 are much bigger than the figures for the first nine months of 1953, I suggest that
we really should not run this risk with others at this time. The Government's view is that
2180
it should not be run, and I therefore ask the House to reject this Amendment, which I am sure is
contrary to the wishes and desires of the vast mass of the electorate.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:
resource
s

share! rate this site UPGRADE create

website login

ratethissite@zoo

Copyright/Piracy Issues

Posting of Private Information

Defamation/Libel/Slander

Hate/Violence

Nudity

Impersonation

Spam

Other

The World Human Right

Blog
Subscribe:

Sun, 07 May 2006

Current campaigns
Current campaigns AI Stop violence against women Violence against
women is the greatest human rights scandal of our times. From birth to
death, in times of peace as well as war, women face discrimination and
violence at the hands of the state, the community and the family.
Giovanni Diffidenti / Oxfam Control Arms The Arms Trade is out of
control. Worldwide arms are fuelling conflict, poverty, and human rights
abuses. It doesnt have to be like this. Amnesty International, Oxfam
and IANSA are calling for a global Arms Trade Treaty and for local action
to protect civilians from armed violence. AP GraphicsBank Stop
Torture The ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment the most universally accepted of human rights is being

undermined. In the "war on terror", governments are not only using

torture and ill-treatment, they are making the case that this is
justifiable and necessary. Find out more about Guantnamo Bay AI
The Death Penalty The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and
degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and
can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter
crime more effectively than other punishments. AI Human rights
defenders Human rights defenders are united by their commitment to
protecting and upholding the dignity and rights of their fellow citizens.
AI Refugees and Migrants Everyday people make decisions to leave
their homes, communities and countries. Some leave because they are
afraid. They are afraid for their lives, and for the lives of their children
and loved ones. Others leave because their social or economic situation
has compelled them to do so. Private International Justice The
twentieth century was perhaps the bloodiest in history. Millions of
people were victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
torture, extrajudicial executions and "disappearances." These crimes
were committed throughout the world during international and civil
wars and in conditions of "peace.". AI Economic globalization and
human rights Amnesty International believes economic actors - be they
companies or international financial institutions - are accountable for
the human rights impact of their activities. AI Child soldiers
Worldwide, more than half a million children have been recruited into
government armed forces, paramilitaries, civil militia and a wide
variety of non-state armed groups in more than 85 countries.
APGraphics Bank United Nations The UN General Assembly's current
effort to create a new Human Rights Council is a historic opportunity to
improve the UNs capacity to protect and promote all human rights.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? Women in France ask why their human
rights are being abused Lizzie Sadin In France, a woman dies every
four days after being beaten by her partner. More than half of those
women killed have previously been subjected to domestic violence.
Domestic violence is a human rights abuse. Why are the rights of these
women not protected? In a country which claims to be the cradle of
human rights and is signatory of the main human rights treaties,
womens rights to liberty, equality, security and sometimes the right to
life, are often abused. While these rights must be respected and
guaranteed by the French government, the reality is that both the
prevention of domestic violence and the protection of victims are
relatively ineffective. Protection mechanisms, although they exist, are
not working well. Women have little knowledge of their rights and
information is not made accessible. Temporary accommodation
possibilities for victims of domestic violence are insufficient. And

doctors are not always responsive when it comes to making assessments

of violations that could be used as evidence in court. For prevention to
work police officers, magistrates, health and welfare workers must
receive adequate training. For women to receive support hotlines,
shelters and counselling must be easily accessible. The magistrate: The
charge is that you assaulted a person. The accused: But it wasnt a
person sir, it was my wife. - Quote presented by a police commander
to the Seminar on Violence against Women and the Law, held on 31
March 2005. Lizzie Sadin French law does see domestic violence as a
criminal offence and the offence is aggravated if the perpetrator is a
spouse or cohabiting partner, but judicial processes are not farreaching enough. Repeated assault is not qualified as an offence.
Lodging a complaint is a long and complex procedure. And although
legal tools do exist, courts remain half-hearted. If a court decides on
penal mediation, as in many cases it does, the aggressor is not
punished. France has many weaknesses in combating violence in the
family. It is a widespread crime that is concealed because people think
there should be no interference in family affairs. But the State must see
this private matter as a public affair, like any other human rights
abuse. Domestic violence is everyones concern and must be eradicated.
By implementing its international obligations, France could become a
champion of womens rights. Read more Violence against Women in
France an Affair of the State Lack of controls on the arms trade is
fuelling conflict, poverty and human rights abuses worldwide. Every
government is responsible. The Control Arms campaign is asking
governments to toughen up controls on the arms trade. Our Million
Faces petition is collecting photos and self portraits from around the
world to reach our goal of one million faces by June 2006. We will use
these faces to send a powerful, global message of support to the world's
governments for an International Arms Trade Treaty. Be one in a million.
Join us today. The Countdown to the crucial UN conference on small
arms has begun. Its now 100 days until delegates arrive in New York:
thats 100 days left to make them agree first steps towards an
international Arms Trade Treaty to reduce conflict and save thousands of
lives every year. Over the next 100 days, Control Arms supporters from
more than 80 countries will organise events calling on world leaders to
do just that. Find out more about these events Have you ever
wondered how cheap and easy is it to buy weapons like AK-47s?' Watch
our spoof TV shopping channel, which highlights the ease with which
weapons can be bought and sold due to the almost total lack of global
controls on the arms trade. Watch it now... Ali-Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a
Qatari national, has been held without charge or trial in a military
prison in the US since June 2003. He had no access to a lawyer for more

than a year after he was detained. All this time he has been in extreme
isolation, with no access to his family, including his wife and five
children. This situation could continue indefinitely. In August 2005, his
lawyers filed a complaint about the torturous conditions that Ali-Saleh
Kahlah Al-Marri had been subjected to. This included sleep and sensory
deprivation, punitive shackling, exposure to cold, denial of a prayer rug
and clock and disrespectful handling of the Quran. The US government
dismissed the claim on the ground that Ali-Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri is
considered an enemy combatant in the war on terror. Appeals in
the case continue. Ali-Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri is currently the only person
detained as an enemy combatant on the US mainland. But the US
government continues to hold thousands of detainees in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Guantnamo Bay, and other secret detention sites around
the world in conditions which can amount to torture or ill-treatment.
Documents related Report: USA: AI's supplementary briefing to the UN
Committee against Torture Press release: US Government creating
'climate of torture' Report: USA: Guantnamo and beyond: The
continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power On 5 and 8 May 2006,
the UN Committee Against Torture is examining the USAs compliance
with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which prohibits the use of torture
in all circumstances. In its briefing to the Committee, Amnesty
International details its concerns about the case of Ali-Saleh Kahlah AlMarri and the torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners and detainees
both in the USA and in US detention abroad. Several detainees held
under US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan have died under torture. While
the US government continues to attribute evidence of abuses in US
custody to a few aberrant soldiers, there is clear evidence that most
of the ill-treatment denounced stemmed directly from official
procedures and policies. The US government is creating a climate in
which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish. The US government
repeatedly condemns torture, but it must demonstrate its commitment
to eradicate torture. It must withdraw its reservations it has entered to
the UN Convention Against Torture and to clarify to the Committee in no
uncertain terms that under its laws, no one, including the President, has
the right or authority to order the torture or ill-treatment of detainees
in any circumstances whatsoever. Spread the word Take action against
torture in the war on terror Abu Ghraib torture victims still seeking
redress AI Poland demonstrates against Abu Ghraib prison Bartosz
Konarzynski Two years ago the release of photographs showing detainees
being tortured and ill-treated by US military personnel at Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq shocked and horrified the world. Despite repeated calls,
US authorities have failed to conduct proper investigations to ensure

that all those responsible, including at the highest levels, are held to
account. The second anniversary of the outbreak of the scandal also
serves as a haunting reminder two years on that the torture and abuse
of Iraqis by their own authorities and the US-led coalition forces is still
an issue. This timely reminder comes when the US Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld has argued that US service members who see torture
and inhumane treatment do not have an obligation to physically stop
it, but only to report it. Testimony gathered by AI from former
detainees reportedly tortured in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere indicates
that victims have not received any compensation and are apparently
unaware of the ways of making claims and, in many cases, lack the
means and resources to do so. Watch Interview with Abdel-Jabbar AlAzzawi, who was detained and tortured in Iraq Read the transcript of
the interview The case of Abdel-Jabbar Al-Azzawi AI Abdel-Jabbar AlAzzawi, a 50-year-old Iraqi, was detained and tortured by US forces and
civilian interrogators hired by the US government in Iraq. He told AI that
about 30 US soldiers burst into his house on 20 November 2003, pushed
him to the ground and handcuffed him. US troops allegedly took money,
jewellery and other personal belongings from his house at the time of
his arrest, which were never returned. He also alleges that a US soldier
beat his wife over the head with the butt of a gun during the raid,
causing the loss of sight in one of her eyes. They made me lie on the
wooden floor... they tied each of my hands to a winch... they placed me
like this. They started taking pictures of me. With every question...
they would tighten the winch. Until I was stretched flat. Abdel-Jabbar
Al-Azzawi, March 2006 At Baghdad airport, where he was initially
interned, US personnel reportedly tortured Abdel- Jabbar Al-Azzawi
during interrogation. He described how he was insulted, blindfolded,
beaten, stripped, doused with water, tied in a crucifix position and
suspended in the air. He was then transferred to Abu Ghraib prison,
where he was held as a ghost detainee i.e. without being registered
- and in solitary confinement for almost a month. He says that pictures
where taken of him as he was naked and while he was forced to adopt
humiliating positions similar to those to which other detainees were
subjected, as shown in the published Abu Ghraib scandal images. He
was released on 6 June 2004 after spending almost seven months in
detention without charge or trial. Abdel-Jabbar Al-Azzawi, who
reportedly suffers physical and physicological disorders that allegedly
developed during his detention, has not received any compensation
from the US authorities. Documentos relacionados Informe: Ms all de
Abu Ghraib: reclusin y tortura en Irak Report: Iraq: One year on the
human rights situation remains dire Open letter to President George W.
Bush on the question of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment Survivors still seeking redress US investigations into the

abuses have resulted in prosecutions only of junior military personnel
and one senior officer; the sentences in those cases generally have
failed to reflect the gravity of the offences. AP Graphics Bank Since
the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 US-led coalition forces have detained
tens of thousands of people. In defiance of international humanitarian
law, most have been held without charge, trial, or access to lawyers or
courts. Some of the detainees have been interned for over two years;
others have been released without explanation or apology after months
in detention. Two years on, the US government must condemn all forms
of torture and other ill-treatment, establish an independent
investigation into the abuses, bring the perpetrators to justice, and
create a adequate mechanism for redress; this should include
compensation, restitution, satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition
and rehabilitation. Spread the word Take action against torture in the
war on terror Rendition involves the unlawful transfer of individuals
from one country to another. In the so-called war on terror, the
practice is mainly initiated by the USA, often using specially leased
planes, and carried out with the collaboration, complicity or
acquiescence of other governments. (Click on the images of four
aircraft used by the CIA to find out more.) Rendition thrives on secrecy.
The USA has secretly transferred terror suspects to countries that are
known to practice torture. Rendition has also been used to deliver
people into US custody whether at Guantnamo Bay in Cuba, detention
centres in Iraq and Afghanistan, or secret facilities around the world,
known as black sites. The scale and scope of this rendition
programme is difficult to assess. Amnesty International believes that
there have been hundreds of victims of rendition. Amnesty International
has monitored the movements of four aircraft known to have carried
out renditions and can document that they have passed through each of
the countries in the map above. Read more about the secretive and
illegal US programme of 'rendition' Stop 'rendition' and secret detention
Gulfstream III: N829MG (Later re-registered as N259SK) is one six planes
used by the CIA for "renditions". This plane flew Maher Arar from the US
to Jordan, en route to Syria. Sam Chui Amnesty International uses the
term "rendition" to refer to a variety of practices by the US authorities
involving transfers of individuals from one country to another, without
any form of judicial or administrative process such as extradition. These
practices, usually carried out in secret, normally involve multiple
human rights violations, including abduction, arbitrary arrest and
detention and unlawful transfer without due process of law. Amnesty
International calls on all states to stop "rendition", investigate and
prosecute those responsible for the human rights violations connected

to this practice, and ensure full reparation to the victims and their
families. Related documents Q&A: What is 'rendition'? USA: Below the
radar: Secret flights to torture and disappearance 'Diplomatic
assurances' No protection against torture or ill-treatment
Disappearances in the 'war on terror' AI documents on torture in the
'war on terror' Take action! Amnesty International has reviewed flight
details that lead the organisation to believe that a Gulfstream V plane
leased from Richmor Aviation has been used in the rendition of
detainees to places where they are at serious risk of torture and other
human rights violations. Write to Richmor Aviation Stop secret
detentions in the "war on terror" Other headlines Council of Europe:
Amnesty International welcomes recommendation not to draft standards
for diplomatic assurances USA: Front companies used in secret flights to
torture and 'disappearance' USA: 800 secret CIA flights into and out of
Europe UK: CIA rendition flights used UK airfields AI/Reprieve
conference: Non-refoulement and outsourcing torture USA / Yemen:
Secret Detention in CIA "Black Sites" Stories The secretive and illegal US
programme of 'rendition' The USAs rendition policy has transferred
people secretly and illegally to countries known to practice torture, to
US detention centres in Guantnamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan and "black
sites" around the world. There have been hundreds of victims of
renditions. The CIA rendition planes and where they have been AI says
states must answer Council of Europes questions about renditions in full
The Secretary General (SG) of the Council of Europe has confirmed Al's
concerns that many states may be facilitating secret detention,
unlawful renditions and other human rights violations through their own
legal shortcomings and practices. The SGs report found that many of
the 46 member states of the Council of Europe do not have adequate
measures in place to prevent, monitor and investigate the use of their
territory for secret detention and 'renditions'. AI published the details of
CIA flights that used UK airfields to refuel just hours after transferring
detainees to countries where they risked torture Real lives Maher Arar,
released detainee tortured in Syria On his way home to Canada, Maher
Arar, born in Syria, was taken into custody at JFK airport in New York.
He was deported via Jordan to Syria where he was detained. He was
physically and mentally tortured. After more than a year in Syria, he
was eventually released without charge. Watch AI Interview with Maher
Arar, filmed in Canada, November 2005. Go to other cases and
testimony AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Public Statement AI Index: IOR
30/002/2006 (Public) News Service No: 083 31 March 2006 Council of
Europe: Amnesty International welcomes recommendation not to draft
standards for diplomatic assurances Amnesty International welcomes
the decision of a group of governmental experts to recommend that the

Council of Europe not draft standards on the use and content of

diplomatic assurances in the context of states' expulsion of individuals,
purportedly suspected of involvement in terrorism, who face a risk of
being tortured or ill-treated by receiving states. Amnesty International
-- along with the Association for the Prevention of Torture, Federation
Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme, Human Rights Watch,
International Commission of Jurists, International Helsinki Federation
for Human Rights, Redress Trust, and Organisation Mondiale Contre la
Torture -- had called on the group of experts to reject the proposal to
draft such standards. The human rights organizations rejected the use
of diplomatic assurances against such risk and asserted that this
practice undermines the absolute prohibition of torture and other illtreatment and circumvents the prohibition of sending a person to a
place where they risk being subjected to torture or other ill-treatment
(the obligation of non-refoulement), even when complemented by adhoc post-return monitoring mechanisms. Our research indicates that
people who have been transferred on the basis of such diplomatic
assurances have been tortured. The joint statement by the NGOs
therefore also called on the Member States of the Council of Europe to
absolutely reject the use of diplomatic assurances against such risk. The
call of the human rights organizations echoes those of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture,
the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights and a number of
state representatives on the above-mentioned group of experts. They
too consider that bilateral promises between diplomats, made by states
with a well-documented record of torture, have proved to be
ineffective and undermine efforts of the international community to
ensure respect for human rights obligations. In a statement to the
Group of Experts, Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, stated, inter alia: " ... [t]he absolute prohibition on torture is
increasingly challenged in the context of counter- terrorism. The reality
is that many States continue to engage in torture and other illtreatment, increasingly in the name of the fight against terrorism, and
often in a systematic and widespread manner. Others have returned
persons suspected of engaging in terrorist activities to countries where
they face a real risk of torture, thereby violating the obligation of nonrefoulement. Some States have also engaged in the dubious practice of
seeking diplomatic assurances that torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment will not be inflicted on an individual
suspect who is transferred to a receiving State. ... I strongly share the
view that diplomatic assurances do not work as they do not provide
adequate protection against torture and ill-treatment, nor do they, by
any means, nullify the obligation of non- refoulement. ... Ad-hoc

agreements concluded outside the international human rights legal

framework threaten to weaken this system and erode the human rights
principles in which it is firmly grounded. Efforts should instead focus on
the full implementation of international human rights obligations
through existing structures." BACKGROUND The Council of Europe Group
of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism held two
meetings, in December 2005 and March 2006, to discuss whether the
Council of Europe should draft standards on the use of diplomatic
assurances in the context of expulsions to places where individuals face
the real risk of torture or other ill-treatment. The recommendations of
the Group will be submitted to the Council of Europe's Committee of
Minister's Steering Committee for Human Rights for consideration during
its meeting in Strasbourg, France on 4 to 7 April. AI Index: IOR
30/002/2006 31 March 2006 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE AI
Index: AMR 51/054/2006 (Public) News Service No: 083 5 April 2006
Embargo Date: 5 April 2006 00:15 GMT USA: Front companies used in
secret flights to torture and "disappearance" Amnesty International
today released a new report which exposes a covert operation whereby
people have been arrested or abducted, transferred and held in secret
or handed over to countries where they have faced torture and other
ill-treatment. The report describes how the CIA has used private aircraft
operators and front companies to preserve the secrecy of "rendition"
flights. Below the radar: Secret flights to torture and 'disappearance',
shows that the CIA has exploited aviation practices that would
otherwise require their flights to be declared to aviation authorities.
The report lists dozens of destinations around the world where planes
associated with "rendition" flights have landed and taken off -- and lists
private airlines with permission to land at US military bases worldwide.
Amnesty International has records of nearly 1,000 flights directly linked
to the CIA, most of which have used European airspace; these are
flights by planes that appear to have been permanently operated by the
CIA through front companies. In a second category, there are records of
some 600 other flights made by planes confirmed as having been used at
least temporarily by the CIA. The report details the destinations and
ownership of specific aircraft linked to people interviewed by Amnesty
International who have been transferred illegally. For example one
particular aircraft is known to have made over 100 stops in Guantanamo
Bay. Another took Abu Omar to Egypt from Germany after he was
kidnapped in Italy. Its owners have admitted leasing the plane to the
CIA, but have said it is not used exclusively by the agency. There are
488 relevant recorded landings or take-offs between February 2001 and
July 2005. "The US Administration has tried to circumvent the ban on
torture and other ill-treatment in many ways. The latest evidence

shows how the Administration is manipulating commercial arrangements

in order to be able to transfer people in violation of international law. It
demonstrates the length to which the US government will go to conceal
these abductions," said Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene
Khan. The report uncovers part of the mystery surrounding the practice
of renditions. Secrecy surrounding rendition operations means it is
impossible to know how many people have been arrested or abducted,
transferred across borders, held in secret detention or tortured in the
'war on terror'. Information from governments themselves indicates that
numbers are likely to be in the hundreds. The report analyses new
information about "black site" detention provided to Amnesty
International by three Yemeni men recently released after a two- year
rendition ordeal, which raises the possibility that they were held
somewhere in eastern Europe or Central Asia. Muhammad Al-Assad,
Muhammad Bashmilah and Salah 'Ali Qaru spent 13 months in one secret
facility before being flown to Yemen in May 2005 and eventually
released last month. "Their captors went to great lengths to conceal
their location to the men, but circumstantial evidence such as climate,
prayer schedules and flight times to and from the site suggest that they
may have been held in eastern Europe or Central Asia," said senior
advisor Anne FitzGerald. "But without further information from the US
government and European authorities, it is impossible to verify exactly
where." Rendition is the illegal transfer of people from one country to
another in ways that bypass all judicial and administrative oversight.
The aim of rendition in the "war on terror" is usually to facilitate
interrogation of suspects outside the reach of the law. "Renditions are
not just about transporting terror suspects from one place to another
without red tape. The term sanitises the multiple layers of human rights
violations involved," said Ms Khan. "Most victims of rendition were
arrested and detained illegally in the first place. Many were abducted,
denied access to any legal process and have subsequently "disappeared".
All of those interviewed by Amnesty International described being
tortured or otherwise ill-treated." "The callous and calculated
multiplicity of abuses is shocking. People captured have been subjected
to a range of abuses of human rights by a number of governments acting
in collusion, and all of this has been shrouded by secrecy and deceit,"
said Ms Khan. "The report shows not just how arrest and extradition
procedures have been ignored, the ban on torture and other illtreatment has been disregarded, but also how aviation practices have
been undermined: in essence the rule of law has been put aside."
Amnesty International cautioned that states that tolerate these flights
landing on their territory and companies that carry them out, may find
themselves complicit in serious human rights abuses. The organization

called for the transfer of any detainee to other countries to take place
with proper safeguards, including judicial oversight, and the use of
official aircraft. "All governments must prevent, investigate and
prosecute those responsible for secret detention and rendition,"
declared Ms Khan. Amnesty International called on the aviation sector
to take specific and immediate action to ensure that aviation companies
do not lease their aircraft in circumstances in which they may be used
in renditions. The onus is on companies to ensure that they are aware of
the end use of any aircraft they lease or operate and that they do not
facilitate human rights violations. Amnesty International called on
governments to: Insist that any plane or helicopter used to carry out the
missions of the intelligence services be declared a 'state' flight,
regardless of whether they are carried out using civilian aircraft.
Prohibit the use of airspace and airports for renditions and actively
investigate suspected rendition cases. Disclose the full extent of these
practices and the fate of those whose whereabouts are still unknown.
Notes to editors Estimated numbers of rendition victims: The Egyptian
prime minister noted in 2005 that the US has transferred some 60-70
detainees to Egypt alone, and a former CIA agent with experience in the
region believes that "hundreds" of detainees may have been sent by the
US to prisons in Middle Eastern countries. The USA has acknowledged
the capture of about 30 "high value" detainees whose whereabouts
remain unknown, and the CIA is reportedly investigating some three
dozen additional cases of "erroneous rendition", in which people were
detained based on flawed evidence or confusion over names. See also:
USA: Human dignity denied: Torture and accountability in the "war on
terror" (AI Index: AMR 51/145/2004)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR5114520 04. Full text of
the report will be available from 5 April at:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR5105120 06 To obtain an
embargoed copy of the report, contact Amnesty International Press
Office (see details below). Amnesty International is campaigning to stop
torture and other ill-treatment in the "war on terror". For more
information, please go to the campaign home page:
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index-eng
www.amnesty.org/stoptorture Public Document
**************************************** For more information please call
Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web:
http://www.amnesty.org For latest human rights news view
http://news.amnesty.org AI Index: AMR 51/054/2006 5 April 2006 USA:
800 secret CIA flights into and out of Europe Related documents
Interview with Maher Arar 08/12/2005 Interview de Maher Arar

08/12/2005 Entrevista con Maher Arar 08/12/2005 Interview with Maher

Arar (Arabic) 08/12/2005 Press release, 05/12/2005 Amnesty
International today revealed that six planes used by the CIA for
renditions have made some 800 flights in or out of European airspace
including 50 landings at Shannon airport in the Republic of Ireland. The
information contradicts assurances given last week by the US Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice to the Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern,
that Ireland's Shannon airport had not been used for "untoward"
purposes, or as a transit point for terror suspects. The organisation also
rejected assertions by the US Secretary of State as she began a fournation tour of Europe. In a statement today, Ms Rice argued that
rendition -- transferring detainees from country to country without legal
process -- was permissible under international law. Although the victims
of rendition usually end up in countries known to use torture in their
interrogations, Ms Rice added that the US government seeks assurances
on treatment from receiving nations. "Flying detainees to countries
where they may face torture or other ill-treatment is a direct and
outright breach on international law with or without so called
"diplomatic assurances". These assurances are meaningless. Countries
known for systematic torture, regularly deny the existence of such
practices," said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty International's Senior Director
of Regional Programmes. Amnesty international has obtained flight
records for six CIA-chartered planes from September 2001 to September
of 2005. According to the US Federal Aviation Administration over this
period, these planes landed 50 times in Shannon and took off 35 times,
suggesting that some flights were kept secret. Although Shannon airport
is used as a refuelling stop for the US military, none of the planes were
military transport planes. In total for this period, the six planes made
some 800 flights originating or landing in Europe. The planes include:
Boeing 737-7ET, call sign N313P (Later re- registered as N4476S). The
largest of the six planes, with 32 seats, is owned by Premier Executive
Transport Services, a CIA front company that also owns N379P. N313P
has been frequently seen at US military bases, including in Afghanistan.
Gulfstream V: call sign N379P (Later re- registered as N8068V and then
as N44982): this plane, which has made more than 50 trips to the US
detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, has been nicknamed "The
Guantanamo Bay Express". It was also used in the CIA rendition of
Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al-Zari from Sweden to Egypt. Gulfstream
III: N829MG (Later re-registered as N259SK). This plane took dual SyrianCanadian national Maher Arar from the US to Syria where he was
detained for 13 months without charge, during which time he was
tortured. He was finally released in October 2003. GulfstreamIV, call
sign N85VM (Later re- registered as N227SV), the plane that took Abu

Omar to Egypt from Germany after his kidnapping in Italy, turned

around and flew to Shannon. The plane's flight log also shows visits to
Afghanistan, Morocco, Dubai, Jordan, Italy, Japan, Switzerland,
Azerbaijan and the Czech Republic. Amnesty International is publishing
the information after a challenge by the Irish Foreign Minister Dermot
Ahern on Thursday last week. Asked about CIA planes using Shannon
airport, the Foreign Minister said, "If anyone has any evidence of any of
these flights please give me a call and I will have it immediately
investigated." On 17 Feb 2003, for instance, the Gulfstream IV, N85VM
took Abu Omar from Ramstein to Cairo, then turned around and flew to
Shannon, arriving at 0552 on the 18th. The latest information confirms
other persistent and reliable reports in the media and by nongovernmental organizations that CIA-chartered flights are used for
renditions. Amnesty International only has partial flight logs for six
planes whilst the CIA has been reported to use some 30 leased aircraft.
European countries have allowed these aircraft to land, refuel and take
off from their territory. Under international law and standards, all
States must cooperate to bring to an end any serious breach of the
prohibition of torture and other peremptory rules of international law.
They must also refrain from aiding or assisting those carrying out such
breaches. Amnesty International calls on European countries to
investigate promptly and thoroughly allegations that their territory has
been used to assist CIA-chartered flights secretly transporting detainees
to countries where they may face disappearance, torture or other illtreatment. Pending the results of such an investigation, all States must
ensure that their territory and facilities are not used to assist rendition
flights. The organization urges all member States of the Council of
Europe to provide full cooperation with the investigation carried out by
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on allegations
about secret detention centres, and provide complete information on
their internal law and practices relating to secret rendition flights, as
requested by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Amnesty
International/Reprieve conference: Non- refoulement and outsourcing
torture Feature, 29/11/2005 Presentation by Boris Wijkstrm,
Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture (World Organisation Against
Torture) Legal Advisor at the Amnesty International/Reprieve
Conference: The Global Struggle Against Torture: Guantnamo Bay,
Bagram and beyond, 19-21 November 2005 Thank you Chair, I would like
to thank the conference organizers, Amnesty International and Reprieve
for arranging this important event and inviting me to address this
distinguished Panel and audience on the important topic of Outsourcing
Torture. Introduction I will devote the time I have to the issue of nonrefoulement, which in many ways constitutes the backdrop or

background, if you will, to the subject of outsourcing torture. As you

will have noted, the specific issues addressed by this panel are
Renditions, Memoranda of Understanding, Diplomatic Assurances and
Evidence extracted under torture. All of these practices in some
respects involve, or implicate a violation of the absolute prohibition of
non-refoulement. The practice of renditions, whereby an individual is
handed over by the authorities of one state to the authorities of
another state, in secret, and without any formal process, constitutes by
definition a violation of the right not to be returned to torture. The
Committee against Torture has ruled on this issue in the case of Josu
Arkauz Arana v. France, which involved a member of the Bask separatist
organization ETA finding that rendition can so significantly heighten the
risk of torture as to bring the claim within the purview of article 3 of
the Convention against Torture, even in the context of a country which
does not practice torture systematically against detainees. The
reasoning in this case leads one to conclude that the Committee would
not have found a violation had the French authorities afforded the
applicant in that case proper procedures which would have allowed him
to raise a claim to protection under article 3 of CAT. Similarly,
diplomatic assurances are used by states to refoule persons to other
states where there is a real risk of torture, because in the absence of
such a clear risk diplomatic assurance would not be necessary. Here
also, the Committee against Torture has had an opportunity to
pronounce itself on these practices in the recent case of Agiza v.
Sweden where it stated that that the procurement of diplomatic
assurances did not suffice to protect the applicant against the manifest
risk of torture. And lastly, regarding evidence extracted under torture
and other ill-treatment, such evidence is often extracted in situations
where persons have been rendered or otherwise returned to other
countries in violation of the non-refoulement rule, often deliberately so
that the state of destination can extract evidence through torture and
share it with the state that returned the individual. One example of this
practice is the well known case of Maher Arar where it appears that the
objective of the US authorities in returning him to Syria, rather than to
Canada, which they could have done, was specifically in order that
information be extracted from him in Syria by means which the US or
Canadian authorities were more reluctant to use. In the witness
testimony which will be presented during this conference we will
undoubtedly hear directly from persons who have been victims of all of
these practices which I have just mentioned. Considering that a
common thread uniting all of these issues is the absolute prohibition on
return to torture it is worth dwelling for a moment on its content and
scope, before discussing in detail, as my colleagues on this panel will

do, the means by which states have systematically sought to circumvent

it in recent years. The Non-Refoulement Prohibition is Absolute
International law absolutely prohibits states from returning persons to a
country where they face a real risk of torture, or other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment. The prohibition is now recognized to be a part
of the general and absolute prohibition of torture and as part of this
general prohibition it is binding on all states at all times regardless of
whether the state in question has or has not ratified a treaty which
specifically prohibits it. In his report to the UN General Assembly of
2001 the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Sir Nigel Rodley stated that
the prohibition of torture imposes on states not only a duty not to
torture, but also a positive duty to prevent such acts by not bringing
persons under the control of other States if there are substantial
grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to
torture. This approach has been echoed by all the relevant
international bodies including the European Court of Human Rights, the
Committee against Torture, and the Human Rights Committee and
others. This principle has been perhaps most clearly expressed in the
jurisprudence of the European Court, for instance in the Soering
judgement where the Court identified the non-refoulement prohibition
as an inherent obligation under Article 3 of the European Convention.
As such the non-refoulement prohibition is absolute and does not permit
of countervailing considerations or exceptions. That is, where an
individual has shown that there are substantial grounds for believing
that he or she faces a real risk of torture if returned, then the nonrefoulement rule operates to prevent the persons return in all cases.
International human rights mechanisms have therefore consistently held
that the individuals conduct, however dangerous or reprehensible, is
not a material consideration in determining whether a State is obliged
to refrain from expelling him or her under the non-refoulement
prohibition. The Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on
Torture, and other bodies as well as eminent legal experts have referred
to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, notably
the case of Chahal v. United Kingdom as the international standard in
this regard. In conclusion, I would like to get back to the point I made
at the beginning, which was that the practices which my colleagues on
the panel are going to speak about today, all constitute means by which
states have increasingly sought to circumvent the non-refoulement
prohibition. In this regard, one might characterize these efforts as
indirect challenges to the rule, because they dont seek to challenge
the rule as such but rather, they seek to get around it. The secrecy
surrounding for instance the United States renditions programme clearly
demonstrates an awareness on the part of the US authorities that the

activity is in fact illegal. However, what we might see more of in the

future, if one is allowed to speculate, are perhaps more direct
challenges to the rule. In this connection, it may be worth recalling the
case of Chahal v. U.K. This case involved the expulsion of a Sikh militant
to India, where the European Court found that his deportation would
constitute a violation of article 3. In doing so, the Court rebutted the
State Partys arguments that Chahal posed a security threat holding that
the prohibition of refoulement does not admit of countervailing
considerations and consequently that the conduct of the applicant
however threatening or reprehensible was not material to the
determination of whether his claim came within the scope of article 3.
We also recall, however, that in this critical decision there was a
dissenting opinion joined by no less than 7 judges of the Grand Chamber
of the European Court. These dissenting judges argued that nonrefoulement cases are in fact different from other article 3 cases
because in non- refoulement cases the prohibited act of torture is
hypothetical and it is not done by a Contracting Party to the
Convention, rather it is done abroad. The dissenting opinion concluded
that non-refoulement cases should therefore be treated differently, and
that the State in question should in fact be allowed to balance the
detriment to the individual against any threat posed by the individual to
the State concerned. In the years ahead we may see increasing pressure
from European states to convince the Court that the standard set by
Chahal is in fact too high in the context of the serious threat that they
are facing from terrorism, and that, instead, the proposition of the
dissenting judges in Chahal is where the bar should be set. It will
become increasingly important for us as advocates to avert this
development in addition to challenging and calling states to account for
the practice of renditions and the use of diplomatic assurances,
memoranda of understanding and evidence derived under torture.
Thank you. For further information about the weekend conference:
http://news.amnesty.org/pages/conference-press- eng LIBRARY EUROPE
AND CENTRAL ASIA WESTERN EUROPE UK AI Index: EUR 45/059/2005 15
December 2005 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE AI Index: EUR
45/059/2005 (Public) News Service No: 250 15 December 2005 UK: CIA
rendition flights used UK airfields Amnesty International today published
the details of CIA flights that used UK airfields to refuel just hours after
transferring detainees to countries where they risked torture. The
information concerns two flights in late 2001 and one in early 2002,
where planes that had taken detainees to Jordan and Egypt, landed
immediately afterwards at Prestwick airport in Glasgow for refuelling
before heading back to the United States. On Monday 12th December
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that since US President George

W Bush took office in January 2001, the UK government has found no

evidence of a request from the United States "for overflights or for
refuelling or other facilitation for what you've described as
rendition....nor are we aware by other means of any such case." "The
UK government cannot distance itself so easily from a policy based on
kidnap and unlawful transfer. In 2002 UK agents were implicated in the
rendition of two UK residents from Gambia to Afghanistan to
Guantnamo Bay. Whether the US is sending people to other countries
to be tortured, or snatching them in other countries to be abused in
Guantanamo, international law prohibits the UK, or any other state,
from aiding or abetting them," said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty
International's Senior Director of Regional Programmes. Amnesty
International's information concerns a Gulfstream V turbojet, then
registered as N379P, which between 2001 and 2005 made at least 78
stopovers at UK airports while en route to or from destinations such as
Baku, Dubai, Cyprus, Karachi, Qatar, Riyadh, Tashkent, and Warsaw.
Records show that three of these flights were directly connected to
known cases of rendition: On 23 October 2001, witnesses saw Jamil
Qasim Saeed Mohammed being bundled on board a Gulfstream V,
registration N379P, by a group of masked men at Karachi airport in
Pakistan. The plane flew Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed to Jordan. The
following day, the Gulfstream flew to Glasgow Prestwick to refuel, then
back to Dulles International near Washington DC. Amnesty International
has repeatedly requested information from the US authorities about the
current whereabouts and legal status of Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed,
but has received no reply. On 18/19 December 2001, according to an
inquiry conducted by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsmen, the
Gulfstream V took Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed al- Zari from Sweden to
Cairo. Amnesty International's records show that the plane had made
several trips between Cairo and Prestwick earlier in the month, and
stopped to refuel at Prestwick after leaving the two detainees in Cairo,
where they were reportedly tortured. In March 2005, the Chief
Parliamentary Ombudsman in Sweden, having reviewed the Swedish
governments role in the transfer to Egypt of the two detainees,
concluded that the "the Swedish Security Police lost control of the
situation at the airport and during the transport to Egypt. The American
security personnel took charge Such total surrender of power to
exercise public authority on Swedish territory is clearly contrary to
Swedish law." On 12 January 2002, according to Indonesian security
officials, the Gulfsteam V, N379P, took Muhammad Saad Iqbal Madni
from Jakarta to Cairo. Amnesty International records confirm previous
media reports that when the plane left Cairo, it flew to Prestwick to
refuel. Iqbal Madni has since been returned to US custody, and is

currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He does not have a

lawyer, and other detainees have said in the last month that he is in
poor condition and "at risk of losing his mind". "The UK has allowed
these aircraft to land, refuel and take off from their territory. Instead
of ducking its responsibilities, the UK Government must launch an
immediate, thorough and independent investigation into mounting
evidence that its territory has been used to assist in unlawfully
transporting detainees to countries where they may face
"disappearance", torture or other ill-treatment," said Claudio Cordone.
Pending the results of such an investigation, the UK should ensure that
its territory and facilities are not used to assist rendition flights.
Amnesty International also urges the UK to provide full cooperation with
the investigations to be carried out by the European Parliament and by
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on allegations
about secret detention centres, and to provide complete information on
their internal law and practices relating to secret rendition flights, as
requested by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. Amnesty
International is campaigning to stop torture and other ill-treatment in
the "war on terror". For more information, please go to the campaign
home page: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-index- eng
Public Document **************************************** For more information
please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20
7413 5566 Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web:
http://www.amnesty.org For latest human rights news view
http://news.amnesty.org ******* AI Index: EUR 45/059/2005 15
December 2005 The Death Penalty Hands of death row inmate in cell of
Pontiac Correctional Institution, Pontiac, Illinois, USA AP Graphics
Bank Latest news With 20,000 people on death row across the world,
over 2,148 people were executed in 22 countries in 2005. However the
trend towards abolition continues to grow. Find out who the "top
executioners in the world" are. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is
irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent. It has never been
shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments. As an
organization dedicated to the protection and promotion of human
rights, Amnesty International (AI) works for an end to executions and
the abolition of the death penalty everywhere. The progress has been
dramatic. When AI convened an International Conference on the Death
Penalty in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1977, just 16 countries had abolished
capital punishment for all crimes. Today the figure stands at 86. Each
year since 1997 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has
passed a resolution calling on countries that have not abolished the
death penalty to establish a moratorium on executions. The latest

resolution, adopted in April 2005, was co-sponsored by 81 UN member

states, the highest number ever. AI issues updated information and news
of developments, and maintains a library of reports on the death
penalty worldwide. AI is a member of the World Coalition against the
Death Penalty, a coalition that unites national and international human
rights organizations, bar associations, trade unions and local and
regional authorities in an effort to rid the world of the death penalty.
Take action against the death penalty The Death Penalty in 2005
Bangladesh Executions: 3 Death sentences: 218Belarus Executions: 1+
Death sentences: 0China Executions: 1770+ Death sentences:
3900+Indonesia Executions: 2+ Death sentences: 10Iran Executions: 94+
Death sentences: 21+Iraq Executions: 3 Death sentences: 50Japan
Executions: 1 Death sentences: 11Jordan Executions: 11+ Death
sentences: 11+Kuwait Executions: 6 Death sentences: 14+Libya
Executions: 6+ Death sentences: 1+Mongolia Executions: 8 Death
sentences: 27North Korea Executions: 1+ Death sentences: 1+Pakistan
Executions: 31 Death sentences: 241Palestinian Authority Executions: 5
Death sentences: 0Saudi Arabia Executions: 86+ Death sentences:
1+Singapore Executions: 8 Death sentences: 1+Somalia Executions: 1+
Death sentences: 10Taiwan Executions: 3 Death sentences: 17USA
Executions: 60 Death sentences: 106Uzbekistan Executions: 2+ Death
sentences: 7Viet Nam Executions: 21+ Death sentences: 65Yemen
Executions: 24+ Death sentences: 1+ Roll over the country flags for
more information createChange: Artwork by Joel Lardner. In 2005 at
least 2,148 people were executed in 22 countries 94% of them were
killed in China,, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA An additional 5,186
people were sentenced to death However, despite the shocking figures,
the trend towards abolition continues to grow: the number of countries
carrying out executions has dropped for a fourth consecutive year; over
the last twenty years, numbers have halved. Mexico and Liberia have
most recently abolished the death penalty. "As the world continues to
turn away from the use of the death penalty, it is a glaring anomaly that
China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and the USA stand out for their extreme use of
this form of punishment as the 'top' executioners in the world." - Irene
Khan, AI Secretary General. There are also more than 20,000 people on
death row waiting to be killed by their own governments. The figures
we have are approximate: many governments, like China, refuse to
publish full official statistics on executions, while Viet Nam has even
classified statistics and reporting on the death penalty as a state
secret. The death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human
rights. It is often applied in a discriminatory manner, follows unfair
trials or is applied for political reasons. It can be an irreversible error
when there is miscarriage of justice. AI will continue to campaign until

the death penalty is abolished worldwide. 2005 statistics Death penalty

developments in 2005 Facts and figures 2005 Death sentences and
executions in 2005 Latest updated statistics (2006) Stop child
executions! Napoleon Beazley was executed in 2002 in Texas for a
murder committed eight years earlier when he was 17 years old. At the
trial the white prosecutor described him as an animal in front of the
all-white jury. Witnesses at the trial cited his potential for
rehabilitation. He was a model prisoner. Mike Moore/Daily Mirror
Ending the death penalty for child offenders The use of the death
penalty against child offenders people under 18 at the time of the
crime is clearly prohibited under international law, yet a handful of
countries persist with child executions. Since January 1990 Amnesty
International has documented 46 executions of child offenders in eight
countries the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, the USA, China and Yemen. The USA carried out 19
executions more than any other country. Child executions worldwide
a dwindling practice During the same period, several countries raised to
18 the minimum age for application of the death penalty, in accordance
with international law. Yemen and Zimbabwe raised the minimum age to
18 in 1994, as did China in 1997 and Pakistan in 2000. Latest news On 1
March 2005 the US Supreme Court outlawed the execution of child
offenders Stop child executions The execution of child offenders must
stop. As a step towards total abolition of the death penalty, Amnesty
International is campaigning with other organizations to end its use
against child offenders. Further information: Child executions violate
international law Stop Child Executions! Ending the death penalty for
child offenders (Report) USA: Supreme Court outlaws execution of child
offenders Related documents USA: Supreme Court outlaws execution of
child offenders 01/03/2005 TATS-UNIS. La Cour suprme prohibe
l'excution de mineurs dlinquants 01/03/2005 Estados Unidos: La Corte
Suprema prohbe la ejecucin de menores 01/03/2005 Press release,
01/03/2005 Todays decision by the US Supreme Court outlawing the
execution of child offenders -- those who were under 18 at the time of
the crime - - finally brings the USA into line with an unequivocal
principle of international law, Amnesty International said today,
welcoming the ruling. "This landmark decision comes at a time when
there is an urgent need for the USA to show that it will comply with
international human rights standards," Amnesty International said. "Its
good example will also help bring about final and total eradication of
this internationally illegal practice worldwide." In Roper v. Simmons, the
Supreme Court found that executing child offenders violates the US
Constitution, concluding that a national consensus against such
executions had evolved since 1989 when it ruled that the execution of

16- and 17-year-old offenders was constitutional. The Court had

considered national and international trends, scientific evidence, and
appeals from religious, human rights, legal and child advocacy
organizations. "The fact that the worlds main perpetrator of this
international law violation has now ended the practice can only help to
bring an end to any residual use of this punishment against children
elsewhere," Amnesty International said. "Todays ruling is one of the
final milestones on the road to a remarkable human rights achievement
-- total global abolition of the death penalty against children." In recent
years, the USA had become the only country in the world to openly
acknowledge executing child offenders and to claim for itself the right
to do so. It accounts for almost half of the worlds known executions of
child offenders carried out since 1990 -- 19 out of 39. Todays 5-4 ruling
by the US Supreme Court noted the "stark reality" that the "United
States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the
juvenile death penalty." The other executions have occurred in China,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
Yemen. These countries -- which unlike the USA have all ratified the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits the execution of
child offenders -- have either now abolished such use of the death
penalty, are in the process of doing so, or deny that they have executed
people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. The international
prohibition on executing people for crimes committed when they were
children reflects a common understanding that the lives of child
offenders -- due to a young persons immaturity, impulsiveness,
vulnerability and capacity for rehabilitation -- should never be simply
written off, no matter how heinous the crime. Today, the US Supreme
Court agreed. It found that the inherent differences between children
and adults meant that child offenders "cannot with reliability be
classified among the worst offenders" for which the USA supposedly
reserves the death penalty. Further information The Stop Child
Executions campaign page USA: Supreme Court outlaws execution of
child offenders 01/03/2005 Amnesty International To play this item
you might need to download Real Player Back to main article Transcript
(if available) International law prohibits the use of the death penalty
for crimes committed by people younger than 18, yet some countries
continue to execute child offenders. Amnesty International launched an
international "Stop Child Executions!" campaign last year as a step
towards the total abolition of the death penalty around the world. Rob
Freer works as a researcher at Amnesty International. (IV Rob Freer)
"Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally for
everybody, in all cases. We believe that it is the ultimate human rights
violation, that it is a part of a culture of violence and not a solution to

it and it consumes resources that could be better used towards helping

the victims of crime and their families. In addition to our general
abolitionist work we also seek to stop countries using the death penalty
against children. The USA has in recent years become the main
perpetrator of this violation having executed as many child offenders as
the rest of the world put together. So today's decision prohibiting the
use of the death penalty, the Supreme Court decision is a very, very
welcome ruling. It means that about 70 child offenders will be spared
from execution and it also means that now the worlds leading
perpetrator of this violation has stopped that it will make it a lot easier
for us to deal with the residual problem in other countries who
occasionally still execute child offenders." Ryan Matthews had just
turned 17 when he was arrested in Louisiana for a crime he did not
commit. After two years in detention he was sentenced to death. He is
today a free man after organisations like Reprieve and Amnesty
International's efforts to get him released. But the seven years spent in
prison had an enormous effect both on Ryan and his mother Pauline. (IV
Pauline Matthews) "I would go as often as I could and I told him to call
home whenever he felt like calling home just to try and keep his sanity
but it has taken a toll on me, it is taking a toll on me right now. Because
now Ryan is free but I am still in this trauma because they gave Ryan
back to me like a newborn baby with nothing because they thought
Ryan had committed a crime and they were punishing him, but they
punished Ryan and they punished Ryans entire family. I dont know if
we will ever really recover but it is a horrible thing for a person to have
to go through and I wish the death penalty can be stopped." Lawyer and
founder of Reprieve Clive Stafford- Smith has worked in the United
States representing people on death row for many years. (IV Clive
Stafford Smith) "The number of people released from death row by the
decision declaring it unconstitutional to kill kids is great but remember
this for the vast majority of them face life without the possibility of
parole and under international law to impose life without the possibility
of parole on a child is also illegal. Many of my clients have said over the
years of course that they rather have the death penalty then life
without parole, Im not sure I subscribe to that but the concept of
taking a 16 or 17 year old and saying until the day you die for the next
60 or 70 years we are going to lock you up in that cell over there I think
is more obscene than the death penalty so lets not rest on our laurel.
There is a lot more work to be done" Amnesty International will use the
decision of the United States Supreme Court to put pressure on other
countries to stop using the death penalty against child offenders and
bring an end to these executions around the world. Human Rights
Defenders Click the images on the map to read about a human rights

defender in each region On the front line Human rights defenders

(HRDs) are those women and men who act peacefully for the promotion
and protection of human rights. Defenders are courageous individuals
and groups around the world. They address all human rights concerns,
ranging from torture to the environmental impact of toxic waste; from
female genital mutilation to employment issues. They defend human
rights on behalf of women, children, lesbians, gays, bisexuals,
transgender, indigenous persons, refugees and those internally
displaced, and national, religious or linguistic minorities. Defenders
encounter hostility from their own governments, multinational
companies or even their own families and communities. No matter who
you are, it is what you do that makes you a defender. Human rights
defenders in the Americas Colombian activists marching for human
rights. AI Good news Honduras: Prisoner of conscience Feliciano
Pineda released - a first step towards justice In the Americas the job
of questioning and challenging states, including powerful
political, military and economic elites, in regard of their human
rights obligations can be a dangerous and life-threatening one:
Amnesty International has documented more killings of both
men and women human rights defenders in this region than in
any other region of the world. Activists have also been subject to
a wide range of harassment such as investigation on spurious
charges, threats, detention, raids, surveillance and slander
campaigns. Some forms of harassment have become
commonplace as a means of discrediting and preventing human
rights work. In some countries new security measures have been
misused to restrict and hamper the work of human rights
defenders and sometimes to target defenders themselves.
Reports of intimidation of defenders and those exercising their
right to peaceful assembly have also been received. This
website contains information about human rights defenders in
the Americas. Women play a key role Despite many hurdles,
women human rights defenders are playing a key role in
promoting human rights standards and working actively for the
protection of human rights. Video More stories of women human
rights defenders Latest defenders reports Mexico: Human Rights
Defenders in Chiapas Mexican human rights defenders often
face harassment and intimidation in the form of spurious
charges, smear campaigns and surveillance operations. A recent
wave of threats, harassment and reportedly fabricated criminal
charges has put human rights defenders in the state of Chiapas
at risk. Human rights defenders at risk: H

uras Montaa Verde Prisoners of Conscience Amnesty

International is highlighting the use of politically motivated
criminal charges to harass, intimidate, and deter opposition from
individuals involved in defending the environment and a wide
range of economic, social and cultural rights in Honduras. More
Defenders reports Human rights defenders in Eurasia In five
countries, Belarus, Turkmenistan, Turkey, the Russian Federation
and Uzbekistan, AI has ongoing concerns about the harassment,
detention and imprisonment of human rights (HR) defenders and
civil society activists. HR defenders peaceful actions to protect
and promote human rights are a vital safeguard against human
rights abuses; abuses which are too often committed with
impunity in societies in transition. Often local HR defenders are
crucial sources of information in countries where access for
international observers is restricted. By exposing the actions and
policies of their governments, or their failure to protect from
abuses by non-state actors, HR defenders face a high risk of
becoming victims of human rights abuses themselves. Take
action to defend the defenders in Belarus, Turkmenistan, Turkey,
the Russian Federation and Uzbekistan. Five stories: women
human rights defenders Fighting injustice on the frontlines,
many women around the world stand up for human rights. Gg
Katana lives in Uvira, South Kivu province where she set up an
organization that trains women activists. In the DRC, where
sexual violence is a taboo, Gg teaches women how to stand
up for their rights. Bhawani Rana lives in Nepalgunj, Nepal,
where she founded the organisation "Saathi Banke". She helps
women by providing training, microfinance, psycho-social
counselling and outreach to make them independent. Laura
Rebeca Lirrayes lives in Guatemala City. As part of the Grupo
Guatemalteco de Mujeres (Guatemalan Womens Group), she
helps women who have survived domestic violence. Dina Goor
lives and works not far from the West Bank. As part of Yes-din, a
small group of women, she goes to the West Bank to visit
victims, collect evidence, and file complaints. Alicia Narcisso
lives in Madrid. At Miriadas Mujer, she works with other women
in self-help groups to understand and break the mechanisms of
machismo and violence. Miriadas Mujer was set-up in 2002 and
runs projects all over Spain. E-mail this page Printer friendly
Human rights defenders - Questions & Answers Human Rights
Defenders marching in Colombia AI Who is a Human Rights
Defender? Human rights defender is a term used to describe
people who, individually or with others, peacefully act to

promote or protect human rights. Human rights defenders are

identified above all by what they do to defend the rights of
others, rather than who they are. Human rights defenders seek
to promote and protect the universality and indivisibility of all
rights across the spectrum. They do not advocate one right at
the expense of another. AI What do human rights defenders
do? Human rights defenders work on behalf of others. They
monitor and report on government policy and practice to uphold
the principles of the rule of law, non-discrimination and human
rights standards protected in domestic and international
legislation. They monitor and report on cases of human rights
violations. Defenders campaign to ensure governments fulfil
obligations and responsibilities they have agreed upon by
signing up to international human rights treaties and
conventions as well as principles such as those contained in the
Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Activists often criticize
governments by reporting on non- compliance with both
domestic and international human rights duties, by highlighting
cases of abuse which require urgent attention and by making
proposals for reform which could improve the defence of human
rights. Defenders work in various spheres of society and their
work is inspired and guided by internationally recognized human
rights standards. They often work on behalf of individuals from
marginalized sectors of society, they make legal complaints,
provide humanitarian assistance, and expose abuses and
campaign for solutions to human rights situations. Women from Calama,
Chile, wearing photographs of their 'disappeared' loved ones AI What
sort of challenges do they face? In the Americas the work of human
rights defenders, challenging states, including powerful political,
military and economic elites, in regard of human rights obligations
continues to be a dangerous one. Human rights defenders can be at risk
of killings, arbitrary detention, spurious criminal charges, telephone
and written death threats and surveillance. Many have been forced to
flee their homes, sometimes their country. In some countries activists
are unable to legally register their organizations so they can carry out
their activities lawfully, others are sometimes unable to freely receive
and exchange information. Other activists face unreasonable
restrictions on protests or on freedom of movement. Some human rights
defenders working as lawyers face difficulties exercising the legitimate
legal defence of suspects in detention. When a government fails to
condemn, prevent or remedy violations against human rights defenders
it sends a message that such violations are tolerated. Defenders become
vulnerable to attack not only by state agents who have gone

unpunished, but by others who act on their behalf or copy their

example. In such a hostile environment, the lack of affirmative,
decisive and comprehensive measures by governments to protect the
right to defend human rights so activists can carry out their work,
directly contributes to and hastens a worsening of their security
situation. Why does Amnesty International work on behalf of human
rights defenders? Amnesty International believes human rights defenders
are on the front line of the struggle to protect human rights. They are
frequently the only mediating force between the population at large
and the unchecked power of the state. Local activists are also a crucial
source of information - often the only one - about what is really
happening in a country; it is they who alert NGOs and the international
media and who report abuses to the relevant UN bodies and other
institutions; their action helps bring down the wall of silence that the
governments responsible may try to prop up. They act as watchdogs,
whistleblowers and critics in relation to policy and practice on human
rights. The work of human rights activists is a vital safeguard against
officials who abuse power, against governments who try to conceal
abuses from the public domain, against governments who show
disregard for the rule of law or against governments who fail to protect
individuals from abuses by non-state actors. Defenders constantly
remind such States that they must fulfil their promises and honour their
obligations to protect the rights of their citizens. The protection of the
work of human rights defenders is a top priority for the organization, so
as to ensure that those who defend human rights can do so openly and
effectively, without fear of being imprisoned, harassed, tortured or
killed. Want to read more about human rights defenders? "Essential
Actors of our Time": Human Rights Defenders in the Americas The
persecution of human rights defenders in the Americas is reaching
emergency proportions. More killings of human rights defenders are
documented in the Americas than in any other region in the world.
Defenders in the AI Report 2005 What does AI do? Defenders in the AI
Report 2004 Protecting the rights of human rights defenders AI in action:
Human rights defenders For more information on the work of Human
Rights Defenders see the following website: UN Special Representative
of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders External links
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS 7 organization(s) with a focus on HUMAN
RIGHTS DEFENDERS and 10 organization(s) working on related human
rights issues. [1] Showing results 1 - 17 Front Line - Defenders of human
rights defenders Based in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENDERS and DETENTION ARREST, DISAPPEARANCES, TORTURE/ILLTREATMENT Organization type: Non-governmental Organization (NGO)
Languages: ARABIC, ENGLISH, FRENCH, RUSSIAN, SPANISH International

Federation for Human Rights Based in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: HUMAN

RIGHTS DEFENDERS and DEATH PENALTY, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION,
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, WOMEN Organization type: Non-governmental
Organization (NGO) Languages: ENGLISH, FRENCH, SPANISH International
Service for Human Rights (ISHR) Based in: SWITZERLAND Focus: HUMAN
RIGHTS DEFENDERS and Organization type: Non-governmental
Organization (NGO) Languages: ENGLISH Martin Ennals Award Based in:
SWITZERLAND Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS and HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENDERS Organization type: Not-for-profit Organization Languages:
ENGLISH Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) Based
in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS and Organization
type: Other Languages: ARABIC, ENGLISH, FRENCH, SPANISH Peace
Brigades International (PBI) Based in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: HUMAN
RIGHTS DEFENDERS and ARMED CONFLICT, DISAPPEARANCES, NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES / COLOMBIA, GUATEMALA, INDONESIA, MEXICO
Organization type: Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Languages:
ENGLISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, SPANISH, ITALIAN, SWEDISH, DUTCH The
Special Representative of the UN Secretary General on Human Rights
Defenders Based in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
and UN, UN Organization type: Intergovernmental Organization (IGO)
Languages: ENGLISH Organizations working on related human rights
issues Human Rights First Based in: USA Focus: INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS,
INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES, REFUGEES, TRADE UNIONS / USA
Organization type: Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Languages:
ENGLISH Human Rights Monitor Based in: USA Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS
DEVELOPMENTS and ARMED CONFLICT, CHILDREN JUVENILES,
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, DEATH IN
CUSTODY, DEATH PENALTY, DETENTION ARREST, DISAPPEARANCES,
DISCRIMINATION, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS, HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS, IMPUNITY, INDISCRIMINATE KILLINGS,
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES, PRISONERS OF
CONSCIENCE, RACISM, REFUGEES, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, TORTURE/ILLTREATMENT, TRIALS, UN Organization type: Amnesty International Group
Languages: ENGLISH Human Rights Monitor Based in: USA Focus: HUMAN
RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS and ARMED CONFLICT, CHILDREN JUVENILES,
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, DEATH IN
CUSTODY, DEATH PENALTY, DETENTION ARREST, DISAPPEARANCES,
DISCRIMINATION, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION,
HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS, HUMAN
RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS, IMPUNITY, INDISCRIMINATE KILLINGS,
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES, PRISONERS OF

CONSCIENCE, RACISM, REFUGEES, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, TORTURE/ILLTREATMENT, TRIALS, UN Organization type: Amnesty International Group
Languages: ENGLISH Human Rights Watch Based in: INTERNATIONAL
Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS and DISAPPEARANCES,
DISCRIMINATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS,
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION, HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS,
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE, INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES, RACISM,
REFUGEES, TORTURE/ILL-TREATMENT, WOMEN Organization type: Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Languages: ARABIC, CHINESE,
ENGLISH, FRENCH, GERMAN, RUSSIAN, SPANISH, PORTUGUESE
Ihmisoikeudet.net Based in: FINLAND Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION
and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, HUMAN RIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS,
HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION Organization type: Information resource
Languages: FINNISH, SWEDISH International Centre for Transitional
Justice (ICTJ) Based in: INTERNATIONAL Focus: INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, IMPUNITY Organization type: Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Languages: ENGLISH, FRENCH,
SPANISH Kurdish Human Rights Project Based in: UK Focus: IGO/NGO and
DISCRIMINATION, HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS, HUMAN RIGHTS
DEVELOPMENTS, HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS, IGO/NGO,
INVESTIGATION OF ABUSES, TRIALS / EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA, MIDDLE
EAST AND NORTH AFRICA / MIDDLE EAST, SOUTH-EAST EUROPE / IRAN,
IRAQ, SYRIA, TURKEY Organization type: Non-governmental Organization
(NGO) Languages: ENGLISH Martin Ennals Award Based in: SWITZERLAND
Focus: HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
Organization type: Not-for-profit Organization Languages: ENGLISH
National Association of Solidarity (ANDAS) Based in: COLOMBIA Focus:
ARMED CONFLICT and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS Organization type:
Non-governmental Organization (NGO) Languages: ENGLISH, FRENCH,
SPANISH Never Again Torture (Tortura Nunca Mais) Based in: BRAZIL
Focus: TORTURE/ILL-TREATMENT and HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS /
BRAZIL Organization type: Non-governmental Organization (NGO)
Languages: PORTUGUESE Refugees and Migrants Migrant workers from
Myanmar expelled from Thailand AP GraphicsBank Every day people
make decisions to leave their homes, communities and countries. Some
leave because they are afraid - afraid for their lives, and for the lives of
their children and loved ones. Others leave because their social or
economic situation has compelled them to do so. One of the most
important rights common to all refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants and
internally displaced persons (IDPs) is the right to non- discrimination.
This right is at the core of all human rights. These pages contain
information about refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and the internally
displaced. Stop proposals that will punish asylum-seekers in Australia On

13 April the Australian Government announced harsh changes which, if

passed in parliament, will result in punishing asylum seekers arriving by
boat. The proposed changes will probably go to parliament in May so
now is the time to take action! The plight of the displaced Many
displaced people end up living in camps and temporary settlements for
years on end. In Sudan an estimated 2 million people live in camps with
a continued threat of forced eviction. In Lebanon, Palestinian refugees
have faced restrictions on their human rights for decades. Fate
unknown - ethnic Hmong children at risk in Laos Ethnic Hmong children,
being held in Laos, are at risk torture and other ill-treatment. They
have been separated from their parents and families for more than four
months and their fate remains unknown. Latest refugee news, reports
and urgent actions. Refugees have rights - Questions & Answers Children
outside the old shoe factory in Kabul, Afghanistan. AI Who is a
refugee? More than 140 governments have now signed the 1951 UN
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugee Convention).
This Convention includes an internationally agreed definition of who is a
refugee. A refugee is a person who is outside her country of origin and
genuinely risks serious human rights abuses because of who she is or
what she believes. She cannot or will not return because her
government cannot or will not protect her. Because of the persecution
she would face, a refugee is entitled to be protected against forcible
return to her country of origin. Even if she is not a refugee, Amnesty
International (AI) would also oppose the forcible return of anyone to a
country where she can reasonably be expected to be in danger of
torture, execution or disappearance. Likewise, AI opposes return to a
country where a person faces the death penalty. What are her rights?
Like anyone else, refugees have human rights. They also have rights
because they are refugees. These rights include: Protection against
discrimination Freedom of religion Identity and travel documents Work
rights Housing, education and relief Protection against penalties for
illegal entry Freedom of movement Refugees should have access to a
durable solution, which may be local integration in her country of
asylum, resettlement to another country, or voluntary repatriation to
her country of origin. Voluntary return should be safe and dignified and
with full respect for human rights because history has shown that if a
situation in a country is not stable, this will lead to people being forced
to leave their homes again. Who is an asylum seeker? An asylum-seeker
is a person who is seeking protection as a refugee even though she may
not have been formally recognised as one. It normally applies to a
person who is still waiting for the government to decide whether she is
a refugee. The lack of a formal recognition does not make her any less
entitled to protection of international refugee law. To ensure that

refugees are able to access their rights, AI works to ensure that asylumseekers are not prohibited from entering a country to seek asylum; have
access to fair procedures for determining whether they are refugees;
are not detained (unless they have been charged with a recognizably
criminal offence); can contact family, friends, lawyers, interpreters and
organisations that can help them (UN High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR); have access to basic economic, social and cultural rights, for
example work, education, and social assistance. Do asylum seekers have
rights? Yes - The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) sets out
everyones basic human rights. Article 14 (1) says that Everyone has
the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution. Because they may in fact be refugees, asylum- seekers
should enjoy the same rights as refugees unless they are found not to be
refugees. They therefore have rights under the Refugee Convention. AI
does not oppose return of rejected asylum seekers if they have had
access to a fair and satisfactory asylum procedure and their return can
take place in safety, dignity and with full respect for human rights. [link
to Afghan Returns reports] Who is a migrant? A migrant is simply a
person who moves from one place to another. They may be forced to
leave because they are afraid, starving, or desperate for the safety and
security of their family. They may move voluntarily. They may leave for
a whole mixture of reasons. Do migrants have rights? Yes - Migrants are
human beings, so they have human rights like the right to life, to
freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom from torture, and to an
adequate standard of living. There are some international legal
standards which are specific to the rights of migrant workers, like
Conventions of the International Labour Organization. AI welcomes that
the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of their Families entered into force on 1
July 2003. This is an important recognition that migrants rights must
also be respected and protected. Who is an Internally Displaced Person
(IDP)? An internally displaced person is a person who has had to flee one
part of a country to another. The main difference between an IDP and a
refugee is that a refugee has crossed an international border. Like
refugees, IDPs leave because of problems like war, ethnic cleansing,
religious persecution, or famine. Sometimes IDPs go on to ask for
refugee status in another country because they could not find safety in
their own. Do internally displaced persons have rights? Yes - Internally
displaced persons are human beings, so they have human rights.
Although their government is obliged to protect their human rights, one
of the problems that IDPs have is that their government cannot or will
not protect them. To make it clear that IDPs have rights, and to remind
governments of their obligations to protect IDPs, the UN developed

Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Although they are not

binding in the same way that a treaty is, they draw on human rights
law, humanitarian law (the law of war), and refugee law. Facts and
figures Current estimates are that there are 175 million migrants in the
world, which is roughly 2.8% of the worlds population, currently
estimated to be 6.3 billion. There is an estimated 10.6 million refugees
in the world, or roughly 0.17% of the worlds population. And numbers
of internally displaced persons are currently estimated to be around
25.8 million, 0.4% of the worlds population. The majority of refugees
and IDPs are in Asia and Africa, which between them host a total of 9.2
million refugees and 18.1 million IDPs. What does Amnesty International
do to protect the rights of refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants and IDPs?
AI does research and advocacy for the protection and promotion of the
human rights of refugees, asylum seekers, migrants and IDPs. We work
towards securing their fundamental rights and to improving and
maintaining the quality of protection of people who are entitled to it.
We do this by exposing human rights abuses and protection failures,
advocating policy and legal changes, and sometimes through taking
action on individual cases or issues. AI has a global network of Refugee
Coordinators in more than 50 countries who take action on some
individual cases or issues, lobby their own governments for changes in
laws and policies and work with other non-government organisations to
promote the protection of the rights of asylum seekers, refugees,
migrants and IDPs. The staff at the International Secretariat in London
and Geneva work towards influencing international policy and standard
setting, as well as advocating for the effective implementation of
international standards, policies and guidelines in a way that respects
the human rights of asylum-seekers, refugees, migrants and IDPs.
Refugee Coordinators, the International Secretariat as well as UN
offices in Geneva, New York and an EU office in Bruxelles work towards
an overall strengthening of the international protection framework. This
includes calling on states to share responsibility for protecting refugees.
Amnesty International does not represent individual asylum-seekers or
refugees, but sometimes takes action in individual cases. If Amnesty
International does not actively support a particular case it does not
necessarily mean that the organisation believes that the person or
persons concerned is not deserving of protection as a refugee. Asylumseekers, lawyers, and decision-makers often use country information
and analysis from AI reports during asylum procedures. Establishing a
system of International Justice to End Impunity Coalition for the
International Criminal Court Target Country of the month Take action to
urge Azerbaijan to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court If the twenty first century is to avoid the brutality that was a

hallmark of the twentieth, a legal system that ends impunity to the

perpetrators of the worst crimes known to humanity - genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions and
disappearances - must be established and implemented worldwide. Such
a system is essential to deter people contemplating such crimes, to
allow victims to obtain justice and redress and to support reconciliation
between the groups or states involved in a conflict. The twentieth
century was perhaps the bloodiest in history. Millions of people were
victims of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture,
extrajudicial executions and "disappearances." These crimes were
committed throughout the world during international and civil wars and
in conditions of "peace." Despite the extent and horrific nature of the
crimes witnessed in the 20th century, shamefully only a handful of
perpetrators have ever been brought to justice. The majority of
prosecutions were for crimes committed in World War II, and, more
recently, in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. In these situations the
international community established international tribunals to
prosecute the most serious cases. In the cases of the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda, the national courts are also conducting some prosecutions.
In a small number of cases, national courts in other countries have
investigated and prosecuted individuals accused of the crimes who
entered their territory . Disturbingly, the vast majority of perpetrators
have been allowed to carry out their crimes in the knowledge that it
was extremely unlikely that they would be brought to justice. This
trend of impunity exists for many reasons, including, the inability of
national courts following a conflict to conduct prosecutions and often a
lack of political will by the national authorities and the international
community to hold the perpetrators accountable. In many cases,
national law is inadequate to deal with such crimes. For example, the
crimes are not defined as crimes under international law or their
definitions, principles of criminal responsibility and defences are
inconsistent with international law. Often, courts cannot exercise
universal jurisdiction over suspects found in their territory or even
surrender them to international courts because national laws do not
authorise them to do so. Amnesty International is campaigning for an
end to impunity for these crimes. To achieve this, the organisation,
together with thousands of non- governmental organisations and civil
society groups worldwide, is lobbying all governments to take steps to
establish an international system of justice, complemented by national
systems to bring perpetrators to justice. In particular, Amnesty
International is calling on all states to: Ratify the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court and enact effective implementing
legislation to cooperate fully with the Court. Enact and use universal

jurisdiction legislation for the crimes of genocide, crimes against

humanity, war crimes, torture, extra-judicial executions and
"disappearances", in order that their national courts can investigate
and, if there is sufficient admissible evidence, prosecute anyone who
enters its territory suspected of these crimes, regardless of where the
crime was committed or the nationality of the accused or the victim.
Enact legislation to ensure effective cooperation with the International
Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and any other
international criminal court created in the future. Azerbaijan Azerbaijan
has not yet signed or ratified the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), however it has demonstrated its commitment to
international justice and the fight against impunity by including some
provisions of the Rome Statute into the new Criminal Code that entered
into force on September 1, 2000. This Criminal Code provides for
criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes,
reflecting the definitions of the Rome Statute. More recently the
Ministry of Justice of Azerbaijan has expressed interest in holding a
conference on the ICC in Baku on April 5-6, 2006, that is being
organized by the Georgia-based International Center on Conflict and
Negotiation (ICCN), the coordinator of the South Caucasus Coalition for
the ICC. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court and its
members are now calling on Azerbaijan to take a step forward in its
commitment to international justice and accede to the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court as soon as possible. The Commonwealth
of Independent States is among the most underrepresented regions in
the ICC system; only two countries, Georgia and Tajikistan, have signed
and ratified the Rome Statute, although positive developments are
taking place in several other countries in this region, including Ukraine
and Moldova. Azerbaijan's entry into the Court would not only help this
region to gain a stronger voice within the Court, it would also
contribute toward strengthening this region's participation in the
establishment of the ICC as a truly effective mechanism for justice. The
Rome Statute came into force in July 2002 and now has the support of
more than half of the world's nations. With Mexico's ratification in
October 2005, the symbolic milestone of the 100th ratification was
reached. Take action now! Support the CICC's appeal by sending letters
by mail or fax urging the government of Azerbaijan to accede to the
Rome Statute and implement it into national law. Send your letter to:
President: H.E. Ilham Aliyev office@apparat.gov.az Fax: + 99 412 492
3543 Prime Minister: H.E. Artur Tahir olu Rasizad Fax : + 99 412 498
9786 Your Excellency: I am writing to urge your government to accede
to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The
Commonwealth of Independent States is among the most

underrepresented regions in the ICC system, and to date only two

states, Georgia and Tajikistan, have joined this historic institution,
although positive developments are taking place in other countries of
the region, including Ukraine and Moldova. Azerbaijan plays an
important regional role, and its ratification could set an example for
other countries in the region to support this new institution and
strength the guarantee that the most serious violations against human
rights and humanitarian law will no longer remain unpunished. The
Rome Statute came into force in July 2002 and now has the support of
more than half of the world's nations. With Mexico's ratification last
October, the symbolic milestone of the 100th ratification was reached.
Azerbaijan's entry into the Court will help this region to gain a stronger
voice within the Court, and will also strengthen its participation in
establishing the ICC as a truly effective mechanism for justice. At a
time when the ICC is beginning its important work to end impunity for
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Sudan, it is vital that the Court
continue to receive support from the international community.
Azerbaijan's accession would demonstrate staunch support for this new
international justice system. Sincerely, The International Criminal Court
ICC building, The Hague, Netherlands APGraphicsBank The struggle for
international justice has taken a major stride forward. The Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) entered into force on 1
July 2002 and the Court is currently being established at its seat in the
Hague. Since the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court in Rome on 17 July 1998, Amnesty International's
members around the world have been lobbying their governments to
ratify it. Amnesty International calls on all states to strengthen the rule
of law around the world by ratifying the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court as soon as possible and enacting effective
implementing legislation. Coalition for the International Criminal Court
Target Country of the month Take action to urge Azerbaijan to ratify the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court On 17 July 1998, at a
diplomatic conference in Rome, the international community adopted
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The treaty has
been hailed by governments, legal experts and civil society as the most
significant development in international law since the adoption of the
United Nations Charter. The Rome Statute provides for the creation of a
permanent international criminal court to prosecute people accused of
genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court will be of
particular importance because: it will serve as a permanent deterrent
to people considering these crimes. In most cases in the last fifty years
international mechanisms to prosecute people accused of these crimes

have only been set up after the crimes have occurred; it will have a
much wider jurisdiction than existing ad hoc tribunals. For example, the
work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda have been limited to crimes committed in a particular
territory while crimes committed in other territories have not been
addressed; and the Statute contains advanced provisions for the
protection of victims from retraumatization as well as provision that the
Court may order a convicted person to provide reparation, in the form
of compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, guarantees of
non- repetition, and any other type of reparation the Court deems
appropriate. Amnesty International has been actively involved in all
stages of the establishment of the Court since 1993. In particular: the
organisation was very active in lobbying governments to adopt a statute
which would provide for a just, fair and effective court; following the
adoption of the Statute, Amnesty International launched a worldwide
campaign for ratifications and its members around the world are
lobbying their governments to ratify; following the adoption of the
Statute, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal
Court was established to draft supplementary documents to the Statute,
including, the Elements of Crimes, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence
and the Financial Regulations and Rules of the Court. Amnesty
International has been active in all sessions of the Preparatory
Commission lobbying governments in their capital cities as well as at
the session itself to ensure that these documents are drafted to provide
for an effective Court; Amnesty International was a co-founder of the
Coalition for an International Criminal Court, which is made up of over
2000 NGOs, and is a member of its Steering Committee. This website
includes all of Amnesty International's public documents on the
International Criminal Court. International justice for women Tools for
action Guide: using the ICC as a model for gender- sensitive law reform
Fact sheet on the ICC and violence against women Fact sheet on how
the ICC works Thanks to the work of womens rights groups from around
the world, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court sets a
high standard for dealing with violence against women: * Violence
against women is recognised as a serious crime The Courts statute
treats serious acts of violence against women as crimes against
humanity and war crimes. These acts include rape, sexual slavery,
trafficking and forced pregnancy. It is also well established in
international law (which will be applied by the Court) that rape and
sexual violence can also amount to genocide. * The Court must support
victims of violence so they are encouraged to tell their story The Rome
Statute provides that the Court must protect the safety, well-being,
dignity and privacy of victims. The Court may conduct any part of a trial

in closed proceedings, or allow women to give their evidence by

electronic or other methods to reduce the risk of further trauma as a
result of the trial. * Women are involved at all levels in running the
Court The Court must have a fair representation of men and women in
all staff of the Court. In 2002, seven women out of 18 judges were
elected to the Court. This is the highest proportion of women judges in
any international court. * The Court can provide remedies to victims of
these serious crimes The Court can provide reparations, including,
compensation and rehabilitation, to victims of violence against women.
Compensation can come from the perpetrator of the crime or the
Courts Trust Fund for Victims. The International Criminal Court is a
model for every country's justice system All countries should use the
International Criminal Court as a model for making their own justice
system more responsive to the abuse women suffer. Get ideas on how
your country can improve its justice system by using AIs guide to
gender- sensitive law reform. Violence against women and the Court's
current work The Court is currently investigating crimes that have been
committed in Darfur, Sudan; the Democratic Republic of Congo; and
Northern Uganda. These following describe the violence that women are
suffering in two of these conflicts: LIBRARY AFRICA EAST AFRICA SUDAN
AI Index: AFR 54/076/2004 19 July 2004 Sudan Darfur: Rape as a weapon
of war: sexual violence and its consequences "I was sleeping when the
attack on Disa started. I was taken away by the attackers, they were all
in uniforms. They took dozens of other girls and made us walk for three
hours. During the day we were beaten and they were telling us: "You,
the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no god." At night
we were raped several times. The Arabs(1) guarded us with arms and we
were not given food for three days." A female refugee from Disa [Masalit
village, West Darfur], interviewed by Amnesty International delegates in
Goz Amer camp for Sudanese refugees in Chad, May 2004 1. Introduction
In March 2004, Darfur, western Sudan, was described by the then United
Nations (UN) Humanitarian Coordinator in Sudan, Mukesh Kapila, as the
world's greatest humanitarian crisis". (2) Humanitarian organisations
operating in Darfur are warning about malnutrition and famine in the
region.(3) Todays "worst humanitarian crisis" has been directly caused
by war crimes and crimes against humanity for which the Sudanese
government is responsible. The testimony of the Sudanese woman given
above echoes hundreds of others, collected by Amnesty International,
other human rights organisations, UN fact-finding missions and
independent journalists. They all describe a pattern of systematic and
unlawful attacks on civilians in North, West and South Darfur states, by
a government-sponsored militia mostly referred to as "Janjawid"(armed
men on horses) or "Arab militia" and by the government army, including

through bombardments of civilian villages by the Sudanese Air Force. In

these attacks, men are killed, women are raped and villagers are
forcibly displaced from their homes which are burnt; their crops and
cattle, their main means of subsistence, are burnt or looted. These
massive attacks are the response of the Sudanese government to the
insurgency of two armed political groups. These armed groups, mainly
of Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa ethnicity were founded in 2003. The attacks
have led to the displacement of at least 1.2 million persons. At least
one million people have become internally displaced persons (IDPs) and
been forced to move to the vicinity of towns or big villages in Darfur,
and more than 170,000 have taken refuge across the border into Chad.
Others, of which the exact number is unknown, are in hiding in
mountains, valleys or areas held by armed political groups(4). Massive
human rights violations committed in the region include: extra-judicial
executions, unlawful killings of civilians, torture, rapes, abductions,
destruction of villages and property, looting of cattle and property, the
destruction of the means of livelihood of the population attacked and
forced displacement. These human rights violations have been
committed in a systematic manner by the Janjawid, often in
coordination with Sudanese soldiers and the Sudanese Air Force, with
total impunity, and have targeted mainly members of the Fur, Masalit
and Zaghawa ethnic groups and other agro-pastoralist groups living in
Darfur. Many of the crimes committed in Darfur constitute war crimes
and crimes against humanity(5). There is a large amount of information
pointing at the responsibility of the Sudanese government in the human
rights violations committed in Darfur. In addition to the military and
logistical support and the impunity that it provides to the Janjawid, the
Sudanese government has used a policy of repression to deal with the
problems of Darfur. It has engaged in arbitrary arrests, incommunicado
detentions, "disappearances" and torture in order to punish human
rights activists, lawyers, leaders and members of communities in Darfur.
The Sudanese government has also used unfair and summary trials,
using confessions sometimes extracted under torture without the right
to defence, and applied cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments,
such as amputations, floggings and the death penalty. 1.1 Gender-based
violence is an immediate concern In May 2004 Amnesty International
delegates returned to Chad(6) in order to obtain further information on
the violence perpetrated against women in Darfur. At the time of
writing this report the organization had not yet been granted visas to
revisit Sudan.(7)In Chad, Amnesty International visited three of the
refugee camps set up by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR): Goz Amer, Kounoungo and Mile, where they obtained more
than one hundred personal testimonies from refugees. In these camps,

women appear to form the majority of the adult refugee population.

The organisation was able to collect the names of 250 women who have
been raped in the context of the conflict in Darfur and to collect
information concerning an estimated 250 further rapes. This
information was collected from testimonies of individuals who represent
only a fragment of those displaced by the conflict. Other human rights
violations which have specifically targeted women and girls are:
abductions, sexual slavery, torture and forced displacement. Amnesty
International also examines in this document the consequences of the
violence perpetrated against women, such as social stigmatisation, the
consequences on their economic, social and health rights, and the
destruction of the social fabric of their communities. Caption [Shelter,
Mile refugee camp, eastern Chad AI] The testimonies collected have
made clear that the majority of the women who have been raped have,
for several reasons, stayed in Darfur or at the Sudan-Chad border;
relatively few have made the journey to the UNHCR-run refugee camps
in Chad. There is, in addition, considerable hesitation among the
women of speaking openly about sexual violence. This report can
therefore only present a fraction of the reality of violence against
women in the context of the current crisis in Darfur. However, the
testimonies collected, combined with the reports of sexual violence
collected by the UN, independent journalists and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in Darfur, indicates beyond doubt that the
occurrence of rape and other forms of sexual violence is widespread(8).
The rapes and other sexual violence in Darfur constitute grave violations
of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war
crimes and crimes against humanity. Abuses against women are an
integral part of the conflict and are too often neglected. They must
urgently be taken into account in the Sudanese government and the
international communitys responses to the crisis. Amnesty International
is urging all parties to the conflict to immediately cease perpetrating
violence on women and for those who have committed these crimes to
be brought to justice in fair trials, without the possibility of the death
penalty. Amnesty International is further calling for the urgent provision
of medical and psychological care to women affected by violence in
Darfur and Chad, measures to enable the communities affected to
minimise stigma of these women and work for the reintegration of
survivors, and preventive measures to reduce the suffering of women in
the longer-term. 1.2 Immediate actions needed While the priority of the
international community is, rightly, to save the lives of more than a
million IDPs in Darfur and more than 170,000 Sudanese refugees in
Chad, Amnesty International is of the opinion that humanitarian aid will
not succeed in containing the crisis unless civilians, including women

and girls, in Darfur and at the border in Chad are given adequate and
effective protection. In some cases IDPs in Darfur have refused to
accept food and non-food aid items, because they said that would make
them the target of further attacks by government- sponsored militia.
Moreover, the majority of IDPs live in spontaneous camps and
settlements around the cities or large villages of Darfur, where they
continue to be the target of attacks, killings, rapes and harassment by
the Janjawid whose presence is reported in the cities or at the
periphery of the IDP camps. One person who lived for three months as
an IDP in the town of Mukjar in Darfur, before moving on to Khartoum
said: "it is not a camp, it is a prison". The delivery of aid to IDPs in
Darfur must be accompanied by robust measures to protect civilians, so
as not to increase the vulnerability they already experience as a result
of their displacement, and should in particular seek actively to reduce
discrimination against women, not to reinforce its effects or to intensify
existing stigma and discrimination. The Sudanese government has not
only failed in its duty to protect civilians, it has also actively violated its
legal obligations to protect civilians. Amnesty International repeats the
calls it has made to the Sudanese government to immediately stop all
attacks against civilians; to cease all support to and disarm the
Janjawid militia and put them in a position where they can no longer
attack the civilian population; to provide unfettered access to all
humanitarian organisations; to allow human rights monitors and human
rights organisations into the region; and to allow independent
investigations of the massive human rights violations committed by
members of the Janjawid militia and of its own armed forces and bring
to justice all those suspected to be responsible. At present, there is no
political solution in sight to the conflict in Darfur other than a fragile
ceasefire which has been violated on a number of occasions since its
signing on 8 April 2004 in Ndjamena in Chad. While an African Union
(AU) ceasefire monitoring force, supported by the international
community, is established in Darfur (9), its mandate does not explicitly
include the protection of civilians. On 6 July, The African Union
announced the deployment in Darfur of a protection force; this force
will be mandated to protect the ceasefire monitors, not the civilians
displaced by the conflict. Independent human rights monitors are
needed immediately in the region to contribute to verify and to report
publicly on violence against civilians. The monitoring team must include
people with gender expertise and their mandate must include the
monitoring of violence against women. Furthermore the international
community must put in place effective mechanisms to assist women
affected by the violence and measures to reverse the destruction of the
social fabric of communities in Darfur. Most of the Janjawid are now

reportedly incorporated into the Popular Defence Forces, a government

paramilitary force, and the Sudanese army. Amnesty International is
receiving increasing information that the Janjawid are occupying some
of the villages whose population has been forcibly displaced. One issue
of urgent and crucial importance is the need to ensure the voluntary
return of all refugees and internally displaced persons to their land and
villages in conditions of safety, dignity, sustainability and respect for
their human rights. Farmers have already missed the planting season
this year, which means that the whole region will be dependent on
humanitarian assistance for its survival for at least another year. It is
clear that the international community will need committed, long-term
and sustained engagement in the region, in order to reverse the course
of another massive displacement on the African continent. 2.
Background 2.1 Taking up arms in Sudan In February 2003, a new armed
insurgent group, calling itself the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army
(SLM/A) and composed mainly of members of the Fur, Zaghawa and
Masalit ethnic groups of Darfur emerged and attacked government
targets. In April 2003 another insurgent group emerged, calling itself
the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). The two armed groups
demanded the end of the marginalization of Darfur and more protection
for the settled population, which they claimed to represent. Their
motives were connected to the exclusive character of the north-south
peace negotiations of Sudan, which they claim has left them out and
showed them that "Khartoum only talks to those who have arms."(10)
These peace negotiations are conducted, under international
mediation, between the Sudanese government and the leadership of the
Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the main armed
political group in southern Sudan which has been at war with the
central government for more than 20 years. The negotiations,
conducted in Kenya, have been continuing since July 2002 and have
come to a preliminary end with the signing by both parties of a number
of important protocols(11). However the exclusive character of the
peace process has, at the same time, triggered feelings amongst the
population in other areas of Sudan of being left out of important power
and wealth sharing agreements for the future of the country. The logic
of "militarization", dominant in most Sudanese elite circles, has led the
leaders of todays armed opposition groups in Darfur to the conclusion
that they would only be represented in the transitional government and
in the political future of Sudan if they would take up arms and fight the
central government. Their demands include full representation in power
and politics in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. There have been reports
of abuses and torture, including rape, by members of the SLA and JEM
but due to the restrictions on access to the area, including those

imposed by lack of security, it is difficult to collect more evidence on

the human rights abuses reportedly committed by the insurgents(12).
One report of rape by members of armed opposition groups committed
against women from communities thought to support the Janjawid was
reported by a German journalist. Osman Adam Mahmud, the sheikh of
the Tarjem who had fled from attacks by the armed groups, told her
that the rebels had attacked Kuala village twice, killing 12 people,
destroying their goods and raping some women. The group now live in
Mosai, an IDP camp of some 12 huts near Nyala(13). However, this is the
only case Amnesty International has yet received of rape by members of
armed opposition groups. During the two visits of Amnesty International
to Sudanese refugee camps in Chad(14), refugees hardly mentioned the
presence or actions of the SLA/M or JEM in their area. Despite seeking
information on all rape and sexual violence, regardless of the identity
of the perpetrators, Amnesty International did not receive any
information in Chad on rapes or other forms of sexual violence
committed by armed political groups in Darfur. As a result this report
focuses solely on sexual violence committed by the Janjawid and
government armed forces. This does not mean that the insurgents do
not commit human rights abuses. It may be because they do not happen
on a large scale or because the refugees that Amnesty International met
were not victims of such attacks or because the refugees would only
report violations by those they perceived as their aggressors. Amnesty
International asked the Sudanese authorities to provide information
regarding abuses by the SLA and JEM. The Sudan government has listed
a number of ceasefire violations by the SLA and JEM, which Amnesty
International has not been able to investigate. In some cases it appears
that the insurgents have put the lives of civilians at risk. Refugees have
reported the presence of SLA and JEM among civilians or fighting
between Government forces and insurgents before or after attacks
against civilians(15). Allegations of possible serious abuses of
international humanitarian law by the two armed opposition groups in
Darfur include attacks on civilians and civilian villages(16); unlawful
killings(17); and the taking of hostages, including relief workers (18).
When Amnesty International put these allegations to an SLA leader
during his visit to the UK in June 2004, he answered that the SLA was
attacking government targets; in the case of Buram, the SLA stated that
the Janjawid had arrived to reinforce government troops and had then
attacked the hospital in Buram, apparently thinking that they would
find wounded SLA fighters in the building. Regarding the taking of
hostages, including relief workers, he answered that, if the SLA was
alerted of the arrival of relief convoys, it would ensure coordination and
protection of these convoys, and that the SLA had briefly detained relief

workers in the belief that government agents were amongst them. On

all the allegations, he answered that further investigation was needed
to clarify responsibility for human rights abuses and that Amnesty
International and other human rights organisations should go to Darfur
to "see for themselves" and independently investigate these allegations.
2. 2 The military response of the government The central government of
President Omar Hassan al-Bashir came to power in a military coup in
1989 backed by the National Islamic Front of Hassan al-Turabi. Hassan
al-Turabi, former speaker of Parliament under the current government,
was removed from power in 1999 and created his own political party,
the Popular Congress, a rival faction of the National Congress, the state
party. By April 2003, after an attack by the SLA on the airport of AlFashir, which killed some 70 members of the Sudanese army and
destroyed several planes, the Sudanese government had decided to
respond to the Darfur problem by military force. The central
government has accused Hassan al-Turabi of backing the JEM, one of the
two armed political groups in Darfur and arrested him in February
2004(19). He is, like many of his supporters, held incommunicado in
Khartoum and has not been charged. Hassan al- Turabi claims that he
supports "spiritually" the JEM but that he does not provide it with
logistical support. To counter the rebellion in Darfur, the government
has used the Janjawid, a militia composed of members of nomadic
groups and "bandits". Encouraging specific groups to fight against those
who have taken up arms against Khartoum and whose actions are
condoned and given impunity, is a recurrent strategy of the central
government in Sudan. It was used by the government throughout the 21year-old conflict with the SPLM/A in the south of the country. Former
President of Sudan Sadiq al-Mahdi armed mainly nomadic groups of the
Rizeiqat and Miseriya tribes from Darfur in the mid-1980s, which acted
as a counter-insurgency proxy force in Bahr al-Ghazal. These militias,
called murahilin, appeared to have been given a free rein to raid
villages suspected of supporting the southern rebellion, abducting
people and looting cattle and goods as a reward. Many of those
abducted in the region of northern Bahr al-Ghazal have subsequently
been used as domestic workers, field labourers or cattle herders, often
for no pay and in slavery-like conditions(20). This strategy allows the
central government to control large groups of civilians, by spreading
fear amongst them and reinforcing repression and is apparently aimed
at collectively punishing the communities from which armed groups
emerge. The government used specific groups to fight a proxy war not
only against armed political groups, but also and largely against the
civilian population. The government then denied responsibility for the
atrocities committed and implemented a counterinsurgency tactic of

divide and rule which has destabilized the social structure of

communities. Sexual violence, including rapes and abductions were
perpetrated by these groups and all parties to the conflict in southern
Sudan. Darfur village burned and attacked WFP/Marcus Prior Under
Sudanese President Nimeiri, the Zaghawas from Darfur were armed in
order to support the regime of Hissein Habr in Chad, against Libya,
who in response armed nomadic tribes in Darfur. (21) There were
already signs of a military response in Darfur, through the proclamation
of a state of emergency in the region and the creation of special courts
in 2001 and the unequal treatment between nomadic and settled groups
regarding their arming for self-defence purpose. (22) Traditional
mechanisms of reconciliation between ethnic groups which might have
defused the situation were bypassed in this repressive policy. Genderbased violence The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
against Women states in Article 1: "the term violence against women
means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to
result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women,
including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life." It states in Article
2: "Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not
be limited to, the following: (a) Physical, sexual and psychological
violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of
female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape,
female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to
women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation; (b)
Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general
community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and
intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere,
trafficking in women and forced prostitution; (c) Physical, sexual and
psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever
it occurs." General Recommendation 19 of the Committee on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women states that:
"Gender-based violence is a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits
women's ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on a basis of equality with
men." In Article 7, it goes on to state: "Gender-based violence, which
impairs or nullifies the enjoyment by women of human rights and
fundamental freedoms under general international law or under human
rights conventions, is discrimination within the meaning of article 1 of
the Convention." In addition, women disproportionately suffer from the
consequences of fleeing conflicts because they form the majority of the
refugee and IDP population.(23) The definition of discrimination
includes gender- based violence. Violence against women is a form of
gender-based violence. It is violence that is directed against a woman

because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately. It

includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering,
threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty. Acts are
not necessarily identifiable as gender- based in isolation, but require an
assessment of how particular acts affect women in comparison with
men. There are also specific acts which are commonly gender-based.
According to the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against
Women, violence that is gender-based results in, or is likely to result in,
physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women. It
includes: - threats - coercion - arbitrary deprivation of liberty wherever
it takes place - it can occur in public or in private life equally Some of
the elements that may be examined to determine whether an act of
violence is gender- based include: - cause or motive: for example,
distinctly expressed gender insults during violence - circumstances or
context: for example, abuse of women of a certain group within an
armed conflict - the act itself, the form a violation takes: for example,
overtly sexual acts, forced nudity, mutilation of sexual parts of the body
- the consequences of a violation: pregnancy; shame and secondary
victimization by the survivors community because "honour" has been
transgressed - the availability and accessibility of remedies, and
difficulties in securing a remedy, for example, difficulties for women in
accessing legal remedies because of lack of legal aid, need of male
family member support, need to concentrate on care of dependents and
lack of appropriate healthcare 3. Violence against women in Darfur "In
May 2003, they dropped bombs from Antonovs on our cattle and on our
huts. We were hiding near the village and were going back to the village
at night to sleep there until June/July. Then they attacked the village.
It was in the morning, I was preparing breakfast when I saw them
coming. They started shooting. They came with horses and cars and
they were all in uniforms. They killed my husband Musa Harun Arba, I
ran and left the village. I took my three children and two children of my
neighbour and we ran to Hara, the village in the valley. Then we went
to Abu Liha where we stayed for two days and from there to Bamina.
The Janjawid found us on the way. Antonovs bombarded us and killed
three people. We were many on the run and some people were caught
by Janjawid. Nine girls and two boys were taken by Janjawid. They took
one of my uncles with his son, Khidder Ibrahim. We do not know what
happened to these people." H., a woman aged 27 from Amnatay village
in Kabkabiya district, reporting a series of attacks she was subjected to.
Violence against women is occurring in a context of systematic human
rights violations against civilians in Darfur. The grave violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law committed by the
Janjawid and the Sudanese army against civilians have targeted men,

women and children indiscriminately. Women have been summarily or

indiscriminately killed, bombed, raped, tortured, abducted and forcibly
displaced. Children have been summarily or indiscriminately killed,
tortured, abducted and forcibly displaced; girls have, like women, been
the particular target of rapes, abductions and sexual slavery. Refugees
from North Darfur have reported frequent aerial bombardments by the
Antonov planes and shelling by the helicopter gunships of the Sudanese
government, before, during or after ground attacks by the Janjawid and
government forces. In South and West Darfur, fewer aerial
bombardments were reported, although they occurred, and civilians
were more largely the target of ground attacks. In Masalit areas,
villagers have sometimes been "deceived" by the Janjawid, who had told
village leaders that there was no risk, and then attacked them. Men
have often seemed to be the primary target for summary killings in the
context of attacks (24). In some attacks on villages, people have been
treated differently according to their gender: men were taken away and
then executed by the Janjawid, while women were shot when trying to
escape from the village. In May 2004, Amnesty International collected
further testimonies about extra-judicial executions and mass killings in
several locations, including Murli, Mukjar, Deleij and Kereinek. These
testimonies confirmed information already received and published by
the organization. Amnesty International has a list of names of more than
400 people who appeared to have been extra- judicially executed in
Darfur, including in the context of reported mass executions during an
attack on Mukjar in August 2003.(25) 3.1 Rape, torture and other forms
of sexual violence in Darfur A., aged 37, from Mukjar told Amnesty
International how the Janjawid had raped and humiliated women:
"When we tried to escape they shot more children. They raped women; I
saw many cases of Janjawid raping women and girls. They are happy
when they rape. They sing when they rape and they tell that we are
just slaves and that they can do with us how they wish." Amnesty
International has received numerous reports of rapes and other forms of
sexual violence committed by the Janjawid. The Sudanese women
interviewed by Amnesty International in Chad were very reluctant to
talk about rape, for fear of being ostracized by their communities and
families. Men would talk about cases of rape in a very general way, not
giving specific details of how, when and how often rape had been used
against women. It would appear that violence against women - and rape
in particular - is mainly committed by the Janjawid. However the
government army is present in many cases. The Janjawid have acted
with full impunity and with the full knowledge or acquiescence of the
government army. Rape as a form of humiliation In many cases the
Janjawid have raped women in public, in the open air, in front of their

husbands, relatives or the wider community. Rape is first and foremost

a violation of the human rights of women and girls; in some cases in
Darfur, it is also clearly used to humiliate the woman, her family and
her community. "There was also another rape on a young single girl aged
17: M. was raped by six men in front of her house in front of her
mother. Ms brother, S., was then tied up and thrown into fire." H., a 35year-old Fur man from Mukjar. "In July 2003, the Arabs raped M, 14, on
the market square and threatened to shoot on the witnesses if they
tried to intervene. They also raped other girls in the bush." S., a 28 year
old Zaghawa woman from Habila region. Gang rapes have also been
reported. On 11 March 2004, a report by the UN Darfur Task
Force Situation stated: "UNICEF has completed a child protection
survey in Tawila. The report confirms a host of disturbing
findings from the recent inter-agency mission, including a very
large number of rape cases, in one case targeting 41 school girls
and teachers, gang rape of minors by up to 14 men, abduction
of children and women as well as killings of many civilians"
Tawila, a small town surrounded by villages, located not far from
Al-Fashir, was attacked by the Janjawid on 27 February 2004.
Further allegations were made th
the women who were gang-raped in Tawila had been branded.
Rape of pregnant women Pregnant women have not been
spared. Amnesty International was also told of one case when
the Janjawid intentionally killed a woman because she was
pregnant. One 18-year old women from Muray, was raped and
subsequently lost her baby. S., from Disa, was raped by a soldier
despite being pregnant. She is now the mother of four children,
having given birth recently to the boy she was carrying while
she was raped. "I was with another woman, Aziza, aged 18, who
had her stomach slit on the night we were abducted. She was
pregnant and was killed as they said: "it is the child of an
enemy."A woman of Irenga ethnicity from the village of Garsila
Torture and killings in the context of sexual violence In some
cases, women who have resisted rapes were reportedly beaten,
stabbed or killed. I., a Zaghawa man from Miski, in the district of
Kutum, told Amnesty International: "At 7am in August 2003, our
village was surrounded by the Janjawid; we heard machine guns
and most of the people ran away, some were killed while trying
to escape. My sister, M., aged 43, was captured by the military
and the Janjawid. They tried to sleep with her. She resisted, I
was present and could hear her: "I will not do something like this
even if you kill me" and they immediately killed her. Other

people were also present when this happened." In other cases,

the Janjawid have tortured women in order to force them to tell
where their husbands were hiding. Forms of torture reportedly
included: putting the face of women between two wooden sticks
and pressing hard or pulling out the nails of women. F., aged
around 50, from Kondilay a place not far from Kabkabiya was
flogged by the attackers and had her fingers broken when they
tried to pull her nails out. Pulling out of nails during
interrogations was often mentioned by female refugees. Some
women also reported the Janjawid breaking the legs of victims of
rape in order to prevent them from escaping. N., a 30-year-old
woman from Um Baru, told Amnesty International delegates in
the camp of Konoungou: "The attack took place at 8am on 29
February 2004 when soldiers arrived by car, camels and horses.
The Janjawid were inside the houses and the soldiers outside. Some
15 women and girls who had not fled quickly enough were raped in
different huts in the village. The Janjawid broke the limbs (arms
or legs) of some women and girls to prevent them from
escaping. The Janjawid remained in the village for six or seven
days. After the rapes, the Janjawid looted the houses." She gave
a list of names of the women who were raped during the attack.
Rape, abductions and sexual slavery Women and girls have
been abducted during attacks and forced to stay with the
Janjawid in military camps or hideouts. Several testimonies
collected by Amnesty International contain clear cases of sexual
slavery; torture appears to have sometimes been used as a
tactic to prevent women held as sexual slaves from escaping.
"They took K.M., who is 12 years old in the open air. Her father
was killed by the Janjawid in Um Baru, the rest of the family ran
away and she was captured by the Janjawid who were on horse
back. More than six people used her as a wife; she stayed with
the Janjawid and the military more than 10 days. K, another
woman who is married, aged 18, ran away but was captured by
the Janjawid who slept with her in the open place, all of them
slept with her. She is still with them. A, a teacher, told me that
they broke her leg after raping her."A., a 66- year-old farmer
from Um Baru in the district of Kutum. N., a 30-year-old woman
from the village of Disa in the Masalit area of western Darfur,
told Amnesty International delegates how she was abducted and
subjected to gang rape after an attack by government forces
and the Janjawid on her village. She and her 15-year-old sister
fled when the attack happened but were caught by soldiers in
uniforms. She refused to follow them, reportedly accusing them

of having already killed children. The soldiers reportedly beat

her up and she was taken away by force. She had to walk with
them for three hours. She received no food for three days. She
was taken to a place in the bush and beaten up and raped
several times at night. She said that several groups of Arabs had
taken away several groups of women. She gave a list of names
of the women reportedly abducted. K. from Kenyu, aged 15, was
reportedly abducted on 15 January 2004 and raped by several
men. She was later found with two serious wounds on her head
and a crippled leg, apparently from blows inflicted on her knee.
The wound on her leg was putrescent when she was found five
days after her abduction; she had been abandoned by her
abductors. In the same camp two women, M., a 40-year-old
woman and N., aged 17, both from the village of Kibbash in the
region of Silaya reported to Amnesty International having been
abducted and gang-raped by the Janjawid: "The Janjawid held
women in different huts. The children ran away but some were
caught by the Janjawid: they abducted five of them; three boys
aged two, four and six, and two girls, aged five and six. The
Janjawid took me away, bound my hands in the back and took me
along with four other girls in the wadi. In the wadi I saw some 20 other
women, their hands and feet tied, who had arrived on the same day. We
received some water and rice. During the day, most of the Janjawid left
the wadi to loot the neighbouring villages and at night they came back
to the wadi where they raped the girls in turn. Some 50 Janjawid stayed
in the camp during the day. I did not see government soldiers in the
wadi." S. from Silaya, near Kulbus, was five months pregnant when she
was abducted by the Janjawid with eight other women during an attack
on 24 July 2003. Some of the girls who were abducted were reportedly
as young as eight years old. According to S.: "After six days some of the
girls were released. But the others, as young as eight years old(26) were
kept there. Five to six men would rape us in rounds, one after the other
for hours during six days, every night. My husband could not forgive me
after this, he disowned me." Another refugee woman in Konoungou
camp, K., aged 23, from Ibek, mother of three children, told Amnesty
International how she was abducted with two other women and one
man, the husband of one of the women. "On the first night I had to
endure five men who raped me, the second night I was raped by three
men. The third night I managed to escape with one of the others. I do
not know what happened to the third women, the wife of I. who was
with us." I, the husband of the missing woman, who was abducted with
her, is 36. His 11- month-old child was killed before his eyes. He
reported being severely beaten by the Janjawid. "They slit the throat of

my only child in front of my eyes. I dont know where my wife is and

what happened to her. It is only because one of the soldiers was
merciful that I was not killed." Sexual violence against girls Girls, like
women, have been raped, abducted and kept in sexual slavery. M., a
Fur woman from Um Bada near Kutum reported the abduction of girls
from the village by the Janjawid: "During the attack on Kutum, many
girls disappeared. Some of their names are: Hamra (15), Khadija(14),
Fatima (12), Hama (10). An old woman called Khadija (80) was also
abducted. Those women were taken away on camels and the Hakama
saw this and cheered their men." (27) 3.2 Rape in the context of attacks
Rapes have been committed in the context of attacks on villages, and
according to some testimonies collected by Amnesty International,
during smaller raids, mainly at night, before attacks on villages took
place. Women in Darfur are primary targets for violence and are more
vulnerable in the context of armed conflict because, in Darfur, it is
women who are responsible for the children and other family
dependants. Women are the main care givers, which renders them more
vulnerable during attacks and flight. Women are more accessible to
aggressors during attacks, because they usually stay closer to the
village, compared to men who tend to herd cattle, further away from
the village. In many interviews with refugees it became apparent that
the differing circumstances of men and women and the gendered roles
they played in society meant that they reacted to attacks in different
ways. M., a 46-year-old man from Abu Jidad (close to Kornoy) described
how people reacted during attacks: "Only women and children were in
the village, the men were with the cattle a bit further north, closer to
the hills. When the attack occurred, men ran up the hills in order to see
and the women ran into the village to take their children and flee south
of the village." Women in most cases have described how during attacks
they started looking for their dependants before leaving the village. K.,
a 40-year-old woman from Jaroko explained: "When the Janjawid came,
they put fire on our huts and they beat the children and the women. I
have seven children and six are here with me now, I put one on my back
and on in front and the others were holding my hands and we ran. Also
my grandmother was with me. On the way there were many Janjawid
and they were beating people and we saw them raping women and
young girls." Another 45-year-old woman, A., from Mamoun describes a
similar flight: "We heard when the Janjawid attacked Kenu and then,
before breakfast they came and killed people. I collected my children
and the old woman who is deaf and whom I am taking care of."
However, even before the escalation of the conflict and the systematic
attacks against civilians in Darfur, there was no gender balance in many
rural villages, for several reasons. There is a high rate of migration from

rural to urban centers in Darfur, partly because of desertification and

lack of development in the region. Many Sudanese women interviewed
by Amnesty International in Chad said that their husbands, brothers or
other male relatives were working in towns in Darfur, in the Sudanese
capital Khartoum or in neighboring countries and that the men were not
present during the attacks. This is important to note; as a result of the
higher percentage of women than men in the refugee camps in Chad,
there is speculation as to what happened to the men. A partial
explanation stems from the pre-war gender ratio in the rural villages.
Of course, there are other explanations: the fact that many men appear
to have been extra-judicially executed or summarily killed during
attacks, or arrested and detained incommunicado, and the suspicion
that some have joined the rebellion. Mohamed (33), a local leader from
Magarsa explained: "I was in Khartoum for many years and when I found
out what happened in my hometown I returned to Magarsa in February
2004. I learned that my relatives went to Fur Baranga". Caption
[Refugees fleeing Darfur AI/Philip Cox] 3.3 Rape during flight Women
have been victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence during
their flight. The Janjawid have raped women at road blocks or
checkpoints, or while chasing groups of people who had escaped attacks
on their villages. A. from Khusha in North Darfur said that she witnessed
a rape and abductions when she and several other women ran away
from the attack on their village in August 2003: "A woman had her legs
and arms broken and was left on the road. Others were beaten up when
they refused to undress and they were taken away to a Janjawid camp."
A., a 40-year-old Tama(28) woman from Azerny (30 miles south of
Jeneina) witnessed rape while she was fleeing: "After the attacks we
ran for four hours to our neighbours who are Tama as well. On our way
from Aserny two women were raped by three Janjawid. I was there; I
saw it with my own eyes". She gave the names of the women reportedly
raped to Amnesty International. "In February 2004, I abandoned my
house because of the conflict. I met six Arabs in the bush, I wanted to
take my spear to defend my family, they threatened me with a weapon
and I had to stop. The six men raped my daughter, who is 25 years old,
in front of me, my wife and the young children." H., a man from
Magarsa in the Masalit region of Western Darfur Several testimonies
report abductions during the flight. It seems that it is mainly women
and children who are abducted. In most cases the whereabouts of those
abducted are not known. Amnesty International received more than
fifty names of people who have "not been seen again" after being
abducted by Janjawid. 3.4 Rapes in Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)
settlements in Darfur According to reports by independent sources and
satellite photos(29) from the region, it appears that most of the rural

villages inhabited by the farming population of Darfur have been burnt

to the ground and their populations forcibly displaced. But attacks on
civilians, in particular on the population internally displaced by the
conflict, are continuing. The IDP population, who have largely gathered
at the periphery of the towns and large villages of the region, are
restricted in their movement by Janjawid groups who patrol outside the
camps and settlements. Men do not leave the settlements for fear of
being killed; women who have ventured outside the camps in order to
fetch desperately needed wood, food or water, have been raped and
harassed. Some of the IDPs who have spoken out against abuses during
visits by foreign UN or government officials were killed by the Janjawid
or arrested and held incommunicado by the government national
security forces or the military intelligence. The internally displaced
population is consequently being held in what amount to virtual prisons,
and is effectively being denied the right to freedom of movement. Such
violence against civilians not only breaches international human rights
standards but also often appears to be an intentional attempt to
humiliate and destroy the social fabric of the communities attacked. M.
a 47-year-old man from Nan Kursei, a village in the district of Garsila
told Amnesty International in Chad: "The population of more than 30
villages escaped to Garsila and there we were held in IDP camps. In
Garsila it is like this: the army barracks are outside the town. Inside the
town there is a big camp for the Janjawid, there is the National
Security and the Police and then there are more than 21,000 IDPs. The
government prevents them from coming to Chad. They want to leave
this place in Garsila. The government people said: "There is peace now.
There is a delegation coming and we want you to go back to your
villages, there is no danger now you have to go back". The Janjawid
prevent people from leaving Garsila, it is surrounded by Janjawid. They
killed more than 60 people who tried to escape, you can see the bodies,
they did not allow us to bury the dead, the bodies are still there around
Garsila. There was one woman, Rusonga, she refused to be raped, she
hit a Janjawid and then he shot her. In Garsila the women wanted to
bring firewood and water and many were raped by Janjawid. On our
way to Garsila the Janjawid tried to rape my wife. I managed to catch
her and nothing happened" The United Nations Inter-Agency Fact
Finding and Rapid Assessment Mission(30) reports on 25 April 2004, after
visiting the town of Kailek in South Darfur: "The women unequivocally
stated their great fear of living in this location (Kailek) due to the daily
and nightly harassment and sexual abuse of the Janjawid in town. They
expressed how they feel imprisoned and how the women and girls
have been raped and sexually abused when leaving the IDP setting,
while the men are being harassed and frequently beaten by the security

forces. When asked, the women identified several of the rapists and
abusers among the present group of armed elements. They explained
how the perpetrators use to come to the setting during the night to
abduct girls, bringing them to the nearby wadi where they would be
raped." The reported cases of rapes in such IDP settlements inside
Darfur seem to be more numerous than those reported in the camps in
Chad. The OHCHR, UN aid workers, independent journalists and foreign
government or parliamentary officials who have been able to visit the
region have all reported meeting women who have been raped and
often given detailed accounts of such crimes. Most of the refugees
interviewed in Chad by Amnesty International in May 2004 managed to
flee to Chad soon after attacks on their villages. Even those who had
fled to IDP sites in Darfur had not spent much time in these sites.
Amnesty International believes that the number of women who have
suffered rapes and other forms of sexual violence in Darfur is high.
Given the cultural taboo that rape constitutes in the society in Darfur,
another explanation for the high numbers of women who have remained
in Darfur after suffering rape is that these women have stayed away
from relatives who have fled to Chad because they are, or fear being,
stigmatized. While the situation of the Sudanese refugees in Chad is
precarious, the situation of IDP civilians within Darfur itself is
desperate. The towns and villages in which most of the estimated one
million internally displaced people are currently located are under
direct government control. According to testimonies by refugees as well
as information Amnesty International received from several and crosschecked sources in Darfur, the local authorities do not intervene and
thereby are complicit with the Janjawid who rape and torture, kill and
physically assault the displaced population. The proximity of Janjawid
military camps to villages and settlements where the displaced have
gathered renders the situation highly dangerous for the many IDPs in
Darfur. 4. The consequences of sexual violence on women and their
communities There are many consequences of rape which have
immediate and long-term effects on women, beyond the actual physical
violation it constitutes. 4.1 Stigma and ostracism towards survivors of
rape Rape in itself is a heinous human rights violation, but the victims
are likely to suffer further because of the shame and the stigma
associated to it. As some women told Amnesty International delegates in
Chad in November 2003: "Women will not tell you easily if they have
been raped. In our culture, it is a shame. Women hide this in their
hearts so that men dont hear about it." Many women and men told
Amnesty International that only women who are not married would be
able to talk about rape, or that women who were raped would not dare
to come to the refugee camps. This is the likely explanation for why so

many women who have reportedly been raped are said to remain at the
border between Chad and Sudan, or to have sought refuge in the IDP
camps in Darfur, far from the eyes of their relatives and close
community. Pregnancy as a result of rape Women who have become
pregnant as a result of rape are most likely to suffer further abuses of
their rights. There is the trauma of the rape itself as well as the
difficulties associated with carrying and caring with a child who is the
result of violence. In the specific social context of Darfur, in a society
where rape is considered a taboo and a shame for the survivor of this
violence, the child who is a result of rape will mostly be considered as a
child of the "enemy", a "Janjawid child". Survivors of rape and their
children are most likely to be ostracized by their community and
married women most likely to be rejected by their husbands. Women
may feel forced to abandon the child who is a result of rape and face
another traumatic decision to make. The communities of the women
raped do not seem ready to accept the need to provide their full
support for these women and possibly the child who could result from
such violation. In group and face-to-face interviews conducted by
Amnesty International in May 2004, women and men said that while
they would accept raped women back into the community, the child as
a potential result of rape would not be accepted. This leads women who
have become pregnant as a result of rape to a situation of further
ostracism, trauma and abuses of their rights. The lack of medical and
psychological care facilities to deal with survivors of rape in the refugee
camps in Chad and the many more victims in the IDP settlements in
Darfur further compounds this situation. For many men in the refugee
camps the human rights violation of rape seems to directly translate
into a humiliation against themselves and the group they belong to. One
cultural belief is apparently that women cannot become pregnant
through rape. One refugee from Kenyu explained: "Some women were
raped. We heard about this. But only those who are not married can
talk about it. We believe that nobody can become pregnant when
raped, because this is unwanted sex and you cannot have a child from
unwanted sex. For those who are in the camps in Darfur, those whom
they rape day and night, they might become pregnant. Then only Allah
can help the child to look like the mother. If an Arab child is born, this
cannot be accepted" K., a 40-year-old woman from Jaroko presented a
similar belief, shared by a group of women sitting with her, whom
Amnesty International interviewed in Goz Amer refugee camp: "If there
is any woman pregnant she cannot come to Chad. When we were in
Deleij, we were not allowed to move and there are still many people
there. They take the women as their wives. This is a big problem, if
they become pregnant they must escape, they cannot stay in their

family or in their community. Why? Because it is not normal for her to

be pregnant from being raped, so she has to go." Although the majority
of women who are pregnant as a result of rape seem to remain mostly
in Darfur or in border locations, Amnesty International met a number of
women in camps in Chad who were pregnant as a result of rape by the
Janjawid. K., a woman currently in Konoungou camp said that she was
raped during an attack on her village and, at the time of interview, was
nine months pregnant with the child of one of the suspected rapists. F.,
from a village located between Silaya and Jebel Moun told Amnesty
International how she was abducted on 5 August 2003 by men in
uniforms, whipped and raped. She said that she miscarried a boy some
months after her rape. M. was nine months pregnant as a result of rape.
At least three men raped her and she said to Amnesty International: "I
dont even know who the father is." Social and economic consequences
of ostracism The stigma attached to women who have been raped has
far-reaching social and economic consequences on the rape victims.
Married women can be "disowned" by their husbands, although this is
not always the case. As for unmarried survivors of rape, they may never
be able to marry because they are stigmatized or considered to be
"spoiled" by their communities. Women who are not able to marry or
who have been abandoned by their husband because they have been
raped will become, particularly in the social context of Darfur, socially
and economically more vulnerable. They will not be able to enjoy the
economic support that men traditionally provide or the "protection" that
men are supposed to provide to women. If these women already have
children or are pregnant as a result of rape, they can find themselves as
the only caregivers for these children. 4.2 Medical and mental health
problems Women who have been attacked and raped often bear
physical injuries. Violence, sexual or not, can have serious
consequences on womens reproductive system. The physical and
psychological violence of rape on women who are already pregnant can
lead them, as the testimonies above showed, to abort and lose their
baby. In these cases, women are also likely to be rejected by their
husbands, as they are not seen as fulfilling their roles as "reproducers".
Given the cultural taboo associated with rape, women are reluctant to
report it to the few medical workers present in refugee camps, which
can lead to further medical complications of injuries they may have
sustained during the rape. Women who have become pregnant as a
result of rape often suffer complications before, during and after giving
birth, because of the physical injuries resulting from assault. When
giving birth, women who have been raped are prone to the problem of
fistula. A fistula occurs when the wall between the vagina and the
bladder or bowel is ruptured and women lose control of the bladder or

bowel functions. They become isolated as a result of their incontinence.

The problem can be resolved by surgery. Even if women raped have not
sustained consequent grave physical injuries, the apparent lack of
hygiene and sanitary products in the context of material relief shortages
in Darfur and Chad contribute to the risk of infections. On top of this,
most women will suffer serious psychological problems, having to bear
and raise an unwanted child and suffering from social stigma and a lack
of community support. In western Sudan, female genital mutilation
(FGM) is practiced: the majority of women are circumcised and many
women are infibulated(31). This increases the risk of injuries during
rape and consequently increases the risk of contracting HIV/Aids or
other sexually transmitted diseases. At present there are no adequate
medical facilities to provide comprehensive medical care on HIV/Aids
amongst the refugee population in Chad or in IDP camps in Darfur, as a
consequence of the fact that humanitarian organizations are
overwhelmed by the nutritional emergency and difficulties in access,
logistics and capacity. The consequences of this lack of medical support
for rape survivors living with HIV/Aids are severe.(32) 4.3 Children as
victims of the conflict and the effects on women Children have also
been victims of massive human rights violations in Darfur. In Darfur,
children are considered to be mainly the responsibility of women; hence
human rights violations against children have traumatized women
considerably. In interviews with women, it became apparent that for
them, human rights violations against children were one of the most
shocking feature of the conflict and that many felt guilty for not having
been able to protect their children better. Children were killed and
abducted, allegedly in large numbers, by the Janjawid. A., a 15-yearold boy from Goz Um Bela, near Kornoy spoke to Amnesty International
about his abduction and torture: "I was looking after the goats when I
was arrested by the Janjawid in November 2003. Eight other children
who were not from my village were also arrested, they are still with
them, and myself I was able to escape. They took me to a camp in Abu
Jidad where there were also army soldiers. They asked me where the
goats were and beat me if I wasnt answering. They tied up my sexual
organ with a rope and pulled from both sides each time they were
asking me questions, they beat me several times a day. When I told
them where the goats were, they stopped beating me. The other
children received the same treatment from the Janjawid and the
soldiers." Refugee women in eastern Chad have in some cases referred
to children who were left behind or forgotten by their mothers, when
they were busy collecting other children to escape attacks. F., a 35year-old woman from Kenyu told Amnesty International: "When the
Janjawid attacked we left everything behind. Even myself, I left some

of the children. I ran with five children and saw how the Janjawid
murdered people and how one, Musa Baha, was wounded. I took him,
and then the Janjawid came and shot him. He was dead. There was
another one called Juma, they cut both his arms just up here, under the
shoulder." Children suffer in addition when as a result of the conflict
their mothers or parents are killed or they are separated from their
families. Often it is the female relatives of the mothers who have been
killed or female members of the same community who take on the
responsibility of caring for these children. This in turn further increases
the burden of displaced women who have had to take on the additional
role of care givers to unaccompanied or separated children. 4.4 Further
risk of violence against women during flight and in the context of
displacement S. a 38-year-old mother of six children from Abu Sin, south
of Abu Gamra gave a detailed account of her flight: "We ran, I had the
little one on the back and two on my hands and two with my older
brother. My husband lived with me in the village but was absent when
we escaped. We were hiding in the forest and I had only one little bag
of clothes and nothing else. For three days I could only feed my children
with water. One of my children felt sick with malaria after 10 days and
we had to stay there for eight days before the child was stronger again.
I was pregnant and I lost my baby. I was very weak but everybody had to
help themselves. I was worried that we would all die. Some people who
came by gave us food, I could not get up and I could not find food for
the children because I was weak after losing the baby. I took mimosa as
medicine and after 20 days we were able to move further to Kornoy. On
the roads the Janjawid would stop us and tell us: "You are wives of the
Tora Bora(33), we can kill you". There was rape as well. There is one
woman, Zara, who was raped and now is pregnant. This was in Kamu
when they came with many cars to the road where we were running to
Tine from Kornoy." M., a Fur woman from Um Bada near Kutum reported
the death of children during her flight: "Many of our children died on
the way. There was no food, there was malaria and they were weak".
Women and children are the most affected, physically and
psychologically, during flight and as a consequence of forced
displacement. During flight, as the primary care givers, women are
responsible for the survival of their dependants. Children are most
vulnerable to disease and exhaustion while fleeing. They can also get
lost or separated from their families. The vulnerability of children
increases the threat of further violations of the rights of their mothers
or female care givers, because it can make the search for safety longer
or can increase the exposure of the family group to danger. A. aged 33,
from the village of Harara near Kutum told Amnesty International about
her experience: "My eldest child A., who was 17, died in the first attack.

He went to the well to feed the cattle and there he was shot. On our
way to Obliha one woman who was with us gave birth. The Janjawid
attacked us and we left her behind with the baby. We do not know if
she is alive and if the baby is alive." 4.5 Long-term effects of violence
against women Violence against women goes beyond the direct attacks,
rape and physical violence by combatants. As described above, the long
term effects for women who are victims of rape are that a large number
of ostracized women suffer further violations of their rights because
they are women. The organization urges that the design of a
humanitarian and social response to the conflict in Darfur, and to the
displacement of persons as a result of the conflict should take into
consideration issues related to the particular human rights violations
suffered by women. 4.5.1 Early marriages One aspect of the
discrimination against women can already be noticed in some refugee
camps in eastern Chad and may also be a reality for women who are
trapped in Darfur. Some refugees told Amnesty International that the
bride price (payment made by a man or/and his family to the family of
a woman he wishes to marry) in the camps has greatly decreased. As
one refugee in the camp of Goz Amir said: "Marriage is very very cheap
in our days." This phenomenon has occurred in other conflict contexts.
Parents fear that, being in refugee camps, it will be impossible for them
to "control" their daughters, and they will try to marry them hastily, in
order to save the honour of the girl and the family. Early marriages are,
in themselves, a violation of childrens rights. Further, girls who enter
early marriage are less likely, as both girls and women, to enjoy their
right to education, and more likely to encounter medical(34) and
psychological problems in the case of an early pregnancy. This is also an
indicator of the disruption of the social structure of the community
which finds itself in a refugee camp. It reflects the destruction of social
care and control mechanisms, usually expected in the social
environment of the community. For example, traditionally arranged
marriages are seen, in part, as a means by which families can protect
their daughters. Such a marriage engages both extended families and is
often preceded by an extended period of discussions between the
families. It can therefore constitute a mechanism by which a certain
amount of control and protection can be exerted over the partners to
marriage by both families. The breakdown of this mechanism, signalled
in part by an increase in early marriages, puts a strain on the security of
women and girls entering in more hastily agreed marriages. Early
marriages in the context of refugee camps may be arranged hastily and
may place girls at risk of abusive spouses. 4.5.2 Female headed
households Another risk for women who are heads of households and
sole caregivers, in the absence of men and in the setting of a refugee

camp, is their marginalization in decision-making and in the distribution

of food. A., a 30-year-old woman from Kereinek said: "In the first attack
in August my brother Issa was killed. My eldest brother came back from
Libya, he supported us and he was taken and killed by the Janjawid
when he came to help us. They took all the camels and now my two
brothers are dead. I have nothing and now nobody is there to support
me." A common phenomenon that develops around refugee camps is the
development of a shadow economy. Trade in nearby markets, paid
labour in neighbouring villages or for humanitarian agencies become
essential sources of income for the inhabitants of such camps. Yet for
most female-headed households such sources of income are out of
reach. If several people are responsible for a household, they are able
to split work tasks or employment opportunities. One person can line
up for food distribution, the fetching of water, milling of grain or
medical care for other members of the household, while the others can
engage in income-generating activities. For the women who bear
responsibility for a household on their own it is often impossible to
perform all these tasks. These women therefore remain at the lower,
and more vulnerable, end of food security and often lack additional
commodities such as soap, salt, sugar and tea, compared to households
headed by two or several persons. In addition, female-headed
households are often vulnerable to exploitation, whether sexual or
otherwise, in such situations. In a context of scarce resources and lack
of food security, single women are additionally vulnerable to abuse and
exploitation. Their children are more likely to be affected by
malnutrition, less likely to receive an education, and it is often these
women or their daughters who are forced into survival prostitution(35).
When Amnesty International visited refugee camps in Chad it was not
able to gather information on the incidence of prostitution in the
camps. It may be because there are no such cases in the camps which
Amnesty International visited, or because cultural taboos prevent
people from talking about it. However people have expressed concern
about this possibility and aid workers in several camps have mentioned
sexual abuse and the likelihood of survival prostitution as an issue.
Being in a camp setting is quite recent for most Sudanese refugees in
Chad, since the relocation of refugees from the Chad-Sudan border to
camps of UNHCR has only started a few months ago. As a refugee
population remains in a camp setting for a continued period of time,
the risk of sexual exploitation, especially of unaccompanied women and
girls, increases. Given what has happened in other refugee camps across
the world, the risk of prostitution for survival should not be
underestimated. 4.5.3 Potential militarization of camps There is
another, more general concern that women could be at further risk of

violence if the conflict in Darfur continues to deteriorate. There does

not seem to be at present a concrete commitment by the Sudanese
government, the Janjawid or the SLA and the JEM to settle the conflict
in the short-term through an inclusive peace agreement. In talks that
Amnesty International conducted with the leadership of the SLA and the
JEM, it was clear that they had an assumption that they were the sole
representatives of the people of Darfur. In southern Sudan, in a similar
situation, this assumption has increased the risk of violations of
womens rights. Women, who bear the brunt of the burdens of the
conflict, have rarely participated in political decision-making regarding
the conflict or peace. In comparable situations, and notably in the
context of the war in southern Sudan, women (whether from north or
south Sudan) were forced to support the "armed struggle" by giving
away their children as fighters; they were obliged to supply the armed
forces with food and shelter and often forced to give sensitive
information for military purposes. All this has put them in a position
where they have gained no formal or informal power in decisionmaking, but have been considered as enemies or security risks by the
other party to the armed conflict. Women have rarely participated
actively in armed conflicts but in many cases have been used as targets
in military operations. Refugee camps have in other regional conflicts
been used as supply bases for fighters and food aid has sometimes been
used by armed groups to put pressure on other actors involved in the
conflict. (36) In several discussions with Sudanese refugee men in
eastern Chad, the intention to start defending the territory was
articulated. In one case, a respected elder called on young men in the
camp: "Stop sitting around here and just eat. You are young and you are
idle and useless. You have to get up and get trained in order to defend
your home. We appeal to the world to give us arms, so we can protect
ourselves and defend our territory. We are sorry for what happened in
the south. But now, we need the help of our brothers from the south."
UNHCR and humanitarian agencies operating in refugee and IDP camps
should be sensitive to their potential militarization which may cause
human rights violations, including to violate womens rights. 5. Causes
of the violence 5.1 The racial dimension of the conflict "Omar al Bashir
told us that we should kill all the Nubas(37). There is no place here for
the Negroes any more". Words of a Janjawid fighter, according to a
refugee from Kenyu, interviewed by Amnesty International in Chad, May
2004. In Darfur, interdependent relations and exchanges between
nomads and sedentary groups(38) took place along a seasonal cycle of
search for grazing areas on farmed land for the large herds of the
nomadic population. Tensions and clashes between groups have
increased in a context of desertification and consequent reduction in

grazing areas and increased farming of land. In the context of the

conflict, these tensions are now taking an ethnic and racial dimension.
Differences between groups of Darfur were not given so much weight in
the past: customary agreements, intermarriages, exchanges and
traditional mechanisms for reconciliation in the case of disputes
reinforced generally peaceful relationships. The ethnic and racial
ideology which permeates the attacks of 2003 and 2004 in Darfur has
become a cruel and crucial reality. The entrenchment of differences
between groups is partly due to the manipulation of race and ethnicity
by all sides to the conflict in Darfur. However, it is important to note
that groups in Darfur do not always fit the labels (Arabs and Africans or
Blacks(39)) commonly used in this conflict: for instance, the Tama, a
small ethnic group mainly composed of farmers, have been both victims
of attacks and accused several times of siding with the Janjawid in the
2003-2004 conflict. "Slaves! Nubas! Do you have a god? Break the
Ramadan! Even we with pale skins dont observe the Ramadan. You,
ugly black pretend We are your god! Your god is Omer al-Bashir" "You
blacks, you have spoilt the country! We are here to burn youWe will
kill your husbands and sons and we will sleep with you! You will be our
wives!" The words of members of the Janjawid as reported by a group of
Masalit women in Goz Amer refugee camp, interviewed by Amnesty
International in May 2004. M., a 50-year-old woman from Fur Baranga
reported: "The village was attacked during the night in October 2003,
when the Arabs came by cars and on horses. They said "every black
woman must be killed, even the children". The allegations of
recruitment of members of foreign nomadic groups, mainly from Chad,
to fight alongside the Janjawid further add to the ethnic and racial
dimension of the conflict. Ahmad Allami, the personal advisor of
Chadian President Idriss Deby, accused the Janjawid of recruiting
Arabic elements from Chad(40); his allegations echo those of the
Sudanese refugees interviewed by Amnesty International in Chad, who
alleged that Salamat nomads from Chad and fighters from Mauritania
were recruited to fight in Darfur. "What we heard from the Janjawid is
that Omer al- Bashir tells the foreigners that they are Arabs and that
they should come and live in a country that is ruled by Arabs. That they
should not stay where they are ruled by Africans. They say that Sudan is
a country for Arabs." M., Sudanese refugee in Chad, interviewed by
Amnesty International in May 2004. "The government gave the Arabs
confidence, arms, cars and horses. We cannot go back; there will be no
security for African people in Darfur." Sudanese woman interviewed by
Amnesty International in Mile refugee camp, Chad, May 2004. The
ethnic divisions created by the conflict are further reinforced by the
military response of the government. By refusing to use political or

traditional means of conflict resolution to solve the conflict in Darfur,

the government has not only exacerbated tensions in the region, it is
also inflicting long term disruptions of community-based methods and
powers of conflict resolution and reconciliation. One motive for the
Janjawid attacks appears to be the looting of cattle and belongings of
the sedentary groups. There are also increasing reports by the displaced
stating that the Janjawid are settling their families into the villages
from which they forcibly displaced the occupants. This suggests that the
Janjawid may have a strategy of securing access to grazing areas. "They
started to plant and then to harvest our land and they told us, we can
come back, but not where we are from, but where they will tell us to
stay. They have all the cattle of the whole of Darfur now, they have all
of our fertile Masalit land, they will not leave." Refugee from Kenyu in
Goz Amer camp, interviewed by Amnesty International in May 2004
However, the monetary gains that the Janjawid could obtain by trading
and selling stolen cattle should also be taken into account. According to
the testimonies of Sudanese refugees in Chad collected by Amnesty
International, thousands of cattle, goats and sheep have been looted
from them by the Janjawid. This deprives the sedentary groups of their
means of subsistence and threatens their right to livelihood. Given the
vast numbers of cattle stolen, the monetary benefits for the Janjawid
could become an independent means of income, which may help them
to get an independent supply of arms and ammunition, in addition to
arms supplied by the Sudanese government. The "Hakama" The term
"Hakama" refers in Darfur to female traditional singers whose function is
to praise male fighters by singing and ululating. Women are sometimes
active participants in armed conflicts. The phenomenon of women
singing, accompanying and encouraging attackers has occurred in
contexts other than Darfur. In the context of Darfur however, Amnesty
International has collected some testimonies indicating the presence of
women alongside the Janjawid. In these testimonies, the "Hakama" or
the "Janjawid women", as they are called by the Sudanese refugees,
appear to be the communicators during the attacks. They are
reportedly not actively involved in attacks on people, but participate in
acts of looting. Amnesty International also collected several testimonies
mentioning the presence of Hakama while women were raped by the
Janjawid. Hakama appeared to have directly harassed the women
assaulted and verbally attacked them. M., a Masalit chief of the village
of Disa, reported that during attacks in June 2003 by the Janjawid and
in July and August by the military, 63 persons were killed, including his
daughter. In June the Janjawid reportedly accused the villagers of being
"traitors to Omer Hassan Al- Bashir". "In July the military arrested
several persons including Brahim Siddiq, a seven-year-old boy. In June

the Janjawid said during the attack: "You are complicit with the
opponents, you are Blacks, no Black can stay here, and no Black can
stay in Sudan." Arab women were accompanying the attackers singing
songs in praise of the government and encouraging the attackers. The
women said: The blood of the Blacks runs like water, we take their
goods and we chase them from our area and our cattle will be in their
land. The power of al- Bashir belongs to the Arabs and we will kill you
until the end, you Blacks, we have killed your God. They also insulted
the women from the village saying You are gorillas, you are Black, and
you are badly dressed". The Hakama tradition is rooted in a number of
ethnic groups(41). Another possible reason why women have been
actively involved in supporting violence by men of their communities on
women of other communities may be that they see their own survival
needs being met by the expulsion of other groups from their villages
and the availability of new land or resources. 5.2 Sexual violence
committed in full impunity Of almost all the attacks recorded by
Amnesty International in Darfur, government forces were either involved
or direct witnesses. The link between the Janjawid and the government
army has been documented in several other Amnesty International
documents on Darfur. In Darfur reigns a striking impunity for the grave
abuses of not only international human rights and humanitarian law, but
also of the national laws of Sudan. According to Article 149 of the
Sudanese Penal Code, rape, defined as sexual intercourse with any
person without his/ her consent, is a crime punishable by a hundred
lashes and up to ten years imprisonment; if rape is sexual intercourse
on a married person or "sodomy", it is punishable by death(42). There
are also provisions within the penal code prohibiting abduction,
kidnapping and forced labour. Yet not a single member of the Janjawid
or of the armed forces has been charged with committing rape or
abductions. In several testimonies collected by Amnesty International,
the refugees expressed their surprise at the reaction of the authorities
when reporting an attack or a threat of attack. In several cases
community leaders have reported existing tensions and threats of
attacks to the police and have asked for the enforcement of the rule of
law by the local police, but nothing was done to protect them. In
several cases the local police was demobilised just before the attack.
Local police is often recruited from local personnel, unlike the national
security which appears to be recruited from central Sudan and more
loyal to the government. In some cases the police was transferred by
the authorities before attacks, claiming that their security would be at
risk. M., a refugee from Kenyu told Amnesty delegates in Goz Amer:
"Two weeks before the attack on Kenyu, the commander of the police in
Fur Baranga told us, that the police will be taken from Kenyu for their

own security. On 3 January, three days after the attack ten community
leaders of Kenyu went to report the attack to the police in Fur Baranga.
The head of the police told us that we need to see the leader of the
soldiers, because there is nothing the police can do. But in the attack
the Janjawid who are part of the government army killed the remaining
local police in Kenyu. Reporting this to the soldiers did not make sense.
They are part of it." A. who came from Mukjar to Chad told the
delegates of Amnesty International that the community tried to report
the rape of a girl by the Janjawid in Mukjar. "We went to the police to
report the case, but they did not listen." A., from Gobay (45 km west
from Habila) said: "The nomads went to Zagaba market and took all the
things from there. We went to the police but no response. The Janjawid
then attacked the police station in Tandusa and killed four police men
and took their guns and the government soldiers were there and did
nothing. The remaining police men went to Chad as refugees." One
refugee from Andrabru who spent some months in Fur Baranga, an IDP
settlement in West Darfur close to the border with Chad explained the
reaction of government forces after community leaders reported
attacks: "The Janjawid said: we took many things but nobody can ask us
to get things back. If they want their things back, they will be killed. In
August 2003 the Janjawid came at night and took things from people.
They faced us with the gun and when you try to escape they shoot at
you. They rounded up ten of us and nobody could come to help us. One
Abdi tried to help us and they shot him in his arm. In the morning the
Janjawid came back to see how many were dead. We sent people to go
to the soldiers to report the attack. In the camp of the government
army they told us that they have no responsibility. There was one of us
who went back to Andrabru to talk to the Janjawid there, he knew one
of them. There they told him, "If you want to bring people back here,
you can bring them, but new people. We are in control now and we tell
you which people can settle where." Notwithstanding the promises of
the government of Sudan, the impunity allowed to the Janjawid to rape
has not changed. A woman from a refugee camp in Western Darfur
reported that in June 2004 she went in a group of 40 women to collect
firewood one kilometre from her camp. The group fled when it was
approached by six Janjawid on horses. However, three women were
captured. Two women were beaten and one was reportedly held down
and raped by four men. They allegedly said that they had the
permission of the province commissioner (muhafez). One woman
reported the case to the police and identified the men involved who
were disarmed and taken into custody. The next day, however, they had
been released, and their weapons returned to them, allegedly after
negotiations between the Janjawid leaders and the police. The woman

who reported the case was apparently told that no more cases of
violence were to be followed up in the courts in the future; she said she
still sees the Janjawid who carried out the rape regularly in the market.
6. International legal standards Sudan is party to several core human
rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the Convention on the
Right of the Child (CRC), as well as the African Charter on Human and
Peoples Rights (African Charter). The treaties guarantee the right to life
and prohibit unlawful killings, torture and ill-treatment. Those rights
are, according to the ICCPR non-derogable and must be protected even
in a state of emergency. Moreover, the African Charter, which contains
specific provisions protecting the rights of women and girls, remains in
force even in situations of armed conflicts and therefore binding on
Sudan as a matter of international law. Sudan is also a state party to the
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War of August 12, 1949 (commonly referred to as the Fourth Geneva
Convention) which regulates the treatment of civilians during times of
war. Taken together, these treaties provide comprehensive guarantees
of the rights of women and girls to protection from sexual violence and
abuse. All parties to the conflict in Darfur are bound by the provisions of
international humanitarian law laid out in Common Article 3 to the
Geneva Conventions, which applies in the case of armed conflict not of
an international character and is binding on all parties to a conflict. It
provides for the protection of persons taking no active part in the
hostilities, including members of the armed forces who have laid down
their arms and those placed "hors de combat" by sickness, wounds,
detention, or any other cause. It prohibits "violence to life and person,
in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and
torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating
and degrading treatment". The "fundamental guarantees" of Protocol II
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, also applicable to noninternational armed conflicts, protect civilians and requires that "they
shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors."
Protocol II prohibits "violence to the life, health and physical or mental
well-being of persons, in particular murder as well as cruel treatment
such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment",
"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent
assault" and "slavery and the slave trade in all their forms". Although
Sudan is not party to the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva
Conventions, significant provisions of these are considered to constitute

customary international law. Amongst these customary provisions are:

the prohibitions of attacks against the civilian population and civilian
objects; collective punishments; pillage, rape, enforced prostitution
and any form of other indecent assault. International human rights and
humanitarian law provide comprehensive guarantees of the rights of
women and girls to protection from sexual violence and abuse.
International law requires states to address persistent violations of
human rights and take measures to prevent their occurrence. With
respect to violations of bodily integrity, states have a duty to prosecute
abuse, whether an agent of the state or a private citizen commits the
violation. For example, Article 2 of the ICCPR requires governments to
provide an effective remedy for abuses and to ensure the rights to life
and security of the person of all individuals in their jurisdiction, without
distinction of any kind including sex. When states routinely fail to
respond to evidence of sexual violence and abuse of women and girls,
they send the message that such attacks can be committed with
impunity. In so doing, states fail to take the minimum steps necessary to
protect the right of women and girls to physical integrity. Amnesty
International believes that when a woman or girl is subjected to sexual
violence with no realistic possibility for redress, her right to make free
decisions regarding her sexual relations is violated. Article 3 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, to which Sudan is a
party, provides that ''each person is equal before the law and must be
protected equally by the law.'' Article 5 guarantees to every individual
''the right to the respect of the dignity inherent in a human being'' and
prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or
treatment. The Convention on the Rights of the Child also sets forth
standards for the protection of girls from sexual violence and
exploitation. State parties must undertake to protect children "from all
forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse," and in particular take all
appropriate measures to prevent "[t]he inducement or coercion of a
child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity" and "[t]he exploitative
use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices."(43)
States must take all appropriate measures to promote physical and
psychological recovery and social integration of a child victim of any
form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture of any other form of
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed
conflicts(44). Furthermore, rape and other forms of sexual violence by
combatants in the conduct of armed conflict are now recognized as war
crimes and crimes against humanity, most recently in the Rome Statute
of the International Criminal Court, which the Sudanese government
signed in September 2000. Article 8 states that war crimes are grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. They include,

among others: outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating

and degrading treatment and committing rape, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution, forced pregnancy (45), enforced sterilization, or any other
form of sexual violence also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva
Conventions. Article 7 states that when torture(46), rape, sexual
slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization,
or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity are
committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against any
civilian population, they are crimes against humanity. According to the
Rome Statute, acts of genocide must be "committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group". Acts of genocide include killing members of a group; causing
serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group; deliberately
inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to
prevent births within a group; and forcibly transferring children of a
group to another group, where such acts are committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious
group. In the Tadic case, the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) held that the physical and
sexual abuse of prisoners in the camps amounted to violations of the
laws and customs of war/cruel treatment. Cruel treatment, the
Chamber held, included inhumane acts which cause "injury to a human
being in terms of physical or mental integrity, health or human dignity".
According to the court, acts committed as part of a widespread or
systematic attack on a civilian population in which the "accused
intended for discriminatory reasons to inflict severe damage to the
victims' physical integrity and human dignity" amounted to crimes
against humanity.(47) According to the Trial Chamber, anyone "including
non-state actors and low-level participants may be convicted of aiding
and abetting crimes of physical, mental and sexual violence through
continued and knowing participation in, or tacit encouragement of,
these crimes." (48) In the Akayesu case, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda defined rape in very expansive terms. Illustrating
that rape is a crime against humanity by equating rape with torture, the
ICTR tribunal defined rape as "a physical invasion of a sexual nature
which is committed on a person under circumstances which are
coercive." (49) "The judges affirm[ed] that rape when inflicted by or at
the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public
official or other person acting in an official capacity constitute[d]
torture."(50) Furthermore, the Chamber defined sexual violence as "any
act of a sexual nature which is committed on a person under
circumstances which are coercive." (51) Coercion could be physical

force as well as threats, intimidation, extortion or other forms of

duress. (52)The Chamber concluded that sexual violence constituted
"serious bodily or mental harm" that, under the circumstances,
amounted to genocide. (53) The sexual violence in the Akayesu case was
found to be a integral part of the genocide which occurred in Rwanda.
According to the Trial Chamber, "[rape crimes] constitute[d] genocide in
the same way as any other act as long as they were committed with the
specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a particular group,
targeted as such." (54) 7. Conclusion Rape and other forms of sexual
violence are grave human rights violations; in the conflict in Darfur they
are used primarily against women and girls. The testimonies collected
by Amnesty International point to rape and other forms of sexual
violence being used as a weapon of war in Darfur, in order to humiliate,
punish, control, inflict fear and displace women and their communities.
Rape and other forms of sexual violence in Darfur are not just a
consequence of the conflict or of the result of the conduct of
undisciplined troops. Some testimonies indicate that rapes of women
have occurred during raids before attacks on villages or on roads or in
the bush during flight. They may have been used to terrorise the local
population, or as a warning or threat to encourage their displacement.
Testimonies of survivors of sexual violence collected by Amnesty
International suggest that one of the motives of the attackers is to
humiliate their "enemies". In many cases, women who have been raped
or witnesses of rape have talked about abusive language and songs that
the Janjawid or the women who accompany the Janjawid have used, in
the apparent intention to humiliate them. The women who were
abducted and raped have specifically reported being abused by words
and being called the wives of the "Tora Bora". It appears to be the name
used by the Janjawid and government forces to describe the armed
insurgents, but it is used indiscriminately against all villagers and
people attacked by them. Tora Bora is a mountain range in Afghanistan,
where US-led coalition forces conduct operations against Taliban
fighters and Al-Qaida. The physical assault which rape constitutes may
also be intended to express the domination of male attackers on
women. In the social context of Darfur, rape is a widespread cultural
taboo of which all groups are aware. The Janjawid, by raping and
abusing women, know the effects that these would have not only on the
women themselves, both in the short-term and in the longer-term, but
also on their communities as a whole. Violence done in public, such as
raping women in front of their relatives or their community or gang
rapes, point to an attempt to humiliate both women and men. Men, by
not being able to "protect" women from such violence, are humiliated.
One testimony indicates that the Janjawid killed a pregnant woman

because she was bearing the child of an "enemy" (p.12). In this

particular case, the woman appeared to have been killed because she
was symbolising the "enemy" community and the reproductive capacity
of her community. It is not at this stage possible to estimate how many
women were raped and/ or abducted and how many pregnancies
resulted from those rapes. But, considering the high number of cases of
rape in reports by human rights activists and journalists (55) and the
details they gave of such cases, it can be concluded that rape and other
forms of sexual violence in Darfur are widespread and sometimes
systematic. They constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Racial insults have often occurred alongside sexual violence according
to the testimonies collected by Amnesty International. This suggests
that women have been targeted for violence not only because of their
gender, but also because they are from a particular ethnic group. In
some cases certain women have repeatedly been raped, others gang
raped. This may suggest an intention by attackers to forcibly
impregnate women of particular ethnic groups. Some of the women
have been repeatedly raped or gang-raped while they were held in
Janjawid camps; while some were forced to cook food for their captors,
others had limbs broken in the apparent attempt to prevent them from
escaping. IDP camps outside large villages or towns in Darfur have been
described as "virtual prisons". These acts may suggest that the Janjawid
have attempted to confine women they have forcibly made pregnant
through rape. Amnesty International does not at present have sufficient
evidence to prove such intention, nor to state whether it may be
widespread or systematic. However, the perpetrators of rape should
anticipate that rape can lead to pregnancy. Because many of the
perpetrators are from the same society as the people they attack,
they cannot ignore the social stigma associated to survivors of
rape, children borne out of rape, and the social and
psychological consequences on the communities of the victims.
The horrific nature and scale of the violence inflicted on entire
groups in Darfur appears to be a form of collective punishment
of a population whose members have taken up arms against the
central government. It may be interpreted as a wa
ng to other groups and regions of what could happen to the local
population if certain groups decided to rebel against Khartoum.
Amnesty International characterised systematic and massive
human rights violations committed in Darfur as war crimes and
crimes against humanity. Although some of the human rights
abuses committed could be interpreted as acts aimed at
destroying ethnic groups, the evidence remains inconclusive.

The widespread destruction of houses and villages in

combination with the looting and forced displacement appear to
have as an objective to destroy livelihoods. Rape has been
widespread and, at least sometimes systematic (for instance
during Janjawid attacks on Tawila at the end of February 2004)
with possibly an intention to destroy the social structures and
community of specific ethnical groups. Mass summary
executions took place, for instance in and around Kutum in July
and August 2003 and in Deleij at the beginning of March 2004.
Amnesty International believes that there was certainly intent to
collectively "punish" the civilian populations, perceived of being
associated or linked with the armed political groups. However the
organization is not in a position to confirm or prove that the punishment
had as an objective to destroy specific ethnical groups. Amnesty
International has not been in a position to date to conclude that there
was genocide or that there was "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a
national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The need for an
international Commission of Inquiry Amnesty International believes that
rape and other forms of sexual violence, as well as the widespread and
systematic attacks against civilians and the massive forced
displacement in Darfur are war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Given the gravity and the scale of the human rights violations
committed in Darfur, Amnesty International repeats its call made in
April 2003 for an international Commission of Inquiry to investigate
these and accusations of genocide, identify the perpetrators, including
those who may have ordered such crimes, propose a method of
effective prosecution and full reparations, including restitution and
compensation to victims. In addition, the Commission should examine
ways to start a reconciliation process with human rights at its heart,
which will be essential to the future of Darfur. 8. Recommendations 8.1
To the Sudanese Government - Immediately stop all attacks against
civilians, including women and children - Immediately cease support
to and disarming the Janjawid and ensure that they are no
longer in a position to attack the civilian population, in
accordance with the ceasefire agreement signed on 8 April 2004
and the Joint Communiqu with the United Nations of 3 July
2004(56). - Issue immediate clear instructions to all troops
under its command that rape and other forms of sexual violence
will not be tolerated; that they are grave criminal offences and
those suspected of being responsible will be investigated and
brought to justice. - Ensure that allegations of rape and sexual
violence committed by the Janjawid, government forces or
members of the National Security and military intelligence are

promptly, thoroughly and independently investigated;

investigations should encompass the ordering or condoning of
rape or sexual violence; the findings of such investigations
should be made public; those responsible should be brought to
justice in trials that meet international standards of fairness. The
safety of victims and witnesses should be protected. - Suspend
immediately, pending investigations, any member of the
Sudanese armed forces suspected of having committed or
ordered human rights violations. - Ensure full reparations,
including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction
and guarantees of non-repetition for victims of human rights
abuses, including rape and sexual violence, and for the relatives
of those unlawfully killed or "disappeared". - Take steps to
ensuring the security and protection of IDPs in accordance with relevant
international standards including the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement, the freedom of movement of civilians in Darfur and
protection of the humanitarian nature of IDP settlements. Ensure
freedom of movement of all IDPs who wish to seek refuge in Chad. Take immediate and effective measures to facilitate unimpeded
humanitarian access to all areas of Darfur. - Take effective measures to
enable the voluntary return of those IDPs and refugees who make a free
and informed choice to return to their original homes in conditions of
safety, dignity and full respect for their human rights. - Ensure the
unhindered and full access of the African Union ceasefire monitors to all
areas in Darfur, including civilian areas targeted during the conflict,
access to all groups of Darfur, and access to official and secret
detention centres. - Allow an independent and impartial U.N. human
rights monitoring mission into all areas of Darfur and Sudan, including
burnt and non-burnt villages, access to all groups of Darfur, and access
to official and secret detention centres. - Agree to and allow full access
to an independent international Commission of Inquiry to determine the
extent of the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in
Darfur and their perpetrators and investigate the nature of the chain of
command and allegations of genocide. - Ratify and implement without
delay the Additional Protocols I and II of the Geneva Convention of
1949. - Ratify and implement without delay the Convention of the
Elimination of all Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Protocol
of the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa and the African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. - Ratify without delay
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 8.2 To the armed
political groups in Darfur, the SLA and JEM - Issue clear instructions to
all combatants under their control not to commit rape and other forms
of sexual violence on women and girls. - Publicly state that violence

against women is unacceptable, and that women subjected to such

violence should not suffer stigma and should be supported by their
communities; - Uphold international humanitarian law and stop all
direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the taking of hostages. Ensure that combatants do not commit human rights abuses against
civilians and immediately remove any combatant suspected of abuses
against civilians from positions where they could continue to commit
such abuses - Publicly commit to ensuring safe and unrestricted access
to humanitarian organizations and international human rights monitors
in all areas in Darfur - Refrain from forced recruitment amongst civilians
and from contributing to a militarization of refugee camps and IDP
sites. 8.3 To the government of Chad - In compliance with its obligations
as a state party to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees and the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of
Refugee Problems in Africa, ensure that all Sudanese refugees in Chad
receive adequate protection and assistance. - Ensure the security of
Sudanese refugees at the border with Sudan, including through
increased efforts to, together with UNHCR, relocate all refugees to
safer areas away from the border. - Refrain from introducing or
implementing any measures which would have the effect, directly or
indirectly, of forcing, coercing or inducing refugees to involuntarily
return to Sudan - Publicly condemn instances of grave human rights
abuses committed by any party in Darfur which comes to their attention
8.4 To the African Union - Ensure that the African Union ceasefire
observers receive adequate human rights training, including on sexual
violence, in order to be able to investigate and report on all attacks on
civilians and IDP, including attacks on women, by the Janjawid,
government armed forces and other armed groups and make the results
public; - Condemn all instances of grave abuses of internationally
recognized human rights and humanitarian law committed in Darfur Urge the government of Sudan to comply fully with its obligations under
the African Union Constitutive Act, the African Charter and all other
relevant regional and international human rights instruments as well as
to fully comply with its commitments under the Ceasefire Agreement to
protect human rights. - Maintain close cooperation with the
international community, including the United Nations, in all efforts to
ensure peace, security and the protection of human rights in Darfur and
to seek support for the deployment of a strong human rights monitoring
mission under the mandate of the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNHCHR). - Maintain close cooperation with the African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights (African Commission) and
other relevant African bodies to end impunity for abuses of human
rights and violations of international humanitarian law and ensure the

effective protection of all human rights in Darfur. In particular,

encourage the African Commission to send a fact-finding mission to
investigate human rights abuses in Darfur, as agreed in the decision of
25 May 2004 of the AU Peace and Security Council, and ensure that its
findings and recommendations are made public. 8.5 To the United
Nations Security Council Adopt a resolution on Sudan that; - Condemns
the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur; ensure that civilians, including internally displaced persons, are
protected in Darfur; - deploys human rights monitors in sufficient
quantity and adequately resourced, with a clear mandate to investigate
ongoing human rights violations in Darfur and monitor the protection of
civilians in particular in the IDP camps, and to make its findings and
recommendations public. Ensure that human rights monitors have
gender expertise and publicly report on all allegations of violence
against women; - Support measures to ensure that all those responsible
for the human rights abuses are brought to justice. - Set up without
delay an independent and impartial Commission of Inquiry to determine
the extent of the war crimes and crimes against humanity, including
rape and other forms of sexual violence, committed in Darfur and their
perpetrators and investigate the nature of the chain of command and
allegations of genocide. The Commission of Inquiry should recommend
ways to establish legal accountability of individuals responsible for
violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. - Impose
a suspension on transfers of military, security and police (MSP)
equipment, weaponry, personnel or training to the Sudanese
government and all sides to the conflict likely to be used to commit
human rights violations in Sudan. This measure must include a strong
monitoring mechanism which could inter alia investigate possible
violations of the suspension of arms transfers and report periodically on
its findings. 8.6 To UN member states - Contribute with adequate
funding, personnel and equipment of the AU Ceasefire Observer mission.
- Strongly denounce the grave abuses of womens rights and other
violations of international human rights and humanitarian law in Darfur,
and press for the perpetrators to be made accountable. - In accordance
with the principles of international responsibility- and burden-sharing,
provide all necessary financial and material assistance to the
government of Chad in order to assist it to meet its obligations to
provide effective protection to Sudanese refugees on its territory. UN
member states should ensure that UNHCR and other agencies providing
protection and assistance to refugees in Chad and internally displaced
persons in Darfur have sufficient resources to fulfil their mandate,
including through the establishment of additional refugee camps. Provide particular care and give attention to vulnerable groups within

the refugee population, such as women and children, ensure that

medical and psychological counselling is made available to victims of
rape and other forms of sexual violence and torture, and address the
education needs of refugee children. - In particular, provide long-term
financial support for women survivors of violence through legal,
economic, psychosocial and reproductive health services, as an
essential part of emergency assistance and post-conflict reconstruction.
- Denounce any attempt, whether direct or indirect, to undermine the
fundamental principle of non-refoulement. - At such time as there is a
fundamental, durable and effective change in the places of origin of the
refugees and IDPs, provide assistance for the sustainable return in
conditions of safety and dignity to their original homes and land of all
those who make the voluntary, free and informed choice to return. Increase diplomatic pressure on the Government of Sudan to
immediately implement its commitments to protect human rights under
the Ceasefire Agreement and the Joint Communiqu with the UN, end
the grave human rights violations in Darfur and negotiate a political
settlement, with human rights at its heart, for the region of Darfur. Press for the UN to be given a strong human rights monitoring mandate
in Darfur and all areas of Sudan. Press for the setting up of an
international, independent and impartial Commission of Inquiry to
determine the extent of the war crimes and crimes against humanity,
including rape and other forms of sexual violence, committed in Darfur
and their perpetrators and investigate the nature of the chain of
command and allegations of genocide. - Suspend transfers of military,
security and police (MSP) equipment, weaponry, personnel or training to
the Sudanese government and all sides to the conflict likely to be used
to commit human rights violations in Sudan 8.7 To the mediators of the
Sudan north-south peace process - Press the government of Sudan and
the SPLA to ensure that the future peace-keeping UN mission in Sudan
has a strong human rights monitoring mandate, which should include
expertise on gender- based violence and womens rights. - Ensure that
all internationally- recognised womens rights and legal accountability
for all forms of sexual violence are guaranteed in the implementation of
the north-south peace agreement and in a future Sudanese Constitution.
- Ensure that there will be no impunity for those responsible for
widespread sexual violence, war crimes and crimes against humanity in
Sudans conflicts. - Increase diplomatic pressure on both parties to
ensure that the new power-sharing, government to be set up ratifies
and implements without delay the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, the Additional Protocols I and II of the Geneva
Convention of 1949 and the Convention of the Elimination of all
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) as one of its first acts. This will

be a sign to the people of Sudan that the horrific breaches of

humanitarian and human rights law which have happened over the past
20 years will no longer be acceptable. 8.8 To the UNHCR - Work with the
government of Chad to relocate all Sudanese refugees currently at the
Sudan-Chad border to camps situated at least 50 km away from the
border. Establish a mechanism to monitor the potential arrival of new
refugees at the border, in particular during the rainy season; - Ensure
that any refugees remaining at the border are provided with adequate
protection and assistance, including sufficient food, water and medical
aid during the rainy season; - Ensure that all other refugees not
currently situated in refugee camps, including refugees in urban areas,
are provided with adequate protection and assistance; - Monitor and
provide protection to refugees in Chad and internally displaced persons
in Darfur, in particular through the provision of an adequate number of
specialist protection officers. Ensure that these staff members have
gender expertise and are tasked to pay particular attention to the
specific protection needs of vulnerable groups, especially women and
children. - Provide particular care and give attention to vulnerable
groups within the refugee population, such as women and children,
ensure that medical and psychological counselling is made available to
victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence and torture, and
address the education needs of refugee children. 8.9 To humantitarian
agencies - Provide all necessary sanitary equipment to women and girls
in all refugee camps in Chad and IDP settlements in Darfur Immediately provide treatment against sexually transmitted infections
and antenatal medical consultations for rape survivors to protect the
health of women. - Pay particular attention to HIV/AIDS in emergency
assessments, to ensure that appropriate immediate HIV prevention
measures are prioritised; provide care and support to any person who
may be living with HIV/AIDS and their children. Special attention must
be paid to particularly vulnerable women such as displaced women,
adolescents, girls and sex workers. - Provide psychological support and
reproductive health services for women affected by the conflict, as an
integral part of emergency assistance. Special attention should be
provided to those who have experienced physical sexual violence,
trauma and torture. All agencies providing health support and social
services should include psychosocial counselling and referrals - Pay
particular attention to providing adequate food supplies for displaced
and war-affected women, girls and families in order to protect health
and to prevent the sexual exploitation of women and girls. The UNHCR
and other UN relief agencies should strengthen capacities to monitor
the gender impact of food distribution and ensure that staff distributing
food includes a sufficient number of female workers. - Particular

attention should be given to children born as a result of rape and

support should be offered to the mother, in order to ensure that the
family or the community do not stigmatise the child or the mother. Pay attention to gender representation in the decision making organs of
the camps and ensure that the voices and particular needs of women
are being heard. ******** (1) The term Arabs is used here to indicate
people predominantly from nomadic groups, who speak Arabic as first
language. (2) "This is ethnic cleansing, this is the worlds greatest
humanitarian crisis, and I dont know why the world isnt doing more
about it", Mukesh Kapila, quoted in Mass rape atrocity in Sudan, BBC, 19
March 2004 (3) "USAID analysis of potential mortality rates in Darfur
suggests that 300,000 or more people will likely perish by the end of
this year", in Five Additional Humanitarian Airlifts to Darfur, USAID, 24
June 2004 Sudan: no relief in site, Mdecins Sans Frontires, 20 June
2004 (4) According to UN and UNHCR estimates. (5) Sudan, Darfur: "Too
many people killed for no reason", Amnesty International, 3 February
2004 (AI index: AFR 54/008/2004) (6) Amnesty International delegates
had visited Chad in November 2003 in order to interview Sudanese
refugees from Darfur. (7) Amnesty International visited Sudan, including
Darfur, in January 2003, having been granted visas for the first time in
13 years. The organization continues to carry out research by talking
and corresponding with people throughout Sudan, including Darfur. (8)
"Nearly 14% of the 132 victims of violence treated by medical teams
from MSF over the last nine weeks were victims of sexual violence",
Sudan: no relief in site, Focus on Mornay camp, Mdecins Sans
Frontires, 20 June 2004 (9) Although it is still not monitoring reported
ceasefire violations, more than three months after the ceasefire was
signed. (10) Abdel Wahed Mohamed Nur, President of the SLA, during a
public meeting in Berlin. 16 June 2004. (11) Including protocols on
wealth-sharing, on security, on power-sharing and on the resolution of
conflicts in Abyei, the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile. (12) See Sudan:
Darfur: "Too many people killed for no reason", Amnesty International.
AI Index: AFR 54/008/2004, 3 February 2004 (13) Ilona Eveleens, Von
Entspannung ist in Darfur keine Rede, taz Nr. 7386 vom 18.6.2004. (14)
Amnesty International delegates obtained more than a hundred
testimonies from Sudanese refugees in three locations along the eastern
Chadian border. The testimonies were coherent, credible and all
pointed to a systematic pattern of attacks and the systematic use of
violence against women. As noted before, only a fragment of the
testimonies are used in this report. Amnesty International obtained the
names of more than one thousand people killed in Darfur and the names
of more than 250 women and girls raped in Darfur. For reasons of safety,
the real names of the interviewees as well as the names of the victims

are disguised in this report. (15) See Sudan: Darfur: "Too many people
killed for no reason" Amnesty International report. AI Index: AFR
54/008/2004, February 2004. (16) In March 2004, the SLA reportedly
attacked a police and security headquarters in Buram, a town in South
Darfur populated mainly by Habaniya, an Arab group. There are
allegations that the SLA attacked the hospital in Buram and injured
patients in the hospital. (17) The government has publicly accused the
SLA of killing a Zaghawa community leader, named as Abdel-Rahman
Mohamed Din, during an attack on a humanitarian convoy in late April
2004. According to the government, the SLAs motive was that this
leader had accepted food aid from the government. See "Sudan says
Darfur rebels attack relief convoys, denounce ceasefire violation",
Sudan News Agency, 29 April 2004 (18) In early June 2004, 16
humanitarian workers, including UN staff, were taken hostages by the
SLA while they were assessing relief needs in Darfur. They were released
a few days later and were reportedly treated well while detained. The
SLA and the JEM have taken hostages on several occasions since 2003.
See "Sudan: Top UN official hails release of aid workers detained by
rebels", UN News Centre, 6 June 2004 (19) Hassan al-Turabi was
previously detained and under house arrest from February 2001 until
October 2003. (20) On the issue of abductions and slavery in Sudan, see:
Sudan: "The tears of orphans". No future without human rights, Amnesty
International, January 1995 (AI index: AFR 54/02/95); Is there slavery in
Sudan ?, Anti-Slavery International, March 2001; and Slavery, Abduction
and Forced Servitude in Sudan, Report of the International Eminent
Persons Group, 22 May 2002 (21) Douglas H. Johnson. The Root Causes
of Sudans Civil Wars. The International African Institute, James Currey.
Oxford, 2003, p. 140 (22) Memorandum to the Government of Sudan and
the Commission of Inquiry, Amnesty International, 8 June 2004 (A.I.
Index: AFR 54/058/2004) (23) In 2001, the UNHCR reported that there
were 19.8 million refugees, asylum-seekers and others of concern to the
organization. UNHCR also estimates that women and children constitute
80 percent of the worlds refugees and IDPs. See Women, Peace and
Security Study submitted by the UN Secretary-General pursuant to
Security Resolution 1325 (2000), paras 93. and 64.
http:/www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/eWPS.pdf (24) Detailed
and numerous testimonies of attacks on civilians have been given in
Amnesty International reports, news releases and public appeals in 2003
and 2004. Consult http://web.amnesty.org/pages/sdn-index-eng (25)
Amnesty International interviewed several persons who witnessed the
attacks on Mukjar. One man told of the actual execution behind the
hills, which he witnessed. (26) Amnesty International has the names of
the girls who managed to escape and those who were abducted in this

case. (27) The Hakama are the women who accompany the Janjawid
fighters. The phenomenon of women accompanying their men during
attacks is not new in Sudan and not restricted to the conflict in Darfur.
See the example of Nuer women in Nuer Dilemmas: Coping With Money,
War, and the State, Sharon Huntington, Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1996 (28) The Tama are a small ethnic group who have
been victim of attacks by the Janjawid but have also been accused in
several cases of siding with the Janjawid. (29) See Sudan: At the mercy
of killers destruction of villages in Darfur, Amnesty International, 2
July 2004 (AI index AFR 54/072/2004),
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR5407220 04 (30) United
Nations Inter-Agency Fact Finding and Rapid Assessment Mission. Kailek
Town, South Darfur. 25 April 2004. page 4. (31) See
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/femgen/fgm1.ht m (32) This has
been described in detail in the case of Rwanda. See Amnesty
International, Rwanda: "Marked for Death", Rape survivors living with
HIV/Aids in Rwanda. AI Index 47/007/2004, April 2004 (33) Name used
by the Janjawid and government forces to describe the armed
insurgents; see page 29 below. (34) For instance, fistula is more likely to
happen to young women who give birth (35) See "So does that mean I
have rights?" Protecting the human rights of women and girls trafficked
for forced prostitution in Kosovo, Amnesty International, 6 May 2004, AI
Index EUR 70/010/2004. (36) For instance in southern Sudan, Sierra
Leone or northern Uganda (37) The Nubas are a Sudanese ethnic group
from the Nuba Mountains in central Sudan, who were virtually cut off
from the rest of the country during the conflict between north and
south Sudan. They have been victims of grave human rights violations by
Sudanese government troops and allied militias. This reference to the
Nubas is apparently used as a racial insult. (38) The distinction between
nomads and sedentary groups is sometimes fluid: for instance, parts of
the Zaghawa, one of the main groups targeted in attacks by the
Janjawid and the government, have a nomadic lifestyle. (39) The term
Arabs is used here to indicate people predominantly from nomadic
groups, who identify themselves as Arabs and speak Arabic as first
language. The term Africans is used here to indicate people from
sedentary, mainly agricultural groups, such as the Fur, the Masalit and
to some extent the Zaghawa. The distinction between Arabs and
Africans is not always as clear cut. Moreover the conflict cannot be
characterised simply in terms of Arabs against Africans. (40) ChadSudan: Chad threatens to quit as Darfur mediator as border tension
rises. IRIN, 18 June 2004 (41) A Hakama, Mariam Azreq Haroun, was
among 15 people sentenced to death in October 2003 for an May 2002
attack on two villages which killed eight people. She was accused of

inciting the attacks through her songs. The case is still under appeal. UA
319/03, AI Index: AFR 54/093/2003. (42) Amnesty International opposes
sentences which constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments
and the death penalty. (43) [Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A.
res. 44/25, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force Sept. 2, 1990,
article 34.] (44) [CRC article 39] (45) "forced pregnancy" means "the
unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the
intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying
out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not
in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to
pregnancy", as defined in article 7, paragraph 2 (f) of the Rome Statute.
(46) Article 7, paragraph 2 (e) of the Rome Statute defines torture as
"the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical
or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the
accused" (47) [see United Nations Judgment Report, The Prosecutor v.
Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T (1997). Released by the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Office of the Prosecutor,
e.g.-paras. 175, 377 and para. 729.] (48) [Kelly D. Askin, Developments
in International Criminal Law: Sexual Violence in Decisions and
Indictments of the Yugoslavian and Rwandan Tribunals: Current Status,
93 AM. J. INT'L L. 97 at 105 (1999)] (49) [United Nations Judgment
Report, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96- 4-T
(1998). Released by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
Office of the Prosecutor at 7.7] (50) [Jose E. Alvarez, Lessons from the
Akayesu Judgment, 5 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP L. 359 at 4 (1999)] (51)
[United Nations Judgment Report, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu,
Case No. ICTR-96- 4-T (1998). Released by the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, Office of the Prosecutor at 7.7] (52) [United
Nations Judgment Report, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case
No. ICTR-96- 4-T (1998). Released by the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda, Office of the Prosecutor at 7.7] (53) [United Nations
Judgment Report, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR96- 4-T (1998). Released by the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda, Office of the Prosecutor at 7.7 (54) United Nations Judgment
Report, The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96- 4-T
(1998). Released by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
Office of the Prosecutor at 7.8. [The Trial Chamber goes on to say that:
Indeed, rape and sexual violence certainly constituteone of the
worst ways of inflicting harm on the victim he or she suffers both bodily
and mental harmSexual violence was an integral part of the process of
destruction, specifically targeting Tutsi women and specifically
contributing to their destruction and to the destruction of the Tutsi
group as a whole.] (55) There are numerous reports about rape in

Darfur. See: Sudanese tell of mass rape. By Alexis Masciarelli and Ilona
Eveleens.10 June 2004.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3791713.stm Arab militia use rape
camps for ethnic cleansing of Sudan. By Benjamin Joffe-Walt. 30 May
2004. UNHCHR report on Darfur, April 2004 (56) Joint Communiqu
between the Government of Sudan and the United Nations on the
occasion of the visit of the Secretary General to Sudan, 29 June-3 July
2004 AI Index: AFR 54/076/2004 19 July 2004 Transcript (if available) A
soldier forced me to have sex with him. - Did he rape you? Yes. In the
Democratic Republic of Congo death and destruction have long been a
reality. In the east of the country more than 20 armed groups have been
fighting for control of the land and its resources. More than three
million people have died, tens of thousands of women and girls have
been systematically rapes and tortured. I refused, so he forced me.
Then he tortured me. There were so many bullets - He shot bullets?
Yes. - In your genitals? Yes. I had at least four operations. But they
didnt fix it. - Where all your organs mutilated? Yes. Everything was too
badly damaged. They tried to fix it, but I still had a fistula problem.
Peace agreements brought hope that the years of conflict in the
Democratic Republic of Congo might finally be at an end. The fighting
continues in the east and is threatening to escalate back into war. A UN
force is struggling to contain the violence. The transitional government
in Kinshasa has taken no action to stop sexual violence or to help
women and girls who have survived rape. They need security, health
care and justice to help them rebuild their lives. Women suffer a lot
here. If a woman is raped, her husband can leave her and get a divorce.
She is left to fend for herself. We need international support. We suffer
from hunger, disease and divorce. So we are desperate for international
help. - So you would like to become a doctor. Why? After all I have been
through, I would really like to help others. I really want to help others.
Amnesty International is calling for: - An end to rape by all armed forces
in the Democratic Republic of Congo. - An emergency medical care
program for rape survivors. - Priority to be given to rebuilding an
adequate state health care system. - Determined action to bring the
perpetrators of rape to justice South Korea: Thousands of riot police in
bloody eviction for US base -- photos and resources Save Pyongtaek
Farmers Related documents South Korea: Elderly farmers forcibly
evicted for US army base 17/03/2006 Press release, 04/05/2006 Up to
130 people are reported injured after 13,000 riot police and 3000 troops
were deployed today against 700 campaigners and farmers protesting
against the eviction of their village. Almost 350 people have been
arrested. The land, in Daechuri village, Pyongtaek, is to be used for the
expansion of a US base. Amnesty International response "The sheer

numbers of injured demand an independent investigation into the

policing of these forced evictions and demonstrations. The authorities
must release all those who have been arrested simply for peaceful
protesting." "We are deeply concerned at the forced eviction of these
elderly farmers -- under the current terms it leaves them financially
very vulnerable, with few opportunities to make a living. We urge the
government to carry out a fresh consultation, allowing them adequate
compensation." Quotes can be attributed to Rajiv Narayan, East Asia
researcher at Amnesty International. Photos A local campaigning group,
Save Pyongtaek Farmers, has agreed to allow media full usage rights to
their photographs. The photos show in graphic detail the storming by
police of the village school; injured protesters; clashes between
armoured police and stick-wielding demonstrators; and elderly villagers
facing eviction. To access the photos, please go to
http://saveptfarmers.org/blog/ Contacts and interviews Amnesty
International press office in London, UK: +44 (0)207 413 5566 Amnesty
International Korea office +82 (0)2 730- 4755; Amnesty International
Korea Director Hee- Jin Kim +82 (0)10 4229 0511. LIBRARY ASIA AND THE
PACIFIC EAST ASIA SOUTH KOREA AI Index: ASA 25/001/2006 17 March
2006 AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE AI Index: ASA
25/001/2006 (Public) News Service No: 067 17 March 2006 South Korea:
Elderly farmers forcibly evicted for US army base Several human rights
activists are being detained after protesting at the forced eviction by
riot police of elderly villagers in Pyongtaek, in the north west of South
Korea. Their village is subject to an eviction order to allow for the
expansion of a neighbouring US army base, Camp Humphreys. The
residents of Daechuri village, mostly farmers in their 60s and 70s,
suffered bloodied noses and were pushed over while resisting the latest
eviction attempt on 15 March and during an earlier attempt to evict
them on 6 March. They say the compensation offered will not be enough
to buy equivalent land elsewhere and their livelihoods are at stake.
"Most of these villagers are very old and it is distressing to hear of force
being used against them," said Rajiv Narayan, East Asia researcher at
Amnesty International. "Given their age, the police should take special
care to ensure they are not hurt and to allow prompt medical treatment
if they are -- which does not appear to have been the case so far."
Several protesters were arrested on 15 March, including prominent
human rights activist Park Lae-goon of Sarangbang Group for Human
Rights and Cho Baek-ki of the Catholic Human Rights Committee. Park
Lae-goon was arrested while sitting in front of the village school; Cho
Baek- ki was trying to stop a forklift truck being used in the evictions.
Both men are still detained in local police stations, charged with
preventing government officials carrying out orders. "The government

must release all those detained for peacefully protesting against these
forced evictions," said Rajiv Narayan. A consultation carried out before
the eviction did not result in the farmers' concerns being taken into
account, and appeared to be mainly for show, according to those
protesting the eviction. Protesters have complained that the Ministry of
National Defence, which initiated the request for an eviction order,
acted unilaterally in deciding on an eviction deadline and was not
prepared to listen to the needs of the residents. "Any eviction on the
current terms would leave the farmers in an extremely vulnerable
position with few opportunities to make a living," said Rajiv Narayan.
"We urge the government to carry out a fresh consultation. It should
ensure the villagers are not left homeless and give them reasonable
compensation and alternative farming land close to their new homes."
There were reports of at least 50 police buses being present during the
forced evictions, but it was not clear how many riot police officers were
deployed to evict the residents of Daechuri, who number over 1,000.
Protesters requested ambulances when some of the elderly villagers
were injured after being pushed to the ground, but the riot police
ignored their request. Background In December 2004 the Korean
government planned to give an extra 2,851 acres to the US Army base
Camp Humphreys in Kyonggi province. In December 2005 the
government's Land Expropriation Committee approved the 'imminent
domain' seizure of the village of Daechuri, a move which made the
farmers' existence on their land illegal. After a consultation led by the
Ministry of National Defence, the residents of Daechuri were offered a
lump sum in compensation, determined on a low estimation of the value
of their land. The area is reclaimed from tidal flats, meaning the land
price was already low compared to other farming areas. It would be
almost impossible to buy equivalent areas of land for subsistence
farming with the lump sum offered. In February 2006 a national
campaign protesting the forced eviction of the farmers was launched.
For more information, please see
http://www.geocities.com/savePTfarmers/home. Public Document
**************************************** For more information please call
Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web:
http://www.amnesty.org For latest human rights news view
http://news.amnesty.org AI Index: ASA 25/001/2006 17 March 2006
Ethiopia: Treason trial of prisoners of conscience opens in Addis Ababa
Related documents Ethiopia: Prisoners of conscience on trial for
treason: opposition party leaders, human rights defenders and
journalists 02/05/2006 Press release, 02/05/2006 Amnesty International
today called on the Ethiopian government to release immediately and

unconditionally several opposition Members of Parliament-elect, human

rights defenders and journalists whose treason trial begins today, saying
that they are "prisoners of conscience who have not used or advocated
violence." The organization issued a report, Ethiopia: Prisoners of
conscience on trial for treason, providing a preliminary analysis of the
trial, charges and defendants -- who include several lawyers and
academics and a former UN Special Envoy. The report includes a list of
concerns about whether they will receive a fair trial, and
recommendations to the Ethiopian government and the international
community. "This very worrying trial has major implications for human
rights, media freedom and democratization in Ethiopia," said Kolawole
Olaniyan, Director of Amnesty International's Africa Programme. "It will
be a crucial test of the independence and impartiality of the Ethiopian
judiciary." In total, 76 individuals are due to appear in court today for
the opening of the prosecution case, following earlier preliminary
proceedings. They include Hailu Shawel and other leaders of the
opposition Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) party; Professor
Mesfin Woldemariam, founder of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council,
aged 76 and in poor health after a hunger strike; Yakob Hailemariam, a
former UN Special Envoy and Rwanda genocide prosecutor; civil society
activists from ActionAid, Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia and
the Ethiopian Teachers Association; and 14 journalists from independent
newspapers. They are charged, in different groups, with treason,
"outrages against the Constitution", armed conspiracy, or "genocide" -- a
charge Amnesty International has described in this context as "absurd".
Nearly all the charges can carry death sentences. All except three are
refusing to participate in the trial or present a defence on the grounds
that they do not expect to receive a fair trial. The three civil society
activists have pleaded "not guilty" and have defence lawyers. The
defendants were arrested in November 2005 in connection with
opposition demonstrations against the government, following opposition
party protests at alleged electoral fraud in the 15 May elections.
Ethiopian security forces shot dead over 80 demonstrators in June and
November 2005 and detained thousands of CUD supporters, many of
whom are still detained without being taken to court and charged. The
trial is likely to last several months, and will be observed by a European
Union trial observer. The European Union Election Observation Mission
expressed serious concerns about the fairness of the elections in both
an interim report published in August 2005 and a final report published
in March 2006. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi called the interim report
"garbage" and has not so far responded to the final report. Other
criticisms by donor governments were met with denials by the
government. Last week Ethiopias main donors renewed calls for the

release of the detained opposition leaders and representatives of the

media and civil society. The Ambassadors Donors Group said that all
election leaders should be given a chance to take part in the political
reconciliation process. In January, the British government cut off direct
budget support to the Ethiopian government amounting to $88 million,
due to concerns about governance and human rights violations arising
from the disputed elections. Amnesty International urged the
international community to increase their efforts to work impartially
and effectively for human rights in Ethiopia, in accordance with human
rights policy commitments by governments, aid donors and intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, African Union and European
Union. "Opposition parties, human rights defenders and journalists
should be free to carry out their legitimate activities without fear of
arbitrary detention, lengthy and possibly unfair trials on political
charges, or other human rights violations," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
LIBRARY AFRICA EAST AFRICA ETHIOPIA AI Index: AFR 25/013/2006 2 May
2006 ETHIOPIA Prisoners of conscience on trial for treason: opposition
party leaders, human rights defenders and journalists 1. Introduction
Amnesty International is deeply concerned about this treason trial
scheduled to open substantively on 2 May 2006 with the presentation of
the prosecution case before the Federal High Court in the Ethiopian
capital, Addis Ababa. On trial, and charged with crimes punishable by
the death penalty, are newly-elected opposition party members of
parliament, human rights defenders and journalists, whom Amnesty
International considers to be prisoners of conscience. 76 individuals are
in court for trial, following earlier preliminary proceedings. They had
been arrested in November 2005, with bail denied, in connection with
opposition demonstrations against the government. 25 other defendants
are being tried in their absence. Four political parties and six
newspaper publishing companies are also on trial, making a total of 111
defendants 131 were originally charged but 20 were discharged. The
trial is likely to last several months. The European Union had called for
the release of the defendants and is concerned about the fairness of
trial, for which it has appointed an international trial observer. The
defendants, who include leaders of the opposition Coalition for Unity
and Democracy (CUD) party, 14 journalists from independent
newspapers and three civil society activists, are charged in different
groups with treason, "outrages against the Constitution", armed
conspiracy or "genocide", all of which can carry the death penalty in
serious cases. All defendants except the civil society activists are
refusing to participate in the trial or present a defence, on the grounds
that they do not expect to receive a fair trial. Amnesty International
considers that the CUD leaders, human rights defenders and journalists

being tried are prisoners of conscience who have not used or advocated
violence. It has called for their immediate and unconditional release.(1)
The organization believes that other defendants, about whom it has less
information, could also be prisoners of conscience. Amnesty
International is closely following the trial proceedings in order to assess
whether the court adheres to internationally-recognized standards of
fair trial as set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, both of
which Ethiopia has ratified. Amnesty International is concerned that
four human rights defenders are among the accused, contrary to the
governments duty to respect the legitimate role of human rights
defenders as set out in the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.
They are Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, founder and former chair of
the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, and three civil society activists
Daniel Bekele, policy director of the Ethiopian office of ActionAid, a
South Africa- based international non-governmental organization;
Netsanet Demissie, chair of the Organization for Social Justice in
Ethiopia; and Kassahun Kebede, head of the Addis Ababa branch of the
Ethiopian Teachers Association. The inclusion in the trial of 14
journalists on account of their published articles contradicts guarantees
of media freedom contained in the Ethiopian Constitution, as well as
the international standards set out in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples
Rights. Amnesty International is concerned about the treatment of the
defendants in custody, relating to their general treatment and
conditions, access to families and legal representatives, medical care,
and access to reading and writing materials. Amnesty International
opposes the death penalty worldwide, and is calling for the removal of
the death penalty in this trial. Ethiopia is a retentionist country as
regards the death penalty. However, although perhaps over 100 persons
have been condemned to death since 1991, there has been only one
known execution after a court conviction. This report includes the
background to the trial, details of the charges and defendants - who
include several lawyers and academics and Amnesty Internationals
concern that the defendants may not receive a fair trial in relation to
recognized international and regional standards. It concludes with
Amnesty Internationals recommendations to the Government of
Ethiopia and the international community. 2. Background 2.1 The May
2005 elections Ethiopias third general elections under the current
government and the Constitution (1995) for the national parliament (the
House of Peoples Representatives), the Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa City
Councils, and the seven Regional State Assemblies, took place in May
2005, though the Somali Region elections were held later in September

2005. These elections were observed by the European Union, the African
Union, the US- based Carter Center and some Ethiopian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).(2) Two opposition coalitions the
Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD) and the United Ethiopian
Democratic Front (UEDF) were challenging Prime Minister Meles
Zenawis ruling Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front
(EPRDF) coalition, which is headed by his Tigray Peoples Liberation
Front (TPLF). The EPRDF has been in power since 1991 when it
overthrew the former government of Mengistu Hailemariam, known as
the Dergue, after a long armed conflict. Prior to the 2005 elections and
shortly after a visit to the country, Amnesty International had expressed
concern at reports of human rights violations against opposition
members, particularly the CUD, including several killings, arbitrary
detentions, harassment and intimidation by police and local militias. In
a report published in April 2005(3), Amnesty International appealed to
the government and all political parties to respect human rights during
the election process, and for election observers to monitor and report
on human rights violations. Immediately after the 15 May poll, the
opposition alleged rigging by the government and ruling party. The
Prime Minister banned demonstrations and took personal control of the
security forces in Addis Ababa.(4) 2.2 Killings of demonstrators and mass
arrests In early June 2005 preliminary results were released by the
National Election Board giving the EPRDF a narrow lead. CUD supporters
subsequently demonstrated in Addis Ababa, accusing the government
and EPRDF of fraud, and the National Election Board of bias towards the
EPRDF. Peaceful demonstrations led to violent confrontations with the
security forces. A special army unit, known as Agaazi, reportedly shot
dead at least 36 protesters and wounded many others in Addis Ababa on
8 June. Some 9,000 CUD supporters including 2,000 university students,
and six Ethiopian Human Rights Council officials (who were not
members of any political party), were detained by police but were
provisionally released on bond by the end of July 2005 without being
charged with any crime. The CUD supporters had in most cases been
arbitrarily arrested and were not brought before a court within the 48hour limit prescribed by Ethiopian law. Many were allegedly beaten or
ill-treated. The CUD leadership decided to boycott the new parliament
in protest at the final official election results and because the outgoing
EPRDF- dominated parliament had changed procedures making it
virtually impossible for opposition MPs to initiate a debate. The UEDF,
independent MPs, a section of the Ethiopian Democratic Unity PartyMedhin party which had left the CUD coalition, and eventually several
of the CUD MPs-elect who had not been detained, took up their seats in
the new parliament. They criticized repression of the CUD and the

detention of its leading MPs-elect, as well as arrests and harassment of

UEDF coalition members from the Oromo National Congress (5) and the
Oromo Federal Democratic Movement. The new Addis Ababa City
Council, similarly boycotted by many new CUD members-elect (some 30
of whom are also believed to be detained and may face treason and
other charges in separate cases), has not to date convened. The Prime
Minister has proposed to establish a caretaker administration if the
boycott continues and there is insufficient attendance. In a second
series of pro-CUD demonstrations in early November 2005, police shot
dead at least 42 protesters in Addis Ababa, wounded some 200 others
and detained most of the CUD leadership, which had called for nonviolent demonstrations. The protests, which started peacefully with
drivers honking their horns and a workers stay- home strike, led to
violence with widespread police shootings, seven police officers being
killed by protesters and considerable damage to government property.
The security forces arrested over 10,000 CUD officials and supporters in
Addis Ababa, the Amhara Region and some other regions, including many
who had been arrested in June and photographed for police records.
There were further pro-CUD protests starting in late December 2005,
and continuing into early 2006. Students boycotted school and college
classes, resulting in widespread school closures, and there were
widespread arrests and beating of students and teachers suspected of
instigating the boycotts.(6) Many of these detainees have since been
released provisionally on bond but several thousands reportedly remain
in detention. Details of the arrests have not been disclosed to
detainees families or the public, and most detainees have not been
brought before a court. The detained CUD leaders and others held with
them went on hunger strike in November 2005 in protest at their
detentions, until mid-December. That month, charges were brought
against 131 detained CUD leaders and others, as described below. The
court refused to grant bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. The
CUD leaders denied calling for violent demonstrations. Most CUD offices
are now closed as a result of arrests and intimidation of officials. Its
four constituent parties are listed as defendants in the trial. After the
November 2005 demonstrations, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi publicly
accused the CUD of treason and of organizing a violent uprising aimed
at overthrowing the government. Shortly before the elections the Prime
Minister had accused the CUD of fomenting strife and ethnic hatred
which he said could lead to a "Rwanda-type genocide".(7) He has
refused to release the detainees despite appeals by the European Union
and others. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has also told members of the
international community, who had pressed for a political reconciliation
between the government and opposition parties to resolve the post-

election crisis, that the detainees will not be released but will receive a
fair trial, which will be prompt, rapid and transparent. On 25 April 2006
the EPRDF-controlled parliament set up a commission of inquiry into the
post- election violence of June and November 2005. It will reportedly
seek to establish the number of people killed, property destroyed, and
whether there were human and constitutional rights violations.(8) To
date, no details are available on its composition, full terms of reference
or working methods. Previous parliamentary inquiries into incidents
such as this where the security forces have killed unarmed civilians
were not independent or impartial. Amnesty International urges the
Ethiopian Parliament to ensure that this inquiry strictly follows
recognized international standards of investigations into excessive use
of force and extrajudicial executions.(9) 2.3 Human rights defenders on
trial Four human rights defenders are among those charged in the
treason trial, as mentioned above Professor Mesfin Woldemariam,
former chair of the Ethiopian Human Rights Council, Daniel Bekele of
ActionAid, Netsanet Demissie of the Organisation for Social Justice in
Ethiopia, and Kassahun Kebede of the Ethiopian Teachers Association.
Mesfin Woldemariam, a retired geography professor at Addis Ababa
University, founded the Ethiopian Human Rights Council (EHRCO), a nongovernmental organization, in 1991. It has issued over 100 reports of
human rights violations, to which the government has not responded.
Professor Mesfin Woldemariam was its chair until 2005 when he resigned
and joined the CUD election campaign. The government has been
consistently hostile to the organization, which has been the only human
rights group (now officially registered) investigating, documenting and
reporting on human rights violations through its central and regional
offices. Six EHRCO staff members were detained for several weeks in
June 2005, including Yared Hailemariam, a member of the investigation
team, who was subsequently among those with arrest warrants issued
against them in November 2005. He was in Uganda at the time
attending a Human Rights Defenders Conference and has since sought
asylum abroad. Daniel Bekele is the policy, research and advocacy
manager of the Ethiopian office of ActionAid, the international
development agency. He is a human rights lawyer. Netsanet Demissie, a
human rights and environmental rights lawyer, is the founder and
director of the Organization for Social Justice in Ethiopia (OSJE) a local
human rights NGO with a mission to "nurture social justice, democracy
and good governance by addressing the denial and violations of basic
rights of the poor and the marginalized." The OSJE had held the
secretariat of a 35-member coalition of NGOs to observe the May 2005
elections. Both men, as anti-poverty activists, had been closely involved
in activities in Ethiopia in support of the Global Call for Action against

Poverty (GCAP). They were not members of any political party and it
appears that they may have been arrested solely on account of their
criticisms of the government in the course of their legitimate civil
society activities. On 21 February 2006 the Ministry of Justice issued a
statement warning ActionAid, that its press release the previous day
could be construed as "contempt of court",(10) libel and other criminal
offences. The Ministry of Justice accused ActionAid of attempting to
interfere with the administration of justice by calling for the release of
Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie and by declaring his innocence of
the charge against them of "outrage against the Constitution". Kassahun
Kebede, a teacher and chair of the Addis Ababa branch of the Ethiopian
Teachers Association (ETA), is also accused of "outrage against
Constitution". The ETA, which is affiliated to the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and Education
International, is the oldest trade union in Ethiopia, with half a million
teacher members from primary, secondary and higher educational
institutions. The ETA had issued statements criticizing the government
in connection with the post-election crisis. Dr Taye Woldesemayat, a
former prisoner of conscience who was re-elected as the general
secretary of the ETA after he was released from prison in 2002, has also
been charged in his absence, as he was visiting the USA at the time. He
is known as a prominent critic of the government, though not a member
of any political party, and has not used or advocated violence.(11) The
ETA has been engaged in a 13-year court struggle to preserve its
existence and independence, and has been under threat from a progovernment organisation of the same name, which the Ministry of
Justice (which controls NGO registration) had formally recognized,
although it had not banned the original ETA. The original ETA head
office in Addis Ababa has been shut down by the authorities for some
years, although the organization still functions effectively for its
members. On 1 April 2006 the High Court ordered the ETA to transfer its
assets to the pro- government ETA. The original ETA is appealing against
this new court decision. Hundreds of teachers in different regions have
been detained for some periods of time or arbitrarily dismissed in
recent years, reportedly because of failing to support the ruling EPRDF
party. At present, six teachers who are ETA members are among those
detained since November 2005 without charge or trial in the context of
the post-election pro-CUD or Oromo student demonstrations, although
the government has not specifically accused the ETA of instigating these
political protests. 2.4 Arrests of journalists As well as the CUD leaders,
14 editors and reporters of independent and privately-owned
newspapers were arrested and charged with treason, outrages against
the Constitution and incitement to armed conspiracy. They are:

Andualem Ayele (Etiop editor), Dawit Fasil (Satenaw deputy editor),

Dawit Kebede (Hadar editor), Dereje Hailewold (Menilik and Netsanet
deputy editor), Eskinder Negga(12) (Satenaw editor), Fasil Yenealem
(Addis Zena publisher), Feleke Tibebu (Hadar deputy editor), Mesfin
Tesfaye (Abay editor), Nardos Meaza (Satenaw editor), Serkalem Fasil
(f) (co-publisher of Asqual, Menilik and Satenaw), Sisay Agena (Etiop
publisher and editor), Wonakseged Zeleke (Asqual editor),Wossenseged
Gebrekidan (Addis Zena editor), and Zekarias Tesfaye (Netsanet
publisher).(13) The charges against the journalists are reportedly based
on published articles but are also linked to the charges against the CUD
leaders. The journalists were not CUD members, as far as is known, but
had published interviews with opposition leaders and had criticized the
government and EPRDF during the election process. Some of these
published articles reportedly form the main prosecution evidence
against them. Six publishing companies owned by some of the
journalists were also charged as corporate entities. Amnesty
International considers the 14 journalists to be prisoners of conscience,
who are imprisoned on account of their opinions and exercising their
legitimate professional activities as journalists. Most of the detained
journalists had been previously arrested several times before under the
Press Law (1992) in the governments long- running repression of press
freedom and many had been prisoners of conscience.(14) Some 300
journalists have been arrested and many tried and imprisoned since
1992. Since 2003, there had been a gradual reduction in arrests and
trials of journalists as a result of international criticisms. However,
several journalists were arrested on account of their publications during
the election campaign and the post-election crisis but were
provisionally released, with some of them charged. There were reports
that police were also searching for dozens of other journalists, but no
further arrests were confirmed. Since December 2005 there have been
several new trials of journalists with long-pending charges under the
Press Law who had been provisionally released. On 6 December,
Wossenseged Gebrekidan (also on trial with the CUD leaders) was
sentenced to eight months imprisonment in a separate trial on the basis
of an article in 2002 allegedly defaming a foreign diplomat. In the same
month, Getachew Simie of Agere newspaper was jailed for 3 months for
defamation in a 1998 article, and Leykum Engeded of Wonchif
newspaper was jailed for 15 months for a 1999 article, although later
released on bail pending appeal. On 10 February 2006 two other
journalists were fined for allegedly printing false information. On 8
March Abraham Gebrekidan of Politika magazine was jailed for a year
for allegedly publishing false information. On 18 April, Wossenseged
Gebrekidan was given an additional 18 months sentence on a separate

charge based on a 2002 article, and Abraham Reta, a freelance reporter,

was jailed for a year. On 19 April Goshu Moges of Lissane Hezeb
newspaper, who had been arrested on 19 February, was charged with
treason. Two Oromo journalists working for the state television service,
Dabassa Wakjira and Shifferaw Insarmu from the state television service
remain on trial in custody since 2004 for alleged armed conspiracy and
OLF membership in the Mecha Tulema Association case (see page 14).
Nine other journalists were charged in the CUD treason trial in their
absence. Five work for the US-based Voice of America (VOA)
international radio station and are US citizens. The VOA had broadcast
interviews with a range of government opponents and officials. VOA
strongly denied any political bias, and called for the discharge of its
staff members. The five VOA journalists were discharged in March 2006.
Two US-based Ethiopian website editors, Elias Kifle of Ethiopian Review
and Abraha Belay of Ethiomedia, are still charged in absentia. In
addition, the current and former presidents of the Ethiopian Free Press
Journalists Association (EFJA), which had documented repression of the
press, are charged in absentia. Kifle Mulat was abroad at the time the
charges were made public, attending a Human Rights Defenders
conference in Uganda co- organized by Amnesty International, while the
previous EFJA president, Kefalegne Mammo, had fled the country in
1997. Two other journalists were arrested separately. Frezer Negash (f),
a reporter for the US-based Ethiopian Review website, whose editor is
accused in absentia (see above), was arrested on 27 January 2006 when
she was three months pregnant, but she was provisionally released by a
court on 7 March, although prison officers delayed her actual release for
three days. Solomon Aregawi, a reporter for Hadar newspaper, was
arrested in November 2005 and later charged in a separate treason trial
(see page 10). There are thus a total of 20 journalists currently in prison
in Ethiopia, most if not all of whom are prisoners of conscience.
Amnesty International is investigating whether some of them may be
human rights defenders imprisoned on account of exposing human rights
violations. A draft new Press Law, much criticized by international
media organizations since it was drafted by the government in 2003,(15)
has not so far been introduced. However, new provisions in the Criminal
Code (2005)(16) significantly reduce the freedom of the media. Chapter
IV on "Participating in crimes relating to the mass media" (articles 4247) sets out the principle of "ensuring freedom of expression while
preventing abuse" (article 42(1)) but the new provisions provide for
harsher treatment for alleged "media crimes" and do not conform to
international treaty standards of freedom of expression and the media.
Freedom of expression, including the right to seek and receive
information, has been seriously limited in Ethiopia, as a result of

the arrests of journalists and editors, and police closure of their

offices. Although no newspaper has been formally banned so far,
only a few independent newspapers, such as The Reporter and
Addis Tribune, continue to publish but practise self- censorship
and avoid strong criticism of the government. In March 2006 a
delegation of the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists
(CPJ) visited Ethiopia and met
e Prime Minister. He told them that the journalists would receive
fair trials. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi agreed for the journalists
to be allowed books in prison, which had originally been refused
by prison officials. He stated that he would reconsider the policy
of prosecuting journalists for pending alleged Press Law offences
committed years ago. The CPJ delegates were allowed to visit all
the detained journalists and witnessed the first permitted
meeting in Kaliti prison between Eskinder Negga and his partner
Serkalem Fasil (f), then five months pregnant, who were
detained in separate sections of the prison. Frezer Negash (see
above) was provisionally released shortly after the CPJ visit but
is still facing possible charges and trial.(17) 2.5 Other opposition
supporters facing similar political charges Amnesty International
is concerned that, in addition to the trial of the CUD leaders,
several other CUD officials and members who were arrested on
or after November 2005 are facing trial or could be tried under
similar political charges in federal or regional courts in the
coming months. Some are or may be prisoners of conscience
and may not receive fair trials. They include the following: Kifle
Tigeneh, a CUD elected member of parliament detained in Addis
Ababa since November 2005 and under investigation by a lower
court, was charged on 21 March 2006 with treason, "outrage
against the Constitution" and "genocide", together with 32
others, including six members-elect of the Addis Ababa City
Council and journalist Solomon Aregawi. Eight of the defendants
charged on 21 March complained to the judge that they had
been tortured and denied medical treatment. They said they had
been beaten, deprived of food for long periods, and suffered
electric shocks. One said he had been forced to sign a statement
he was unable to read on account of torture injuries. The court
ordered that the eight defendants should be given medical
treatment but did not order any investigation into the torture
complaints.(18) The trial is due to start on 8 May 2006. Berhane
Moges, a lawyer who had earlier offered to represent CUD
defendants such as Hailu Shawel, was arrested in Addis Ababa

on 18 February 2006 shortly after he had met the visiting EU

Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Assistance.
Berhane Moges was remanded in custody for investigation into
alleged involvement in an alleged foiled conspiracy to plant
bombs in Addis Ababa, which he denied. On 28 April 2006 he
was charged with "outrage against the Constitution", with the
next court hearing scheduled for 12 May. 265 suspected CUD
supporters who were arrested in Bahar Dar district of the
Amhara Region in November 2005 were formally charged before
a regional court on 16 February 2006 with involvement in
rioting. They are still detained. Thousands of CUD supporters are
believed to be still detained without charge in different parts of
the country since the demonstrations of November/December
2005 and early 2006. 2.6 The international response to the postelection crisis There has been considerable international concern
about human rights violations arising from the May 2005
elections. The European Union Election Observation Mission in
its interim report in August 2005 expressed serious concern
about the fairness of the elections. It reported that the
widespread violations of human rights "undermined the
oppositions ability to participate effectively in the process,
independently of their competence to argue their case: material
evidence was unobtainable because detained or fearful
witnesses were unable to testify and, in one case an important
witness was killed". Prime Minister Meles Zenawi reportedly
dismissed the interim report as "garbage".(19) The final election
report published in March 2006 concluded that "overall the
elections fell short of international principles for genuine
democratic elections." The report stated that "while the preelection period saw a number of positive developments and
voting on 15 May was conducted in a peaceful and largely
orderly manner, the counting and aggregation process were
marred by irregular practices, confusion and a lack of
transparency. Subsequent complaints and appeals mechanism
did not provide an effective remedy. The human rights situation
rapidly deteriorated in the post-election day period when dozens
of citizens were killed by the police and thousands were
arrested."(20) The government has not to date responded. At its
38th Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia from 21
November to 5 December 2005, the African Commission on
Human and Peoples Rights adopted a resolution on the human
rights situation in Ethiopia, deploring "the killing of civilians
during confrontations with security forces" and requesting "that

the Ethiopian authorities release arbitrarily detained political

prisoners, human rights defenders and journalists." It called on
the Ethiopian government to guarantee the right to fair trial,
freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to hold
peaceful demonstrations and political assembly, and to comply
with international human rights treaties it has ratified. In January
2006 the British government ended direct budget support to the
Ethiopian government, which is a privileged form of development
assistance, because of concerns about governance and human rights
violations arising from the disputed elections. It said the aid, worth
US$88 million, would be redirected to specific development
programmes. The European Union Commissioner for Development and
Humanitarian Assistance, Louis Michel, visited Ethiopia in March 2006 to
meet the government, CUD officials and detainees, members of the
international community and other Ethiopian groups. He called for a
political dialogue between the government and opposition and for the
defendants to be released on bail. The Prime Minister rejected both
calls, saying the defendants would be tried and would receive a fair
trial. On 24 April 2006, Ethiopias main donor group, the Ambassadors
Donors Group, which includes bilateral donors, the African Development
Bank, the European Commission, the UN Development Programme and
the World Bank, called for the release of the imprisoned CUD leaders
and representatives of the media and civil society. It said that "All
elected leaders should be given a chance to take part in the political
reconciliation process".(21) On 27 April 2006, the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights on a visit to Ethiopia strongly criticised Ethiopias
human rights situation.(22) While international and regional security
issues in the Horn of Africa are a special concern of the international
community, such as achieving a permanent settlement of the border
conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, and certain aspects of the socalled "war on terror" affecting the countries bordering on Somalia
(which still has no effective national government after 15 years of state
collapse), vigorous action is needed to promote and protect basic
human rights in each country of the Horn in order to achieve lasting
peace and security in the whole region. Amnesty International is urging
the international community to increase their efforts with regard to the
Ethiopian government to ensure that the government respects its
obligations under international human rights treaties by guaranteeing
and protecting the human rights of its citizens. 2.7 Refugees As a
consequence of these widespread human rights violations against
opposition party members since the elections, including mass arbitrary
arrests, torture and ill-treatment, extrajudicial executions and unfair
trials, a new flow of Ethiopian refugees to neighbouring countries and

other parts of the world, consisting of CUD members and supporters, as

well as human rights defenders and journalists is starting. Amnesty
International believes that CUD activists and suspected activists at
national or local level, as well as civil society activists and journalists
who had criticized the government, who have fled the country on
account of experienced or threatened human rights violations, would be
those who are at risk of arbitrary and indefinite detention, possible
torture or ill-treatment, unfair trial or even extrajudicial execution, if
forcibly returned to Ethiopia. For these reasons, Amnesty International
calls on governments to recognise them as in need of international
protection from refoulement or enforced return to Ethiopia, under
international and regional refugee law and international human rights
law. 2.8 Other human rights concerns Many other human rights
violations have been committed in recent years, including arbitrary
detentions, torture and extrajudicial executions, in the context of
armed conflicts in the country, particularly on account of failures in the
justice system and the absence of accountability of the security forces,
who have committed violations with impunity. The government faces, in
particular, long-running armed conflicts with the Oromo Liberation
Front (OLF) and Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), both hosted
by Eritrea, with whom Ethiopia fought a border war in 1998-2000.
Certain other smaller armed opposition groups claim to operate in some
parts of the country. Since February 2006 there have been several
explosions in Addis Ababa and other towns, causing several casualties,
for which no group has claimed responsibility. Police have made several
arrests, though without releasing details. Some of these human rights
concerns documented by Amnesty International are listed below:
*Oromia Region demonstrations and detentions: At the same time as the
pro-CUD November 2005 demonstrations, there were other separate
anti- government demonstrations in many towns in the Oromia Region,
mainly in schools and colleges, in response to a call for a "popular
uprising" by the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF) on its website. These
ongoing demonstrations have focussed on Oromo political issues,
including calls for the release of Oromo political prisoners detained
without trial in recent years, mostly for alleged links with the OLF. They
were calling particularly for the release of Diribi Demissie and Gemechu
Fayera, both businesspersons and Sintayehu Workneh, a US embassy
accountant. All three are leading officials of the main Oromo
community welfare organization, the long- established and officiallyregistered Mecha Tulema Association (MTA). Amnesty International
considers them to be prisoners of conscience who have not used or
advocated violence, and is concerned that they are not receiving a fair
trial.(23) In the November-December 2005 demonstrations in Oromia,

which were largely peaceful, several thousand students and others were
detained incommunicado without charge or trial. A few thousand are
still believed to be held in different prisons and police stations, with
only a few so far brought to court and charged. Several demonstrators
were reportedly shot dead by the security forces, and many were
allegedly tortured or ill-treated, particularly in Ambo palace prison and
Senkele police camp near Ambo town, 35 kilometres west of Addis
Ababa.(24) * Somali Region (Ethiopias Region 5): There have been
arbitrary detentions and killings linked to the long-running armed
conflict in the drought- afflicted Somali Region. Hundreds or more
people have been detained without trial in recent years and many have
been reportedly extrajudicially executed or tortured, on account of
suspected links with the armed opposition Ogaden National Liberation
Front (ONLF), which is based in Eritrea and allied to the OLF. * Gambella
Region: There have been continued and new detentions of government
opponents in the Gambella Region in the south-west, where hundreds of
members of the Anuak (or Anywaa) ethnic group were killed by soldiers
and civilian mobs in December 2003.(25) Some 900 alleged government
opponents have been detained without trial since then, although 15
former senior regional officials among them were acquitted of criminal
charges and freed in December 2005. *Sidama demonstration arrests:
There were detentions in March 2006 of some 60 peaceful
demonstrators belonging to the Sidama ethnic group in the Southern
Region, who were arrested in Awassa and other southern towns: they
were calling for the Sidama administrative zone to be upgraded to a
regional state.(26) *The Ethiopia-Eritrea border conflict: In the event of
renewed armed conflict, Amnesty International has warned of a repeat
of the human rights violations and violations of international
humanitarian law committed by both sides in the 1998-2000 conflict, in
which an estimated total of over 100,000 combatants on both sides
were killed. The legacy of the conflict was incalculable damage,
through rising military expenditure, to the struggle for development in
two of the worlds least developed countries. Both are heavily
dependent on international food aid and humanitarian assistance,
particularly during the current drought in the region. The UN Security
Council in the past two years has expressed fears of a new border
conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea and threatened sanctions against
either side which starts a new conflict. The mandate of the UN
peacekeeping force along the border (the UN Military Mission in Ethiopia
and Eritrea, UNMEE, which administers a buffer zone between the two
countries) was recently renewed by the UN Security Council for a
further month up to 15 May 2006. Eritrea continues to demand that
Ethiopia hand over the border town of Badme in accordance with the

International Boundary Commissions judgement. Ethiopia accepts this

judgment in principle and offers talks about demarcation and border
adjustments, which Eritrea refuses. Compensation issues judged by the
International Boundary Commission remain unsettled. *The Dergue
trials: The trials of some 2,000 former members and officials of the
Mengistu Hailemariam government arrested mainly in 1991 for
"genocide" and "crimes against humanity", including extrajudicial
executions, are nearing completion. Amnesty International has been
concerned at the use of the death penalty in these trials, with several
defendants already condemned to death but not so far executed, and at
the length of the trials. 3. The trial, defendants and charges A total of
111 defendants are charged, with 76 before the court. The trial is held
in open court before a panel of three judges headed by a presiding
judge. As well as the EU trial observer, foreign diplomats as well as local
and some foreign journalists(27) have been regularly attending the
proceedings, with Amharic-English interpretation provided by the court.
If they are convicted, the defendants will have the right of appeal to
the Supreme Court. If they are condemned to death, they will have the
right to petition the Head of State (the President) for clemency.
According to the Constitution, the President may commute a death
sentence, except if the accused has been sentenced for a crime against
humanity. The CUD leaders and journalists decided, in advance of the
opening of the trial, to boycott the trial on the grounds that they
believed that it would be fundamentally unfair and that the court was
not independent. They claimed that they had already been convicted in
advance. The court entered pleas of "not guilty" on their behalf when
they refused to plead. The three civil society activists, Daniel Bekele,
Netsanet Demissie and Kassahun Kebede, who are not part of the
political opposition, pleaded "not guilty" and are contesting the charges,
with their legal representative. 3.1 The defendants The 76 defendants
before the court include most of the central council and principal
leadership of the CUD coalition party (Kinjit in the Amharic language),
mainly from its two leading parties the All Ethiopia Unity Party (AEUP),
which was formed from the previous All-Amhara Peoples Organization
(AAPO), and the recently-formed Rainbow Movement for Democracy and
Social Justice in Ethiopia (Kestedemena in Amharic). The CUD leaders on
trial are Hailu Shawel (CUD president and All Ethiopia Unity Party
leader, civil engineer), Birtukan Mideksa (f) (CUD vice- president,
Rainbow leader, lawyer), Berhanu Negga (CUD Mayor-elect of Addis
Ababa, economics professor), Muluneh Eyuel (CUD secretary general,
Ethiopian Democratic League leader, economist), Debebe Eshetu (CUD
public relations officer, Rainbow member, theatre professional) and
Hailu Araya (CUD and Ethiopian Democratic Unity Party leader, former

academic and journalist), and others. The defendants also include,

according to different categories (some overlapping): five lawyers:
Anteneh Mulugeta (also a former judge), Birtukan Mideksa (f) (also a
former judge), Daniel Bekele (international NGO official and human
rights lawyer), Netsanet Demissie (local NGO official, and human and
environmental rights lawyer) and Yakob Hailemariam (former UN
genocide prosecutor at the Rwanda tribunal and former UN Special
Envoy in the Cameroon/Nigeria border dispute); five academics: Dr
Berhanu Negga, Gizachew Shifferaw, Dr Hailu Araya, Professor Mesfin
Woldemariam and Dr Yakob Hailemariam(28); nine members-elect of the
national parliament (29): Abayneh Berhanu, Bedru Adem, Befekadu
Degifie, Getachew Mengiste, Gizachew Shifferaw, Hailu Araya, Hailu
Shawel, Mamushet Amare, Yakob Hailemariam; two members-elect of
the Addis Ababa City Council: Berhanu Negga, the Mayor-elect of Addis
Ababa, and Anteneh Mulugeta; five women: Birtukan Mideksa (as
above), Nigist Gebrehiwot (CUD office secretary), Seblework Tadesse
(CUD official), Serkalem Fasil (journalist), and Kidist Bekele (CUD
member); 14 journalists (see section 2.4); Three civil society and NGO
activists - Daniel Bekele and Netsanet Demissie, and Kassahun Kebede
of the Ethiopian Teachers Association (see page 6). The court refused to
separate their cases from those of the CUD members and journalists or
grant them bail (with the Supreme Court rejecting their appeals), saying
the charges were very serious and non-bailable, and were related with
those against the other defendants, with some of the same prosecution
witnesses; Ten "juridical persons" or "legal persons" - the four political
parties constituting the CUD coalition and six publishing companies.
Their inclusion appears designed to pave the way for banning the
opposition political parties and closing down media which have been
critical of the government. 3.2 Exiles on trial in absentia An additional
25 defendants are being tried in their absence for "outrage against
Constitution". They are prominent Ethiopians in exile who are known or
suspected to be active opposition party supporters. Nine other exiles
were originally charged, including the five Voice of America journalists
mentioned above, and Kassa Kebede, former Foreign Minister under the
Mengistu Hailemariam government, who were discharged by the court
at the prosecution request without explanation in March 2006. Among
those being tried in absentia are Elias Kifle, publisher of the US-based
Ethiopian Review website; Abraha Belay, editor of the US-based
Ethiomedia website; Professor Getachew Haile of St Johns University,
Minnesota, USA; Professor Mammo Muchie of Aalborg University,
Denmark; Dr Negede Gobezie, leader of the Meisone political party
which originally supported the Dergue but later opposed it, and now a
member of the UEDF; Andargachew Tsege, former deputy Mayor of Addis

Ababa and a former TPLF official, who returned to Ethiopia to work on

the CUD election campaign but was arrested in Addis Ababa in June
2005 and tortured but was released without charge in September 2005
and allowed to return to the United Kingdom; and Kefalegne Mammo,
former president of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists Association,
who fled the country in 1997. They are long-term citizens or residents
(as former refugees) living in the US, Germany, the Netherlands and the
United Kingdom. Two other defendants who happened to be abroad at
the time of the November 2005 also being tried in absentia Dr Taye
Woldesemayat, general secretary of the Ethiopian Teachers Association,
and Kifle Mulat, president of the Ethiopian Free Press Journalists
Association and editor of Lissane Hezeb newspaper. These 25 defendants
tried in absentia who have refused the court summons to return to
Ethiopia to be tried - encompass different elements of the Ethiopian
diaspora, especially in the USA. The charges are widely seen as a threat
to try to silence other opposition supporters abroad, who may be
arrested and charged with similar political offences if they return to
Ethiopia. The Ethiopian diaspora initially comprised refugees from the
Dergue after the 1974 revolution. They were joined after 1991 by
refugees from the current government. Many Ethiopian diaspora
members have been engaged in peaceful Ethiopian opposition party
activism from abroad or via opposition-oriented websites such as
Ethiopian Review and Ethiomedia. In the past year particularly, there
have been numerous peaceful demonstrations abroad against the
Ethiopian government and visiting Ethiopian officials, calling
particularly for the release of political prisoners in Ethiopia. 3.3 The
charges The charges under the Criminal Code, promulgated in 2004 but
signed into effect by the President on 9 May 2005 include high treason;
"outrage against the Constitution"; inciting, organizing or leading armed
rebellion; obstruction of exercise of constitutional powers; impairing
the defensive power of the state; and genocide. The most serious
charges carry a possible penalty of life imprisonment or death, with the
death sentence being imposed in cases of exceptional gravity. The
prosecution case is broadly that anti- government violence in postelection demonstrations was planned by the CUD and supported by the
private media. The "genocide" charge against the CUD officials and
journalists relates, as listed on the charge sheet, to "beatings causing
bodily injury on a Tigrayan-born individual, arson on the home and
property of two Tigrayan-born individuals...; acts causing fear and harm
to the mental health of members of an ethnic group based on their
ethnic identity; and indirect and direct acts causing harm to members
and supporters of the EPRDF by excluding them from social interactions
and preventing them form attending funerals". The crime of genocide in

the Criminal Code (article 269) includes elements of intent to destroy,

in whole or in part, a "nation, nationality, ethnical, racial, national,
colour, religious or political group" by ordering or engaging in, inter alia,
"killing, bodily harm or serious injury to the physical or mental health of
members of the group".(30) Amnesty International has described the use
of the charge of genocide in this trial as "absurd". (31) The CUD leaders
have consistently maintained that the CUD is a peaceful opposition
party working within the framework of Ethiopias Constitution and laws,
and that they have not used or advocated violence. They have
vigorously rejected the accusation of conspiring or attempting to
overthrow the government by violent means. They maintain that their
opposition to the government, their call for demonstrations against
alleged election fraud by the government and ruling party, and their
criticisms of the National Electoral Board have been non-violent, legal
and in accordance with the Constitution. They disclaim responsibility
for the violence which erupted during the protests. The prosecutions
documentary evidence against the CUD leaders and journalists has been
listed in advance, but there appears to be no such evidence against the
three civil society activists. The prosecution reportedly intends to call
over 300 witnesses, which would extend the trial for a lengthy period.
The court accepted the prosecution request for non-disclosure of names
of prosecution witnesses, on the grounds of their personal security
would be at risk. 4. Treatment of prisoners Amnesty International is
concerned about the treatment and health of the defendants in prison,
which fall short of internationally recognized standards, including the
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Body
of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment. Concerns are the denial of written
communication with families and legal counsel, delays in medical
treatment, reports of inadequate pregnancy medical care for Serkalem
Fasil (now seven months pregnant), and restrictions on reading
materials. There have also been some reports of beatings of prisoners,
fears for the safety of those held in incommunicado detention and
allegations of torture by defendants in the separate treason trial of
Kifle Tigeneh and others (see page10). The defendants were initially
held in the police Central Investigation Bureau in Addis Ababa, known as
the Third Police Station (or Maikelawi in Amharic). There were some
reports of ill- treatment and intimidation of some of the defendants,
including Hailu Shawel, in the first period after arrest. After some
weeks in custody, most of the CUD leaders (except those in poor health,
such as Hailu Shawel, a diabetic) and others detained with them,
including journalists, went on hunger strike in protest about being
detained. The hunger strike lasted several weeks and was called off

when they decided their protest had been noted by the public and
international community. Amnesty International has been concerned, in
particular, for the health of Professor Mesfin Woldemariam, aged 76,
who had been ill in bed for three months prior to his arrest with serious
leg and back problems. He was allowed to have his own mattress in
prison but his physiotherapist was not allowed to treat him. Contrary to
expectations, he managed to walk with a stick and his condition
appeared to improve. However, he commenced (alone) a second hunger
strike on 8 February 2006 for some weeks, leaving him weakened and
increasing the concern for his health. Amnesty International had serious
concern too for Hailu Shawel, who was suffering from diabetic
retinopathy threatening his eyesight. For some weeks as his vision
deteriorated, the authorities refused to allow him to travel abroad, but
finally allowed Chinese surgeons to operate in an Addis Ababa hospital
to restore his sight and he is apparently recovering well. After the
charges were formally presented in December 2005, the defendants
were all removed to Kaliti prison on the western outskirts of Addis
Ababa, since the Central Prison (known as Karchele) was in the process
of being closed for demolition and the land transferred to the adjacent
African Union headquarters for redevelopment. In Kaliti prison, the
male detainees are held in three sections, with no visiting allowed
between zones for example between Eskinder Negga and his partner
Serkalem Fasil who is pregnant (until a visit was permitted during the
CPJ visit, see page 10). During the night they are locked into zincwalled cells, which are hot in the day and cold at night. Cells are
reportedly overcrowded, with one containing 30 prisoners and another
holding some 300. Sanitary and toilet facilities are poor. During the day
prisoners can associate freely in their zone of the prison. Women
prisoners are held separately from the men. Serkalem Fasil, now seven
months pregnant, is reported to have complained about lack of medical
and pre-natal care. Prisoners are allowed non-private visits at weekends
in a group situation supervised by prison guards, and occasional private
visits by foreign diplomats and others, international media and family
members. Families can send food, bedding, changes of clothing and
small items. Medical treatment is available, with admission to hospital
when required, although often after some delay which may exacerbate
the illness. Written communications are not allowed, even to legal
counsel. Reading materials are allowed but restricted. At a court
hearing on 22 March 2006, Birtukan Mideksa said she had been beaten in
prison but the judge stopped her from speaking further and took no
action to investigate her allegation. On 9 April 2006 Muluneh Eyeul was
transferred to the Central Prison, reportedly after a dispute with prison
officials over wearing a CUD T-shirt and other matters. He is detained

there incommunicado in solitary confinement, raising fears about his

treatment, which Amnesty International is investigating. He is said to be
on hunger strike. 5. Amnesty Internationals concerns about the fairness
of the trial Amnesty International has been closely following reports of
the preliminary judicial proceedings and will continue to monitor the
reports of the trial starting from the opening of the prosecution case
due on 2 May 2006, in order to assess whether the defendants receive a
fair trial by an independent and impartial court in accordance with
internationally recognized standards of fair trial. Ethiopia is bound,
under provisions of the human rights instruments it has ratified, to
ensure the right to a fair trial of those charged with a criminal offence.
Provisions in articles 9 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and articles 6 and 7 of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples Rights provide minimum standards of fair trial,
which must be afforded to the defendants. The fact that most of the
defendants have decided to boycott the trial does not, in itself, mean
that these fundamental principles of fair trial can be simply ignored by
the judges or the prosecutor. This is particularly important, as most of
the crimes for which the defendants are charged are potentially
punishable by death at the option of the judges, if they rule that the
crimes committed were of exceptional gravity (see Table 1). Trials in
capital cases, as in this case, involving 76 defendants charged with six
of the most serious offences in the Criminal Code, five of which carry
possible death sentences, require judges of the utmost integrity and
with the relevant training and experience to be able to scrupulously
observe all the international and regional standards protecting the right
to a fair trial. The Human Rights Committee has stated that in death
penalty cases the guarantees of fair trial prescribed in the ICCPR "must
be observed, including the right to a fair hearing by an independent
tribunal, the presumption of innocence, the minimum guarantees for
the defence, and the right to review by a higher tribunal."(32) 5.1
Presumption of innocence Everyone charged with a criminal offence
shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law, as stated in Article 14(2) of the ICCPR and Article 7(1)
(b) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. The burden of
proof rests on the prosecution. The standard of proof has been
interpreted to be that "no guilt can be presumed until the charge has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt."(33) In trials where the death
penalty can be imposed, the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary execution has stated that "defendants must be
presumed innocent until their guilt has been proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, in strict application of the highest standards for the
gathering and assessment of evidence."(34) Amnesty International is

concerned that the presumption of innocence may have been

prejudiced by statements made by the Prime Minister, Minister of
Information and state media commentators accusing the CUD of
fomenting violence and ethnic hatred, committing treason and planning
a Rwanda-type genocide. 5.2 Legal defence rights and "equality of
arms"(35) In Ethiopia, defence counsel cannot communicate with their
clients in full confidentiality: police or security officers are normally
required to be present during the meeting,(36) exchanging
communications and documents with their clients is prohibited, and
consultations must be in Amharic, even if this is not the clients mothertongue. Such practices are in violation of the right to have adequate
time and facility to prepare a defence.(37) Principle 8 of the Basic
Principles on the Role of Lawyers clearly states that: "All arrested,
detained or imprisoned persons shall be provided with adequate
opportunities, time and facilities to be visited by and to communicate
and consult with a lawyer, without delay, interception or censorship and
in full confidentiality. Such consultations may be within sight, but not
within the hearing, of law enforcement officials." All defendants should
also be guaranteed the right to examine, or have examined, witnesses
brought by the prosecutor against them. In this regard, the African
Commission on Human and Peoples Rights has stated that "the
prosecution shall provide the defence with the names of the witnesses
it intends to call at trial within a reasonable time prior to trial which
allows the defendant sufficient time to prepare his or her defence."(38)
Although there are exceptions to this standard, including in order to
ensure the protection of witnesses, such exceptions should not infringe
the right of the defence to equality of arms. 5.3 Prohibition of evidence
obtained under torture or ill-treatment Evidence obtained as a result of
torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must not be
used in any proceedings except those brought against alleged
perpetrators.(39) Allegations of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment must be promptly and impartially examined by the
competent authorities, including judges. Officials suspected of having
committed acts of torture or ill-treatment should be brought to justice
in proceedings that guarantee international standards of fair trial. 5.4
Independence and impartiality of the judiciary Amnesty International
has received reports that many judges have been dismissed in recent
years, some allegedly on account of delivering judgments against the
government (as Birtukan Mideksa, for example, alleges in regard to her
own dismissal as a judge on account of delivering a judgment
unfavourable to the government), and others allegedly promoted on
account of delivering judgments favourable to the government. Amnesty
International has considered several political trials in recent years to

have been unfair, in particular the following: the previous trial of Taye
Woldesemayat (an absent defendant in the current trial);(40) the trials
of the late Professor Asrat Woldeyes, a medical professor, surgeon and
leader of the All-Amhara Peoples Organization (AAPO), in 1994- 5;(41)
the trial of seven leaders of the Human Rights League, an independent
Oromo organization, who were imprisoned as prisoners of conscience
from 1997 to 2001, when they were finally acquitted of charges of
armed conspiracy and supporting the OLF;(42) the ongoing Mecha
Tulema Association case (page 14); a separate pending trial of Professor
Mesfin Woldemariam and Berhanu Negga, who were arrested after the
Addis Ababa university student demonstrations in 2001 and detained for
two weeks for investigation into alleged incitement of violence, which
they denied. The case has been continually adjourned, though no date
has been set for trial; As many as 200 or more summary trials of
journalists since 1992 under the Press Law, where many defendants
were convicted and imprisoned without legal representation. If this
treason trial is not conducted fully in accordance with the relevant
international standards of fairness, the consequences for human rights
progress in Ethiopia could be very serious. 6. Amnesty Internationals
recommendations Amnesty International, on the basis of the
information it has received and reviewed about the circumstances
leading to the trial, and its assessment of the preliminary proceedings
prior to the opening of the prosecution case, makes the following
recommendations: 6.1 To the Ethiopian Government To release
immediately and unconditionally, with charges withdrawn, the political
opposition leaders, human rights defenders and journalists, who are
prisoners of conscience and have not used or advocated violence; To
ensure that all elements of fair trial are afforded to the defendants,
including the right to be tried by a competent and independent court;
to guarantee the presumption of innocence, including by ensuring that
the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and to ensure the
"equality of arms" between prosecution and defendants, including by
ensuring adequate time and facility for those having legal counsel to
prepare a full defence and effective examination of witnesses; To
exclude the application of the death penalty, which is a violation of the
right to life and a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment; To
establish independent and impartial investigations into any allegations
of torture or ill-treatment made by defendants, and to ensure that
evidence obtained as a result of torture or ill-treatment is not admitted
in the proceedings, and that officials suspected of having committed
acts of torture or ill-treatment are brought to justice; To ensure that
defendants are treated humanely in custody in accordance with
international and regional standards for the treatment of prisoners,

such as the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,

with particular regard to medical treatment, family visits and
communications, reading materials and writing materials for
communications with families and legal representatives; To recognize
and implement the right to freedom of opinion and association for
political parties and civil society groups, including freedom of the
media, as set out in the Ethiopian Constitution and international and
regional human rights treaties to which Ethiopia is party, particularly
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African
Charter on Human and Peoples Rights; To respect and protect the
legitimate role of human rights defenders and civil society activists, in
conformity with the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. 6.2 To
the international community To continue to press the Government of
Ethiopia to observe international standards on freedom of expression
and association, and to release immediately and unconditionally all the
prisoners of conscience on trial, including the human rights defenders;
To press for fair trial for the defendants in accordance with
international and regional standards; To oppose the use of the death
penalty and prevent any executions; To press the Government of
Ethiopia to ensure defendants are treated humanely in prison, and to
monitor their treatment; To press the Government of Ethiopia to fulfil
its obligations to implement the rights to freedom of expression and
opinion, including freedom of the media, and to protect the rights of
human rights defenders; To guarantee the protection of the rights of
Ethiopian refugees, and in particular to grant international protection
or asylum to opposition party activists and suspected activists at
national or local levels, as well as civil society activists and journalists
known to be critics of the government: importantly, such persons should
not be refouled or forcibly returned to Ethiopia where they may face
persecution, arbitrary arrest or detention, unfair trial, torture or other
ill-treatment. Table 1: The Charges Charges (Numbered according to the
court charge-sheet) Article of Criminal Code (2005) Penalty 1. Outrage
against the constitution 238 (1), (2) 3-25 years imprisonment, or "when
the crime has entailed serious crises against public security or life" life
imprisonment or death 2. Obstruction of the exercise of constitutional
powers 239 Up to 15 years imprisonment 3. Inciting, organizing or
leading armed rebellion 240 (2), 258* Life imprisonment or death 4.
Endangering the integrity of the state 241 10- 25 years or "in cases of
exceptional gravity" life imprisonment or death 5. Impairing the
defensive power of the state 247 (a), (c), 258* 5-25 years or "in cases of
exceptional gravity" life imprisonment or death 6. High treason 248 (b),
258* 5-25 years imprisonment or "in cases of exceptional gravity" life
imprisonment or death 7. Genocide 269 (a) 5-25 years imprisonment or

"in more serious cases" life imprisonment or death * In case of

aggravation in a crime where the law provides for life imprisonment or
death, the court shall pass sentence of death. Table 2: Groups of
defendants and charges against them Defendants Charges (See Table 1
for description) Numbered according to the court charge-sheet 1 2 3 4*
5 6 7** 1-39 CUD leaders x x x x x x x 40-69 Exiles x 70-90 Journalists x x
x x 91-95 Civil society activists x 96-120 Other CUD officials x x x x 121127 Other CUD members x x x x 128-131 CUD parties x x x x x x x * This
charge was withdrawn by the prosecution in March 2006. ** The
prosecutor requested the court in March 2006 to amend this to
attempt to commit genocide but the court reportedly made no ruling
at the time. (1) Amnesty International news release 22 February 2006,
AI Index: AFR 25/005/2006. (2) The Ethiopian NGOs were at first
prevented from observing the elections until allowed by a Supreme
Court appeal decision a few days before the poll. (3) Ethiopia: The 15
May 2005 elections and human rights recommendations to the
government, election observers and political parties, April 2005, AI
Index: AFR 25/002/2005. (4) BBC World News, 16 May 2005. (5) Tesfaye
Adane Jara, an elected ONC member of parliament, was killed in Arsi
Negele district, allegedly by six police officers, who were later arrested
and charged with his murder. They have not yet been brought to trial.
(6) Amnesty International Urgent Action 25/06, 3 February 2006, AI
Index: AFR 25/003/2006. (7) "PM warns voters of Rwanda-style
bloodshed", Reuters, 6 May 2005. (8) Reuters news agency, 25 April
2006. (9) In particular, the Basic Principles for the Use of Force and
Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, and the Principles on the
Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and
Summary Executions. (10) The new Criminal Code (2005) added the
possible penalty of imprisonment for up to six months, alternative to a
fine, for contempt of court not committed in open court (article 449).
(11) Dr Taye Woldesemayat is a former Addis Ababa University professor
of political science, who was dismissed along with others in 1993 in a
purge of government critics. He was imprisoned from 1996 to 2002 as a
prisoner of conscience. He was convicted in an unfair trial for armed
conspiracy, reportedly on the basis of false evidence given by a codefendant as a result of torture. He was sentenced to 15 years
imprisonment, reduced on appeal to the six years already served. (12)
Eskinder Negga was charged as a CUD official rather than as a journalist
but he was a known media critic of the government and had been
arrested before. (13) Two former journalists - Hailu Araya (former Press
Digest editor) and Sileshi Andarge (former Andinet editor) - were
charged as CUD officials (14) See for example, Ethiopia: Journalists in
prison press freedom under attack, Amnesty International, April 1998,

AI Index: AFR 25/10/98; Amnesty Internationals Annual Reports; and

reports by the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International
Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX), Reporters with Borders, Article
19, International Press Institute. (15) See Article 19 criticisms of the
draft Press Law at www.article19.org. (16) Proclamation no.414/2004,
coming into effect on 9 May 2005 (17) See the report of the CPJ visit at
www.cpj.org, 14 March 2006. (18) Amnesty International Urgent Action
appeal 72/06, 30 March 2006, AI Index: AFR 25/007/2006. (19) IRIN UN
news agency, 30 August 2005. (20)
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/h
uman_rights/eu_election_ass_observ/ethiopia/index. htm (21)
http://ethiopia.usembassy.gov/adg042406.html (22) BBC World News,
27 April 2006. (23) They were arrested in Addis Ababa in May 2004 for
alleged armed conspiracy and links with the OLF, in connection with a
grenade explosion at Addis Ababa University. They denied the charges
and were released on bail in November 2004 but re-detained in
February 2005. In June 2005 with 24 other defendants, including two
Oromo journalists working for the state television service, Dabassa
Wakjira and Shifferaw Insarmu and several university students, they
were all acquitted by the High Court but immediately re-arrested on
virtually the same charges when the prosecution brought the case to a
different bench of the High Court. They remain in detention, with their
re-trial continually delayed. (24) Amnesty International Urgent Action
appeal 22/06, 30 January 2006, AI Index: AFR 25/002/2006. (25)
Targeting the Anuak human rights violations and crimes against
humanity, Human Rights Watch, March 2005. (26) Amnesty International
Urgent Action appeal, 74/06, 31 March 2006, AI Index: AFR
25/008/2006. (27) Few foreign journalists are allowed visas to Ethiopia
an Associated Press correspondent was expelled in January 2006 on
account of writing articles critical of the government. (28) Berhanu
Negga, PhD, is assistant professor of economics at Addis Ababa
University, AAU, and head of an the Ethiopian Economics Research
Institute and an economics NGO); Gizachew Shifferaw is a lecturer in
engineering at AAU); Hailu Araya, PhD, is a former lecturer in foreign
languages at AAU, Mesfin Woldemariam, is a retired geography professor
of AAU, and honorary PhD from Clark University, USA; and Yakob
Hailemariam, PhD, is professor of economics at AAU and former
professor of economics at Norfolk University, New Jersey, USA. (29) The
Inter-Parliamentary Unions committee on the human rights of
parliamentarians has taken up their cases and questioned the earlier
removal of their parliamentary immunity. (30) The trials of the former
Dergue government and other officials (see page 15) are the only
previous instances under the current government of the use of the

charge of genocide. (31) Amnesty International news release 22

February 2006, AI Index: AFR 25/005/2006. (32) Human Rights
Committee, General Comment No 6, paragraph 7. (33) See Human
Rights Committee, General Comment No 13, paragraph 7. (34) See UN
Doc. A/51/457, paragraph 111. (35) One essential criterion of a fair
hearing is the principle of "equality of arms" between the parties in a
case. This means that both parties are treated in a manner ensuring
that they have a procedurally equal position during the full course of
the trial, under conditions that do not place one party at a substantial
disadvantage. (36) There has also been a recent report of a seemingly
private consultation being secretly recorded by the security authorities.
(37) See Article 14 (3)(b) of the ICCPR. (38) See Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa,
N.6.f.1. (39) See Article 15 of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and also the
Human Rights Committee general comment No 20, Paragraph 12, and
the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights Principles and
Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa,
N.6.g. (40) See footnote on page 6. The judges failed to investigate codefendants allegations (backed by display of visible torture injuries
such as rib and skull fractures and open wounds) that they had been
subjected to prolonged periods of torture by means of electric shocks,
severe beatings while hung upside down, mock shooting and tying of
limbs. (41) See Amnesty International annual reports, 1994-6 (42) See
Amnesty International annual report, 2002 ******** AI Index: AFR
25/013/2006 2 May 2006 Colombia: Time to stop the killing and
persecution of trade unionists and activists 01/05/2006 Four decades of
armed conflict in Colombia have had a catastrophic effect on the
country's civilians. Caught between the security forces who have
consistently colluded with and supported paramilitary groups and, on
the other side, armed opposition groups, tens of thousands of people
have been killed, "disappeared", tortured or kidnapped, while millions
of others have been forcibly displaced. On International Workers Day,
Amnesty International is remembering the plight of Colombian trade
unionists who have borne the brunt of the armed conflict by highlighting
the case of trade unionists in the department of Arauca, an oil-rich area
in the north east of the country. AI calls on the international trade union
movement to continue to show solidarity with their colleagues in
Colombia and to insist that their own governments put pressure on the
Colombian authorities to take measures to stop the killings and the
persecution of trade unionists and activists. Read the full feature on
amnesty.org - http://web.amnesty.org/pages/col-010506-feature- eng
Colombia: Internally displaced people face elections with few options

Related documents Colombia: Open Letter to the Presidential

Candidates 27/04/2006 Press release, 27/04/2006 In a letter made
public today, Amnesty International urged Colombia's presidential
candidates to make public their plans of action to tackle the countrys
human rights crisis, particularly the impact of the recent demobilization
of army-backed paramilitaries on the country's internally displaced
population. More than 3 million people have been forced to leave their
homes by paramilitaries, the guerrillas, and the security forces since
1985. Tens of thousands of others have been killed, disappeared,
tortured or kidnapped. A number of government initiatives, including
Decree 4760 and the rural reinsertion programme, now threaten to
ensure that demobilized paramilitaries could maintain control over the
millions of hectares of land they have stolen. Demobilized
paramilitaries could become eligible for grants to develop agricultural
projects in the very same lands they took by force, often through
human rights violations and with the support of the security forces.
These projects would bring together peasant farmers, displaced peoples
and demobilized paramilitaries. Supposedly demobilized paramilitaries
would count for half the people involved in each project. A number of
paramilitary groups have already announced their intention to promote
economic development projects for their members and the local
community in areas they already control. In practice, hundreds of
thousands of people in Colombia could be faced with a lethal dilemma:
either continue to be homeless or move back to their land and live with
the very same people who tortured, raped and killed their loved ones
and forced them to move out in the first place, said Marcelo Pollack,
Amnesty International's Colombia Researcher. Amnesty International has
called on the international community not to legitimize paramilitary
control over such lands by funding agricultural projects of this kind. In
the letter, Amnesty International also urges the presidential candidates
to use their campaigning platforms to publicly express support for the
introduction of a human-rights based legal framework for the
demobilization of illegal armed groups. Any legal framework should be
in line with UN recommendations and ensure the return of land stolen
by paramilitaries to their rightful owners or their descendants. If they
are serious about leading the country, all the presidential candidates
must develop credible proposals to tackle Colombia's human rights
crisis. Failure to do so would put them at risk of being part of the
problem," said Javier Zuiga, Amnesty International's Americas
Programme Director. Amnesty International also calls on the candidates
to publicly commit to: Acknowledging the human rights crisis and the
internal armed conflict affecting millions in the country; complying
with international human rights recommendations, including to end

impunity; ensuring full respect of human rights and international

humanitarian law by the security forces; signing a humanitarian
agreement with the guerrilla groups to shield the civilian population
from the conflict; defending the rights of human rights defenders and
social activists to carry out their work; and protecting those civilians
most at risk including women and indigenous peoples. Background
Information Presidential elections in Colombia are due to take place on
28 May. Decree 4760 was promulgated on 31 December 2005 to regulate
implementation of the Justice and Peace Law, which was approved in
2005 to facilitate the demobilization of paramilitary and guerrilla
groups. LIBRARY AMERICAS SOUTH AMERICA COLOMBIA AI Index: AMR
23/013/2006 27 April 2006 Colombia Open letter to the Presidential
candidates Dear Presidential Candidate, With a month to go before the
presidential elections, scheduled for 28 May, Amnesty International (AI)
would like to take this opportunity to underline the organizations
sincere hope that the key issue of human rights in Colombia will be
placed at the forefront of the election agenda and emerge as a top
priority for all the presidential candidates. AI has over the last three
decades closely monitored the human rights crisis in Colombia. The
organization has issued many actions and published reports based on in
situ research. In these reports, AI has made public the many violations
of human rights and grave breaches of international humanitarian law
(IHL) that have implicated members of the security forces,
paramilitaries which continue to operate in collaboration or with the
acquiescence of the security forces and the guerrilla groups. In the
long-standing dialogue that AI has maintained with successive
Colombian governments over the last 30 years, it has emphasized the
international responsibility of the Colombian state to fulfil its national
and international obligations with regards to the respect and protection
of human rights. AI has also consistently called on guerrilla groups to
fully respect IHL. This letter outlines AIs key human rights concerns and
recommendations, which AI believes would significantly contribute to
resolving the countrys long-standing and bloody armed conflict, which
has caused the death or "disappearance" of more than 70,000 people,
the vast majority civilians killed out of combat, and the displacement of
more than 3 million over the last 20 years. AI is calling on all the
presidential candidates to incorporate these recommendations into
their election manifestos and make a public commitment to comply
with them should they emerge as the winner of the presidential
election. Acknowledge the human rights crisis and the internal armed
conflict All the parties to the conflict continue to show grave disregard
for human rights and IHL and have been responsible for war crimes,
crimes against humanity and other crimes under international law,

including killings, "disappearances", torture, and kidnapping. It is the

civilian population that has inevitably borne the brunt of this still
critical human rights crisis, since it is they who precisely continue to be
targeted by all armed sectors to prevent their possible, perceived or
imaginary support for the opposing side. The International Committee
of the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly stated that its main concern in
Colombia has been the failure of the parties to the armed conflict to
respect the principle of distinction between people who participate in
the conflict and those who do not participate.(1) Although some
indicators of conflict-related violence appear to have fallen, notably
the number of kidnappings and killings, these figures mask a human
rights reality which AI continues to categorize as critical. In particular,
AI has expressed serious concerns about the increases in numbers of
new internally-displaced persons, reports of extra-judicial executions
carried out by the security forces, and by paramilitaries despite their
supposed demobilization, as well as about the still high number of
"disappearances". The increasing ferocity of guerrilla attacks against
civilian communities, including deliberate killings and kidnappings, and
their systematic use of economic blockades and "armed strikes", of
which civilians are the main victims, is also a cause for serious concern.
Although AI acknowledges there may have been a fall in killings in some
of the larger cities, the situation in the regions, and particularly in the
countryside, continues to deteriorate. Few of the human rights
violations and abuses committed in rural areas are ever reported to the
authorities, either out of fear of reprisals by one or another armed
actor, or because of a lack of confidence in the relevant institutions.
Recommendations to the Presidential candidates: Publicly
acknowledge that Colombia is experiencing a human rights crisis.
Failure to do so is to make invisible the plight of the millions of victims
caused by the conflict. Publicly acknowledge the states responsibility
to resolve the human rights crisis. Successive governments have sought
to avoid responsibility for tackling this crisis by pointing to abuses
committed by the guerrilla as a justification for repeated inaction. But
precisely because of its duties and obligations under domestic and
international law, and its monopolistic role in upholding the law,
maintaining order and dispensing justice, the state must assume
responsibility for resolving this human tragedy. Publicly acknowledge
the existence of an internal armed conflict.(2) To do otherwise could
undermine the application of IHL, and give ammunition to the guerrilla
in their efforts to escape censure for their widespread and systematic
attacks against civilians. Publicly support withdrawing the declaration
made under Article 124 of the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court (ICC), which allows Colombia to reject the jurisdiction of

the ICC to investigate war crimes for a period of seven years. Comply
with international human rights recommendations Over the last two
decades, bodies such as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (IACHR) of the Organization of American States (OAS) have issued
periodic reports on the general human rights situation in Colombia.(3)
The Special Procedures of the UN Commission on Human Rights and the
IACHR, covering a number of issues such as freedom of expression and
"disappearances", have also visited Colombia at the invitation of
successive Colombian governments. These bodies have also issued
numerous reports and recommendations, directed both at the
Colombian state and the guerrilla groups.(4) These recommendations
provide an effective and practical framework for resolving the human
rights crisis.(5) The recommendations include calls for action to be
taken to end the endemic problem of impunity; to break the links
between paramilitaries and public officials, including members of the
security forces, and take effective action to combat and dismantle
paramilitary groups; and to guarantee the effective protection of those
civilians most at risk, such as indigenous, afro-descendant, and peasant
communities, internally-displaced persons, women and children, and
those at the forefront of the struggle for human rights, such as trade
unionists, human rights defenders and community activists. The UN
recommendations also call on the guerrilla to take decisive action to
uphold IHL, and on the government and guerrilla groups to reach an
humanitarian agreement to shield civilians from the conflict. If the
human rights crisis in Colombia remains chronic, responsibility lies both
with successive governments, which have failed to fully implement UN
recommendations, and with guerrilla forces, which have failed to
commit to upholding IHL. Although recent Colombian governments have
made some modest progress in complying with several of these
recommendations, their record to date in complying fully with them has
been seriously deficient. AI is concerned about the current
governments apparent lack of political will to support fully the
implementation of these recommendations. Its repeated failure to
comply with the recommendations on preparing a National Human
Rights Action Plan and a timetable for complying with UN human rights
recommendations are highly tangible examples of the governments
inaction on key human rights-related issues. In its efforts to ensure that
the government complies with the UN recommendations, the
international community has given its repeated political and financial
backing to the Office in Colombia of the UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, which has had a presence in Colombia since 1996. The
Office has a mandate to monitor respect for human rights and IHL, and

to provide advice and technical assistance to the government. The

Office has been effective in ensuring that the lives of many civilians
have been saved after its intervention. AI has therefore expressed
concern about apparent efforts by the Colombian government to seek to
weaken this mandate when it comes up for renewal later this year.
Recommendations to the Presidential candidates: Publicly commit to
full and prompt implementation of the human rights recommendations
by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and other UN bodies, as
well as by the IACHR. Publicly express support for the renewal of the
integral mandate of the Office in Colombia of the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights. The mandate should be renewed for a
reasonable length of time of at least four years. Any narrowing of the
Offices mandate would seriously impede its ability to carry out its work
effectively and would risk a further deterioration of the human rights
crisis. Reform the legal framework for the demobilization of illegal
armed groups More than 25,000 paramilitaries have supposedly
demobilized under a process which has been criticized by AI and other
Colombian and international human rights groups, as well as by the
OHCHR and the IACHR. AI would welcome a demobilization process
which would lead to the effective dismantling of paramilitarism and end
the links between the security forces and paramilitaries. But the
current demobilization process is unlikely to guarantee the effective
dismantling of such structures. In fact, it is facilitating the reemergence of paramilitarism and undermining the right of victims to
truth, justice and reparation. Most paramilitaries who have demobilized
have benefited from Decree 128 of 2003 under which members of illegal
armed groups who are not under investigation for human rights offences
receive de facto amnesties. It is precisely because of the endemic
problem of impunity in Colombia that most paramilitaries and
guerrillas, many of whom are responsible for war crimes, crimes against
humanity and other crimes under international law, have never been
investigated, let alone been brought to justice for these offences. As
such, almost all members of paramilitary groups have already benefited
from Decree 128. A few hundred paramilitaries at most, mainly highand middle-ranking leaders, are under investigation for human rights
violations. Although these cannot benefit from Decree 128 they are
likely to receive significant procedural benefits under the Justice and
Peace Law,(6) which was approved in 2005 ostensibly to facilitate the
demobilization of paramilitary groups. In common with the OHCHR and
the IACHR, AI has repeatedly criticized both Decree 128 and the Justice
and Peace Law for its failure to meet international standards on
the right of victims to truth, justice and reparation, and because
it will guarantee the impunity of paramilitaries and guerrillas

responsible for human rights violations and abuses, and of third

parties who have supported and backed paramilitarism,
including members of the security forces and those who have
provided other logistical, political and financial support to them.
(7) But the evidence suggests that many paramilitary structures
remain virtually intact and that paramilitaries continue to kill. AI
continues to document human rights violations committed by
paramilitary groups, sometimes operating under new names,
and often in collusion with the security forces. In Meta
Department, for example, despite the supposed demobilization
of the Bloque Centauros in September 2005, AI continues to
receive credible information of killings and "disappearances"
by paramilitaries operating under a new name in collusion with
the security forces in the same areas in which the Bloque
Centauros operated. According to local residents these
structures continue to be led by the same military commanders.
In the country as a whole, more than 2,750 killings and
"disappearances" have been reliably attributed to
paramilitaries since they announced a ceasefire at the end of
2002. The government has failed to ensure that demobilized
paramilitaries are reintegrated fully into civilian life and is,
instead, promoting policies which could "recycle" combatants
into the conflict. Many demobilized combatants are being
encouraged to join "civilian informer networks", which are
designed to provide military intelligence to the security forces,
and to become "civic guards", who will provide security in, for
example, public parks and highways. The weak legal framework
under which the paramilit
es have demobilized means there are no guarantees that human
rights violators are not being integrated into such security
structures, including private security firms, where they could be
armed and so be in a position to exert power and commit further
abuses in those areas in which they operate. The millions of
survivors of the conflict have become the true victims of the
governments paramilitary demobilization strategy. Not only is
there little provision for their participation in any judicial
processes that may arise out of the Justice and Peace Law, but
their right to integral reparation in particular for the land
stolen from them by paramilitaries has been woefully ignored.
The paramilitaries are thought to possess several million
hectares of land, much of it obtained by force. Existing
legislation threatens to enable demobilized paramilitaries to

maintain control of and legalize these assets. Under Decree

4760, promulgated on 31 December 2005 to regulate
implementation of the Justice and Peace Law, such illegallyobtained assets can be classified as reparation if they are deemed
to be of economic benefit to the local community and
demobilized paramilitaries. Moreover, demobilized paramilitaries
who declare such lands to be of economic benefit to the local
community and others, including their own supposedly
demobilized combatants, could become eligible for grants to
develop agricultural projects on these lands under the
governments "rural reinsertion" programme, announced in
April 2005. The "rural reinsertion" programme envisages
government financing for agro-industrial projects which bring
together peasant farmers, displaced peoples and demobilized
paramilitaries. The latter will account for half those working in
each project. In fact, a number of paramilitary groups have
already announced their intention to promote economic
development projects for their members, and the local
community, in areas they control. These agricultural projects
could therefore see peasant and displaced communities working
alongside the very people who forced them off their lands with
threats, or killed or "disappeared" their relatives. In a context
in which paramilitaries are not being effectively demobilized, nor
those responsible for human rights violations being brought to
justice, it will prove difficult to guarantee that paramilitaries
involved in these projects will not control these projects using
violence or the threat of violence against those who oppose
their interests. These projects might also be developed in
collective land granted to Afro-descendant and indigenous
communities. Such projects could undermine the independence
of the Community Councils (Consejos Comunitarios), which
determine how the lands are exploited, and force these councils
to adopt policies contrary to the interests of the community. Any
opposition could also be met with violence or the threat of
violence. A bill presented to Congress in March 2005 also
threatens to consolidate land assets obtained by paramilitaries
through force.(8) The bill, if approved, will give individuals a
limited period of time in which to legalize their ownership of
land. It may prove difficult to inform forcibly displaced persons
of proceedings to secure tenure of their lands in time to
challenge these claims given that many of them invariably live
far from their place of origin. According to the bill, anyone
challenging a claim must also be present in the proceedings. But

this is not a practical proposition for those forced to flee their

lands for fear of attack. Although the provisions of the bill
suggest that lands in areas of forced displacement would not be
recognized, most lands belonging to displaced people have not
been registered as such. Recommendations to the Presidential
candidates: Publicly express support for introducing a legal
framework for the demobilization of illegal armed groups which
respects international standards on the right of victims to truth,
justice and reparation, including the return of lands obtained
through force by paramilitaries to their rightful owners or their
descendants. Publicly agree to adopt measures to ensure that
demobilized combatants are not "recycled" into the conflict and are
instead reintegrated fully into civilian life. The use of demobilized
combatants in security-related operations risks repeating the conditions
which originally led to the development of paramilitarism. Publicly
commit not to approve any legislation which could legalize tenure over
land and other assets expropriated through human rights abuses. Ensure
full respect of human rights and IHL by the security forces The security
forces have a special duty to ensure that their actions conform to
international human rights and humanitarian law. But AI, the OHCHR
and the IACHR continue to document cases of widespread and
systematic security force involvement in human rights violations,
including extra-judicial executions, "disappearances", torture
including sexual violence against women and the arbitrary detention
of civilians. Some reports suggest that at least 100 civilians were
executed by the army in 2005. These victims were often falsely
described as "guerrillas killed in combat". Moreover, the evidence that
sectors of the security forces continue to collude with paramilitaries
remains compelling. The issue of impunity is a pivotal one for AI and
should be tackled head-on by the new Colombian government. Impunity,
whether for members of the security forces, the paramilitaries or the
guerrilla, lies at heart of Colombias human rights crisis. Although very
few of those alleged to be responsible for crimes against humanity, war
crimes and other crimes under international law have ever been brought
to justice, the level of impunity enjoyed by high-ranking members of
the security forces implicated in human rights violations has been
particularly scandalous given their duty to respect the rule of law. The
scandal of impunity will never be resolved unless there is a commitment
to ensure that human rights cases implicating members of the security
forces are investigated solely by the civilian justice system, as
stipulated by a 1997 Constitutional Court ruling,(9) rather than by the
military justice system, which continues to claim jurisdiction in many
cases. These courts routinely failed to bring to justice those responsible

for human rights violations. Although the civilian justice system has
initiated some investigations in which military personnel are implicated
in human rights violations, these investigations have been hampered by
many factors, including threats against judicial investigators and
witnesses. Recommendations to the Presidential candidates: Publicly
express concern at the violations of human rights and breaches of IHL
committed by the security forces, including the increasing number of
reports of extra-judicial executions, and adopt measures to prevent and
investigate such violations. Publicly agree to ensure full and impartial
investigations into violations of human rights and IHL, and to insist that
public officials, including members of the security forces, responsible
for supporting paramilitarism are investigated and brought to justice. In
addition, publicly agree that members of the security forces implicated
by judicial or disciplinary investigations in such cases or in collusion
with paramilitarism should be suspended from duty until such time that
their responsibility or innocence has been determined. Publicly agree
to adopt measures to ensure that the military justice system does not
claim jurisdiction in human rights cases involving members of the
security forces, and to ensure that the Office of the Attorney General
instructs its judicial investigators (fiscales) to act in accordance with
international principles which stipulate that members of the security
forces implicated in human rights violations should at all times be
investigated by the civilian justice system. Commit to signing a
humanitarian agreement with the guerrilla groups The guerrilla groups
have an equal responsibility to ensure that their combatants fully
respect the rules of war, as stipulated in international instruments such
as the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non- International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II), including the right of civilians not to be involved
in the hostilities. By failing to abide by such commitments the guerrilla
groups are also to blame for ensuring that the human rights crisis in
Colombia continues to cost the lives of thousands of Colombians and to
reduce millions of others to abject misery. AI has repeatedly expressed
its condemnation of guerrilla abuses such as kidnapping, torture,
including violence against women, forced recruitment of minors, and
the deliberate and arbitrary killing of civilians. In Colombia as a whole,
at least 140 civilians were killed and more than 270 kidnapped by the
guerrilla groups in the first half of 2005. Recommendations to the
Presidential candidates: Publicly commit to reaching a humanitarian
agreement with the guerrilla. AI, the international community, including
the European Union and the UN (notably the OHCHR and the
Commission on Human Rights), have called on the two sides to reach an
agreement to protect civilians from the conflict. Any humanitarian

agreement must include the release of all hostages held by the guerrilla
groups and a rejection of amnesties for those implicated in serious
human rights abuses. In view of the current peace negotiations with
the National Liberation Army (Ejrcito de Liberacin Nacional, ELN)
guerrilla group, and in any future peace talks with the Revolutionary
Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de
Colombia, FARC) guerrillas, publicly commit to ensure that the
government places respect for human rights and IHL at the top of its
negotiation agenda. Defend the rights of human rights defenders and
social activists The security forces have over time adopted a counterinsurgency strategy which has primarily focused on undermining what
they perceive to be the civilian populations support for the guerrilla.
This counter-insurgency strategy frequently views civilians in conflict
areas not as victims of guerrilla groups but as part of the enemy. This
has led to the systematic abuse and stigmatization of groups deemed to
be "sympathetic" to the guerrilla, such as human rights defenders,
peasant farmer leaders, trade unionists and other social activists.
Human rights defenders, trade unionists and community activists are at
the forefront of the struggle for political, social and economic rights in
Colombia. Many are active in denouncing violations of human rights and
breaches of IHL by all parties to the conflict. As such, these
organizations have become a target of those in Colombia who wish to
silence their denunciations. This raises concerns that sectors of the
security forces and other state, government and judicial officials are
seeking to tarnish and undermine them and their organizations through
arbitrary detentions and criminal proceedings, thereby paving the way
to the risk of violent paramilitary attack. Guerrilla forces have also
targeted social activists and human rights defenders who have criticized
guerrilla actions or pursued socio-economic alternatives that do not
conform to guerrilla ideology. More than 70 trade unionists, seven
human rights defenders, and 17 community activists were killed in 2005.
Efforts by the Ministry of the Interior to administer several programmes
established for the purpose of protecting human rights defenders and
trade unionists have been positive, but these have suffered from
financial, operational, administrative and bureaucratic problems.
Regardless, while these programmes have saved the lives of social
activists, they will continue to prove relatively ineffective unless
concrete and effective political measures are adopted to support the
legitimate work of those defending human rights in the country, and to
put an end to the impunity which ensures that the perpetrators of
human rights violations and abuses are rarely identified and even more
rarely held accountable. AI thus continues to view with concern the
persistence of public statements by high-ranking government, state and

military officials equating the work of human rights activists with

"subversion" which have only served to place them under greater
risk of attack as well as the continued use of military intelligence files
and often paid informants as the sole basis for instigating legal
proceedings against human rights defenders and other activists. In
September 2003, criminal charges were filed against five members of
the Colombian non- governmental organization Comisin Intereclesial de
Justicia y Paz, Inter-ecclesiastical Justice and Peace Commission. The
Office of the Attorney General initiated judicial investigations into
allegations of corruption, drug-smuggling, homicide and formation of
illegal armed groups. These proceedings stem from a Constitutional
Court decision to allow the organization to participate in judicial
proceedings into over 200 human rights violations committed by
paramilitaries operating in conjunction with the XVII Brigade of the
Colombian Army between 1997 and 1998. Although some of these
charges have since been dropped, other new charges have recently
been levelled against the organization. The UNs Special Representative
on human rights defenders, Hina Jilani, recently noted that "the
number of communications sent to [the] Government of Colombia
concerning cases of defenders in danger and difficulty remains
especially high. She notes that despite repeated expression of concerns
under her mandate, the situation of human rights defenders in Colombia
does not seem to have improved but rather deteriorated".(10) Also, a
request by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to visit
Colombia has so far not been satisfied.(11) Recommendations to the
Presidential candidates: Publicly express support for the work carried
out by human rights activists, and publicly commit to ending the
apparent campaign to undermine and discredit the legitimate work of
human rights defenders, trade unionists and other social activists.
Publicly commit to review the use of the legal system to undermine the
work of human rights defenders, trade unionists and community
activists. Publicly commit to investigate and sanction public officials
who undermine the work of human rights activists. In particular, greater
efforts should be made to ensure that public officials comply with
Presidential Directive 07, promulgated in 2001, which compels public
officials to abstain from questioning the legitimacy of the work of
human rights organizations, from formulating false accusations, or from
behaving in a way which might denigrate or encourage hostility towards
human rights defenders. Publicly commit to effectively revise the
military intelligence files held on many human rights defenders, trade
unionists and other activists. Despite repeated calls by the OHCHR for
such files to be revised, little progress has thus far been made.
Publicly commit to adopt effective measures to ensure that the judicial

authorities advance full and impartial criminal investigations into

human rights violations and abuses against human rights defenders,
trade unionists and community activists. Given continuing concerns
about the use of the legal system to undermine the legitimate work of
human rights defenders and social activists, publicly commit to satisfy a
request by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to visit
Colombia. Protect those civilians most at risk AI continues to be
concerned by the abject failure of both guerrilla forces and the security
forces to respect the right of civilians not to be drawn into the conflict.
AI continues to document cases of widespread and systematic targeting
of civilians by guerrilla combatants and the security forces acting with
or without paramilitary forces. Civilians in conflict zones and areas of
military or economic importance, especially peasant farmer, indigenous
and Afro- descendant communities, remain among the most vulnerable
civilian sectors in Colombia. Women also continue to be targeted by all
parties to the conflict, and AI continues to document many cases of
attacks, often involving sexual violence, against women. Forced
displacement continues to be one of the most visible expressions of the
deliberate targeting of civilians. Over 300,000 people were forcibly
displaced in 2005, a significant increase on the previous year. In its
Regional Strategic Presentation to the 35th Standing Committee, the
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees noted that an
increasing number of armed groups are fighting for control on the
outskirts of major cities, where most internally displaced live under
difficult security conditions. Outbursts of violence, particularly in
border areas, have had an impact on neighbouring countries where
there are reportedly more than half a million Colombians living in
refugee-like situations.(12) Civilian communities which have sought to
actively demand recognition of their right not to be drawn into the
conflict have been targeted by all parties to the conflict. These include
the Peace Community of San Jos de Apartad in the department of
Antioquia, and the Afro-descendant communities of Cacarica,
Jiguamiand and Curvarad in the department of Choc. In February
2005, eight members of the San Jos Peace Community were killed by
armed men who witnesses claimed were members of the Colombian
army. Other members of the community have subsequently been killed,
some of them allegedly by the security forces. Afro-descendant
communities living in "humanitarian zones" (zonas humanitarias) in
the Cacarica River Basin, including those of Jiguamiand and Curvarad,
continue to face threats of paramilitary incursions. The killing of a
community leader, Orlando Valencia, in October 2005 coincided with the
advance of several criminal proceedings against members of the
Community Council and of Justicia y Paz, which works closely with these

communities.(13) Those implicated in these criminal proceedings

include those at the forefront of work on denouncing human rights
violations against these communities and the illegal expropriation of
community lands by economic interests that are seeking to develop
African Palm plantations in the area, and which are allegedly working in
conjunction with paramilitary groups. The IACHR and Colombian state
officials have acknowledged the link between the threats against these
communities and the illegal development of African Palm. Criminal
investigations into human rights violations committed against members
of the Jiguamiand, Curvarad, Cacarica and San Jos communities
have made little progress. Recommendations to the Presidential
candidates: Publicly commit to ensuring that measures are adopted to
increase the effective protection of civilians, including internallydisplaced persons, in line with UN human rights recommendations and
the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. Publicly
acknowledge the particular obligation of the state to prevent the
displacement of indigenous peoples, peasant farmers and other groups
in conflict zones and areas of military or economic importance who
have a special dependency on or attachment to their lands. Publicly
acknowledge the right of civilians not to be drawn into the conflict, and
the legitimacy of the position adopted by communities, such as those of
San Jos de Apartad, Cacarica, Jiguamiand and Curvarad, to actively
assert these rights. Publicly agree to carry out an evaluation into the
criminal investigations opened against community leaders and nongovernmental organizations working with the Jiguamiand and
Curvarad communities, and ensure that full and impartial
investigations into human rights violations against these communities
are advanced. Publicly commit to carry out an evaluation of the status
of criminal investigations into human rights abuses against the San Jos
de Apartad Peace Community. This would be in line with repeated
requests made by the community since 2002 to evaluate the work of the
commission set up in 2000 to investigate the more than 150 killings and
"disappearances" carried out against members of the San Jos
community. As a presidential candidate, AI hopes that you will place
these human rights concerns at the centre of your campaign and, if
successful in the 28 May poll, will place them at the heart of your
administration. AI sincerely believes that by endorsing a human rights
strategy based on these preceding recommendations, and those
presented by UN and OAS human rights bodies, you will be taking an
important and much-needed step towards once and for all ending the
human rights crisis. AI will, of course, continue to press the
international community and international organizations to support
Colombias efforts towards achieving this objective. Yours, Susan Lee

Director, Americas Regional Programme ******** (1) See

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/audi
o_respect_ihl_040205!OpenDocument (2) The ICRC defines the
Colombian situation as one of internal armed conflict. (3) See, for
example, IACHR, Third Report of the Human Rights Situation in
Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102, Doc. 9, Rev.1, 26 February 1999, and
OHCHR, Informe de la Alta Comisionada de las Naciones Unidas para los
Derechos Humanos sobre la situacin de los derechos humanos en
Colombia, E/CN.4/2006/9, 20 January 2006. (4) See, for example,
IACHR, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression,
Impunity, Self-censorship, and Armed Internal Conflict: An Analysis of
the State of Freedom of Expression in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II,
Doc.51, 31 August 2005, and United Nations, Report of the Special
Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences,
Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy, submitted in accordance with Commission
resolution 2001/49, E/CN.4/2002/83/Add.3, 11 March 2002. (5) The
Colombian government has committed itself to implementing the UN
human rights recommendations on numerous occasions, including
through the London and Cartagena Declarations, signed in 2003 and
2005 respectively, and through repeated Statements of the Chairperson
at the annual sessions of the UN Commission on Human Rights, most
recently in 2005 (see UN document E/2005/23, pages 347-355). (6) Law
975 of 2005. (7) For a detailed examination of AIs concerns on this issue
see, The Paramilitaries in Medelln: Demobilization or Legalization, AI
Index: AMR 23/019/2005, 1 September 2005. (8) Proyecto de ley 319
Cmara, "por medio del cual se establece un proceso especial para el
saneamiento de la titulacin de la propiedad inmueble". (9)
Constitutional Court ruling C 358 of 5 August 1997. (10) See UN
document: E/CN.4/2006/95/Add.1, para.139. Hina Jilani also visited
Colombia in October 2001. Her report on that mission is available as UN
document E/CN.4/2002/106/Add.2, 28 March 2002. (11) "Despite the
fact that Colombia () [has] extended an open standard invitation to all
thematic procedures of the Commission on Human Rights, no response
has been received by the Working Group to its request to visit [this
country]." Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention,
E/CN.4/2006/7, 12 December 2005 (Paragraph 24) (12) UNHCR, Regional
Strategic Presentation Summary to 35th Standing Committee Meeting, 79 March 2006. (13) See previous section for analysis of Justicia y Paz. AI
Index: AMR 23/013/2006 27 April 2006 Trinidad and Tobago: police
killings go unpunished Related documents Trinidad & Tobago: End police
immunity for unlawful killings and deaths in custody 26/04/2006 Press
release, 26/04/2006 In a report published today, Amnesty International
argues that structural reforms within the police forces -- including the

implementation of a human rights- based Code of Conduct, a

transparent chain of command and criminal prosecutions in cases of
human rights abuses -- are key to regaining community support,
essential for preventing and combating crime. Amnesty Internationals
report looks at the issue of police killings and deaths in custody through
cases reported since 2003. The report highlights the authorities' failure
to conduct investigations and to bring those responsible to justice. The
crime rate in Trinidad and Tobago is one of the highest in the Caribbean.
Murders and kidnappings have been on the rise for the past few years.
As a response to increasing crime, there have been calls for tougher
police measures. Between 2003 and 2005, 35 people died after being
shot by the police or while in police custody. In March 2006, Constable
Dave Burnett became the first and only police officer convicted of
murdering a civilian while on duty. The lack of information available
regarding investigations into any of the other reported cases shows the
lack of the authorities' commitment in bringing those responsible to
account. A Code of Conduct, which includes what actions or omissions
are considered abuses, and which holds individual officers accountable
would not only prevent abuses from happening in the future but might
have prevented the killing of 35 people in the islands since 2003, said
Kerrie Howard, Amnesty International Americas Programme Deputy
Director. On 13 October 2004, 17-year-old Sherman Monsegue was shot
and killed by a police officer. Sherman was in the street with a friend
when police arrived and opened fire while the two ran off. Sherman
died in hospital. According to the police, Sherman opened fire first. This
was denied by a number of witnesses. A police investigation was opened
almost a year after Sherman's death. Police officers called as witnesses
have so far failed to appear. According to reports, the police officers
are still on active duty in the area. Attorneys representing the family
have not been given access to all relevant documentation, including
witness statements. The inquest was due to resume yesterday. In April
2004, 41-year-old Galene Bonadie, was killed by a police officer in
Morvant, a village in North-West Trinidad. Galene Bonadie was shot at
close range with a rifle after she intervened to stop the police beating a
man. The inquest into her death has been subject to delays and has
been adjourned since the beginning of 2005. "Galene's case perfectly
illustrates how Trinidad and Tobago's police forces respond to a rise in
crime: using lethal force without measuring the terrible consequences it
has on dozens of people and their families." "Coroners inquests must be
made mandatory in all investigations of police shootings and deaths in
custody. Inquests should also be timely and effective if there is to be
any justice for the victim's relatives," said Kerrie Howard. Recent
measures to tackle street crime and improve police performance have

done little to improve the situation. The Police Complaints Authority

(PCA), a civilian oversight body set up in 1993 to monitor the
investigation of complaints by the Police Complaints Division, received
12,919 complaints between 1999 and 2004. Complaints include battery,
harassment and criminal damage. Only 20% of cases were investigated.
Amnesty International hopes that the recently passed Police Complaints
Authority Act will enhance its ability to conduct independent
investigations and that its recommendations will be made binding.
"Policing is frequently a difficult and dangerous task requiring expert
training and skills. A human rights approach should be at the heart of
any reform process, as it represents the best means of ensuring that
police practices recognize the human dignity and the rights of every
person in Trinidad and Tobago, while providing them with effective
protection from crime." Background information In January 2006,
Amnesty International wrote to the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago
setting out its concerns about allegations of human rights violations
involving police officers and requesting information about some of the
cases included in the report. No response has been received so far.
LIBRARY AMERICAS CARIBBEAN TRINIDAD & TOBAGO AI Index: AMR
49/001/2006 26 April 2006 Trinidad and Tobago End police immunity for
unlawful killings and deaths in custody In 2000 Amnesty International
presented a summary of its concerns on human rights issues in Trinidad
and Tobago to the United Nations Human Rights Committee for the
consideration of Trinidad and Tobago's combined third and fourth
periodic reports submitted under article 40 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).(1) Among the concerns
highlighted by the organization was the use of excessive force by police
officers, including possible extrajudicial executions and deaths in police
custody, and the failure of the authorities to fully and impartially
investigate the allegations to clarify the circumstances and bring those
responsible to justice. Amnesty International has continued to monitor
reports of fatal shootings by police officers in disputed or suspicious
circumstances, ill- treatment and some deaths in custody.(2) The
organization notes with concern that there has been little significant
improvement in investigations to clarify the circumstances surrounding
these deaths and bring those responsible to justice. Amnesty
International recognizes the difficulties faced by police officers in the
course of their work to prevent and detect crime and to protect citizens
from increasing levels of crime being reported in Trinidad and Tobago.
The organization considers that a human rights approach to policing
that includes making clear what actions (or omissions) by police are
considered abuses, and which holds individual officers accountable for
those actions or omissions, should be a primary goal of any strategy to

identify and target the causes of violence as well as respond to its

incidence and consequences. The organization believes that this
approach, that should be at the heart of any reform process, represents
the best means of ensuring that police practices recognize the human
dignity and the rights of every person in Trinidad and Tobago, while
providing them with effective protection from crime. It is in this light
and in the context of the ongoing police reform process in Trinidad and
Tobago that Amnesty International is publishing its latest report. The
report looks at several cases of apparently unlawful killings and deaths
in police custody that have been reported since September 2003 and
the failure of the authorities to conduct full, prompt and impartial
investigations to clarify the circumstances and bring those responsible
to justice. It considers some of the key problems in investigations into
allegations of police abuse including serious shortcomings in the internal
and external police complaints mechanisms. These deficiencies,
coupled with lengthy delays in judicial inquiries into fatal shootings and
other serious human rights violations, have denied relatives of the
victims the right to an effective remedy and allowed a climate of
impunity to flourish. The report discusses the need for a human rights
approach to policing and includes a number of recommendations that
Amnesty International believes are essential components of any police
reform process and for ensuring the delivery of truth and justice. In
2004, 21 people were reported to have died after being shot by police
or while in police custody; in 2005 14 people were reportedly killed.
Police descriptions of these fatal shootings carried in media reports
often referred to armed confrontations between police officers and
criminals or gang-members or to police acting in self-defence after they
had been attacked. However, such claims were frequently disputed by
eye witnesses who said that the shootings were unprovoked. In several
cases, the police announced that they were launching an investigation
into the death but to Amnesty Internationals knowledge, information
about the course of internal investigations, or their findings in relation
to particular breaches of specific codes of procedure was not made
public. Amnesty International received reports about several
irregularities in the handling of some of these cases including
allegations that police officers suspected of involvement in fatal
shootings in disputed circumstances remained on active duty. At the
time of writing, for example, police officers suspected of involvement
in the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Sherman Monsegue in October 2004,
were said to be still on active duty in Carenage, where the teenager
was killed. (3) There have also been reports of police harassment of
witnesses. During the investigation conducted by the police into the
death in custody of Shaun McLeod in September 2003, a witness to the

arrest made a statement in which he reportedly stated he had seen

Shaun McLeod being beaten at the time of his arrest. The witness
reportedly refused to sign the statement when it was read back to him
as it failed to include a reference to the beating. The witness then
alleged that the police officer squeezed the veins at the back of his
neck and slapped him several times. When he continued to refuse to
sign the statement, the officer was reported to have said, "next thing
he faint away or dead too, and cause more trouble". The witness
subsequently submitted another statement to the investigating officers
via an attorney-in-law. Under human rights standards ratified by
Trinidad and Tobago, it is incumbent on the state to rigorously
investigate allegations of human rights violations including the
deprivation of life by unlawful lethal force. In addition to putting in
place mechanisms to prevent human rights violations from occurring,
the state is obliged to ensure that those that do occur are investigated
promptly, thoroughly, independently and impartially, that those
responsible are brought to justice and the victims and their relatives
offered redress. Increasing crime and government response Recent
years have witnessed a marked increase in levels of crime, particularly
violent crime linked to the growth in the drugs trade and the
proliferation of illegal weapons. Figures for the number of murders
committed between 2000 and 2005 show yearly totals increasing from
120 in 2000, 260 in 2004 to 389 in 2005 among a population of 1.3
million. In 2005, at least 235 people were kidnapped, more than 54 of
whom were reportedly held for ransom. Some believed that corrupt
police officers were behind some of these kidnappings and in August
2005, two members of the special reserve police were arrested for their
alleged involvement in the abduction of two sons of a prominent
businessman. The increase in crime has elicited calls for tougher
measures against offenders, including calls to resume executions.(4) In
October 2005, public fear about rising crime and the governments
apparent failure to bring the problem under control, led at least 10,000
people to take part in a protest through the streets of the capital city,
Port of Spain. The issue of crime dominates the political agenda and
successive governments of the Peoples National Movement (PNM) and
United National Congress (UNC) have announced a range of measures to
address the situation and improve police performance. However,
legislative reform and administrative measures enacted to date appear
to have had little impact on crime levels or the ability of the police and
criminal justice system to effectively address the problem. Police
officers of the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service undoubtedly face
difficult situations in the struggle to prevent and combat crime for
which they often appear inadequately trained and under resourced. A

report issued by the Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice of the
University of the West Indies in 2002 detailed high levels of stress, lack
of discipline, discontent and alcoholism among police officers and a lack
of support of junior police officers by senior officers.(5) The report
stated that a survey of some 550 officers indicated "a wounded police
service in need of quick healing, repair and reconstruction. From the
officers responses, it appears that the human factor in the service is
fractured." A number of recommendations were made including the
urgent need for a human resource development plan to address the high
levels of discontent within the service. In 2005, the PNM government
led by Patrick Manning announced that it had invited a team of
academic experts in justice administration from the United States to
improve "the management of the police service and its ability to
effectively fight crime" (6). Officers from the United States Federal
Bureau of Investigations and the United Kingdoms Scotland Yard were
also reported to have been drafted in to assist in the transformation of
the force. Other measures announced by the government included
additional technical resources, the creation of a special anti-crime unit
(SAUTT), the construction of new police stations and refurbishment of
others(7). Fatal shootings and deaths in custody UN Code of Conduct for
Law Enforcement Officials: "Law enforcement officials may use force
only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the
performance of their duty" (42) Article 3 International standards
uphold the principle that the use of force is an exception, and to be
used only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the
performance of duty. These standards are based on the balance
between the right to life and security of the person and the need to
prevent crime and bring criminals to justice. All rights emanate from
the supreme right to life, and no state may derogate from the right to
life, even at a time of public emergency. If a police officer kills a
fleeing suspect who should be presumed innocent until proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, the determination of guilt or
innocence of the suspect is circumvented. In addition, if there is no
proper system of accountability, the guilt or innocence of the police
officer responsible for the shooting will also never be established. The
following cases are among several reported to Amnesty International
during 2004 and 2005. The organization wrote to the authorities in
January 2006 requesting information about the current status of the
investigations into these deaths but has received no substantive reply.
Amnesty International is concerned that these shootings may have
violated international standards concerning the use of force, which
provide that the use of force must be proportionate to the threat faced;
that firearms may only be used in self defence or to defend others

against an imminent threat of death or serious injury and only when less
extreme measures are insufficient to achieve these objectives; and
that, in any event, intentional use of firearms may only be made when
strictly unavoidable to protect life. Principle 34 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention
or Imprisonment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
1988, states, inter alia, that whenever a death in custody occurs, "an
inquiry into the cause of deathshall be held by a judicial or other
authority". It also states that the findings of any such inquiry should be
made available upon request, "unless doing so would jeopardize an
ongoing criminal investigation". Fatal shootings: Aldryn Alexander Noel,
32, was reportedly shot and killed by police officers on 1 June 2003 at
Bagatelle Extension, San Juan. Relatives who stated that they witnessed
the incident alleged that two plainclothes police officers ran towards
Aldryn Noel without identifying themselves and with guns drawn. The
officers fired as Aldryn Noel fled and he was hit in the buttocks. The
relatives further alleged that the police officers refused to allow Aldryn
Noel to be taken to hospital or to call an ambulance and left him
without medical attention for over 30 minutes before a local resident
took him to hospital, where he later died. On 7 January 2004,
Christopher Kanhai, 32, was reportedly with a hunting party near the
Lalaha Forest in Paria when they were stopped by police from the
Northern Division. According to witnesses, Christopher Kanhai was killed
by a single shot to the chest. The police reportedly stated that they had
stopped the group and that Kanhai pointed a shotgun at them, forcing
officers to fire in self defence. On 24 January 2004, Kevin Cato, 18, was
shot dead by police officer Dave Burnett at a Carnival dance in
Chaguaramas. Ryan Soloman, 22, was also shot by the same officer but
survived. According to eyewitnesses, an argument arose between the
two men and the police officer, who was not in uniform. According to
Ryan Solomon, the police officer slapped him after he had bumped into
him while dancing to music playing at the time. Solomon said he
slapped the officer back who then took out his gun and shot him and
Kevin Cato. The police officer claimed he shot the men in self- defence
but this was refuted by other eye witnesses. A few days after the killing,
the officer from the Western Division was reportedly charged with
murder. In February 2006, the case went to trial in the Fourth Criminal
Court in Port of Spain. On 22 March 2006, PC Dave Burnett was
convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Amnesty International
welcomed the conviction but called for the death sentence to be
commuted. On 2 April 2004, Galene Bonadie, 41, was killed by a police
officer in Morvant. According to reports, Galene Bonadie was shot at
close range with a rifle after she intervened to stop the police beating a

man. Eyewitnesses claimed the officer, when challenged by Bonadie,

aimed his rifle and fired without warning. The Senior Superintendent of
the area is reported to have said that a crowd of on-lookers had tried to
stop the police making an arrest and had attempted to take a weapon
from an officer. When the officer tried to secure the weapon, it
accidentally went off. The Superintendent also claimed that two shots
had been fired at the officers earlier and that one policeman had been
severely beaten. In June 2004, it was reported that the Director of
Public Prosecutions ordered an inquest. The inquest has been subject to
delays and has been adjourned since the beginning of 2005. In January
2005, an arrest warrant was issued against a witness to the police
shooting of Galene Bonadie, for failing to appear at the inquest. A
lawyer representing the Bonadie family is reported to have said that the
failure of the witness to appear was because of police harassment and
reportedly indicated that another witness in the same case, who had
allegedly been followed by police officers from the North Eastern
Division Task Force, had been kicked and threatened. On 13 October,
17-year-old Sherman Monsegue was shot and killed by police of the
Western Division. Reports indicate that Sherman Monsegue, who lived in
Carenage, was in the street with a friend when a jeepload of police
arrived. The two are reported to have run off but the police opened fire
and the injured teenager was allegedly dragged out of some bushes,
before being taken to hospital where he died. According to the police,
it was Sherman Monsegue who opened fire first but this was denied by a
number of witnesses to the incident. A police investigation was
reportedly opened into his death. It was nearly a year before the
inquest began in September 2005. Police officers called to appear as
witnesses have so far failed to turn up. In addition, attorneys
representing the interests of the family of the victim have not been
given access to all relevant documentation, including witness
statements. The inquest was due to resume on 25 April 2006. On 3
January 2005, Kevin Wallace, 37, was shot dead by police, reportedly
while he was having a drink with friends on Ethel Street, La Romain.
The police alleged that they were attacked first and that a single shot
was fired which struck Wallace in the chest. Eyewitnesses claim he was
shot in the back as he tried to run away. Twenty-year-old Kendell
Hamilton was shot dead by a member of the Inter-Agency Task Force in
Laventille on 9 August 2005. Police alleged that they fired in selfdefence but relatives claimed Kendell Hamilton was unarmed when the
shooting took place. The police reportedly removed the body without
waiting for independent investigators to examine the crime-scene. An
investigation was reportedly carried out by the police but it is not
known if the findings were submitted to the Director of Public

Prosecution nor whether criminal proceedings have been initiated

against police officers involved. Deaths in custody: Amnesty
International is also concerned about the deaths in custody of Shaun
McLeod in September 2003, Noel Stanley in June 2004, Irvin
Fritzwilliams Davis in February 2005 and Fitzgerald Edwards in July
2005. Shaun McLeod was taken into custody by police officers on 5
September 2003, after he allegedly verbally abused them. He died
shortly after arrest. According to the autopsy, the cause of death was
"cerebral haemorrhage and blunt force trauma to the head", which was
consistent with the allegations of witnesses to his arrest that he was
beaten by police officers. According to media reports, the police
initially stated that "senior police officers who viewed the body at the
mortuary said that there were no marks of violence". A police officer
was reportedly charged with manslaughter in connection with Shaun
McLeod's death but Amnesty International is unaware of the outcome of
any criminal proceedings. On 13 June 2004, Noel Stanley died in
hospital. According to media reports, he had been arrested just over
three hours previously after allegedly throwing a bag of marijuana over
the wall of Port of Spain prison. The first autopsy on the body initially
concluded that death had been caused by a build-up of body fluids in
the lungs and heart failure, conditions that can be brought about by a
number of causes, and that the body showed no marks of violence. The
police claimed Noel Stanley had complained of chest pains, collapsed
and gone into a seizure. A second autopsy, conducted at the request of
Noel Stanleys family and the Director of Public Prosecutions, concluded
that the cause of death was asphyxia caused by strangulation, that Noel
Stanleys testicles were swollen having been squeezed and that there
were blood stains on the stomach wall, suggestive of blows to the area.
Media reports also indicated that the police were investigating the
possibility that Noel Stanley was taken into the prison and that prison
guards were involved in his death. Irvin Fritzwilliams Davis was
reportedly beaten with the butt of a gun when he was arrested by
police in Ste Madeleine on 27 February 2005. He died in hospital four
days later. According to press reports an autopsy carried out at the
Forensic Science Centre revealed that he had died as a result of "blows
to the head with a blunt object".(8) Fitzgerald Edwards, 45, was
reportedly arrested on 23 July 2005 for possession of cocaine. Witnesses
alleged that police beat him at the time of arrest. He was taken to
Guapo Police Station and was subsequently transferred to Point Fortin
Police Station where he was reportedly found dead at around 6.30am on
25 July. Police were initially reported to have said that he died after
suffering an epileptic seizure but an autopsy reportedly revealed that
he died from multiple blunt force trauma to the body and head and a

punctured lung caused by a broken rib. Press reports indicate that a

police investigation was conducted into his death but the outcome of
these investigations is unknown. Investigations into allegations of
human rights violations Complaints of human rights violations by the
police including allegations of torture and ill- treatment, unlawful
killings or deaths in custody have rarely been fully investigated in
Trinidad and Tobago. There have been a number of awards of
compensation by the courts to individuals who have been beaten or shot
by police officers but these have rarely been accompanied by criminal
or disciplinary action. Amnesty International notes that the failure to
bring to justice those responsible denies the individual and their
relatives the right to an effective remedy and violates international
human rights standards ratified by the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago. The lack of recent, reliable or comprehensive data on reports
of excessive use of force by police officers, including the number of
people killed or injured through police shootings or other types of force
and information about progress in investigations, makes it difficult to
monitor police conduct in Trinidad and Tobago. However, an indication
of the scant number of criminal prosecutions of police officers accused
of unlawful killing is provided in an article that appeared in the daily
newspaper Trinidad Express under the heading, "Witnesses: He was
beaten death in a police cell". The article observes that, "Should the
Director of Public Prosecutions find sufficient evidence to charge a
police officer with the killing, it will be only the fourth time in the past
five years that a murder charge has been laid against a police officer.
During that time, 54 people have been reported killed by the police.
And between 2000 and 2004, there has been a steady increase in the
number of such deaths".(9) To Amnesty Internationals knowledge, in
recent years only two police officers have been convicted of unlawfully
killing a civilian while on duty.(10) In March 2006, Police Constable Dave
Burnett was found guilty of murdering Kevin Cato on 25 January 2004
and sentenced to death. This was the first time a police officer had
been convicted of murder while on duty. In a public statement, Amnesty
International welcomed the conviction but expressed concern about the
death sentence which Amnesty International opposes unconditionally
and in all circumstances and called for the sentence to be commuted.
(11) In April 2004, Police Constable Mihiset Greene was convicted of
manslaughter for killing Neil Sutherland in April 1995. The officer had
claimed that he shot Sutherland in self defence but this claim was
rejected. Despite the conviction, he was granted bail in May 2004 after
his lawyers argued that he would successfully appeal the conviction. His
appeal was rejected and he returned to prison in January 2006 to serve
a 10- year sentence. Complaints against police officers are subject to

internal investigations by the Complaints Division of the Police Service

(PCD). Investigations into alleged abuses by police officers conducted by
this division have been widely criticised as inadequate. In the briefing
paper submitted by Amnesty International to the UN Human Rights
Committee in 2000, the organization noted that "Independent inquiries
have concluded that investigations lacked thoroughness and that
officers have been given the benefit of the doubt, even if there was
corroborative evidence of misconduct. Disciplinary procedures have
been criticised as ineffective and inadequate". (12) Since 1958 there
have been at least six government-appointed inquiries into the Police
Service in Trinidad and Tobago which have included findings on police
accountability with regard to Covenant violations under articles 6, 7 and
10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).
Amnesty International notes with concern that the recommendations
made in the course of such inquiries have not been implemented.
Recommendations have included the instigation of disciplinary or
criminal proceedings against individual police officers; and the revision
of policies, practice and training provision relating to the use of lethal
force.(13) Amnesty International remains concerned about the lack of
transparency in police investigations into alleged violations and believes
the secrecy of police internal investigations undermines public
confidence in the complaints and disciplinary process as well as the
investigative process itself. Amnesty International believes that a
human rights-based police Code of Conduct, a clearly defined duty to
report abuses and a transparent and effective chain of command,
responsive to and supportive of human rights, are essential to ensure
operational accountability. Officers who report possible breaches should
be protected from potential repercussions. The Police Complaints
Authority (PCA), a civilian oversight body, was set up in 1993 to monitor
the investigation of complaints by the Complaints Division but to date
has not had the power to initiate independent investigations. Since it
cannot initiate its own investigations, it has been dependent on
investigations carried out by the police and has frequently complained
that the information provided has been inadequate and subject to
lengthy delays. Although it can order the PCD to continue investigating
a complaint, it can only review the disposition of a complaint itself at
the request of the complainant. In its Eighth Report covering the period
1 October 2003 30 September 2004, the PCA said it had received a
total of 2562 complaints, including complaints of battery, harassment
and criminal damage. According to the report, between 1999 and
September 2004, the PCA received 12,919 complaints only 20% of which
were investigated by the Complaints Division of the Police Service. In its
Seventh Report, the previous Chairman noted that the PCA had

sometimes had to wait "for as long as 5 to 6 years to receive the

Divisions initial reports" and expressed concern over the quality of
reports stating, "In many instances, the Division failed to address all
aspects of the complaint." He added, "All these shortcomings in the
system contribute to the publics demonstration of a lack of confidence
in the police and its scepticism about the practice of police
investigating police". Legislation that could potentially enhance the
PCAs ability to effectively monitor complaints against the police has
been before parliament for several years. Proposals in the bill would
empower the PCA to initiate complaints independently, removing the
initial investigative role of the Complaints Division. At the time of
writing, an agreement was reported to have been reached between the
government and the opposition on the bill. It remains unclear however,
whether recommendations made by the PCA would be binding on the
authorities it addresses and whether it would have any ability to follow
up on compliance with its recommendations, both essential components
of an effective oversight mechanism. The Police Complaints Authority
Bill, along with the Police Service Bill and the Constitution Amendment
Bill, - known collectively as the Police Reforms Bills - were first
introduced in 2000. To date, the bills, which have undergone various
amendments, have failed to gain passage. The Constitution Amendment
Bill seeks to abolish the Police Service Commission(14) and replace it
with a Police Management Authority and requires a two thirds majority
in both chambers of Parliament. At the time of writing, it appeared that
discussions in parliament were making some progress. Amnesty
International hopes that a future Police Management Authority will play
a more active role in promoting accountability to the community as a
whole through, among other things, the inclusion of civil society
representatives with appropriate experience, the agreement and public
dissemination of human- rights based codes of conduct, and the
monitoring of overall police performance and of public responses to it.
Coroners inquests to establish the cause and circumstances of death
are not mandatory and when initiated, are often subject to frequent
adjournments and delays, aggravating the uncertainty and suffering of
the victims family. For example, an inquest into the case of Galene
Bonadie who was shot dead by police on 2 April 2004 was interrupted
last year by judicial review proceedings and at the time of writing,
more than two years after her death, no date has reportedly been set
for the inquest to recommence.(15) It was nearly a year before the
inquest into the killing of Sherman Monsegue began. Delays during the
preliminary inquiry mean that it can be years before a case goes to
trial.(16) An essential component of an effective remedy is the
promptness with which a full and impartial investigation is conducted.

Failure to act expeditiously puts intolerable strain on those concerned,

and can lead to the loss or deterioration of physical evidence, reducing
the chances of a successful prosecution. At the same time, witnesses
memories will fade over time or they can even become untraceable. In
May 2000, 16- year-old Aneisha Neptune was shot dead by a police
officer. An inquest was held and the officer was charged with murder. In
August 2002, the charge was reduced to manslaughter. The case finally
went to trial in March 2004 when the charges were dismissed by the
judge on the grounds that the prosecution had provided different
versions of the events that had lead up to the shooting. While in recent
years, the court system has benefited from some improvements in
technological and human resources, the administration of justice
remains slow and the backlog of criminal cases continues to grow.(17)
The failure by the authorities to ensure the implementation of effective
codes of conduct, and supervisory mechanisms and, when necessary,
criminal prosecutions, has resulted in a serious deterioration in
relations with local neighbourhoods. In turn, this has deprived the
police of the community support and assistance that are essential for
preventing and combating crime. International standards relating to
human-rights based policing UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement
Officials: "Law enforcement officials shall at all times fulfil the duties
imposed on them by law, by serving the community and protecting all
persons against illegal acts, consistent with the high degree of
responsibility required by their profession"- Article 1 "In the
performance of their duty all law enforcement officials shall respect
and protect human dignity and maintain and uphold the human rights of
all persons" - Article 2 Trinidad and Tobago has ratified a number of key
legally-binding international human rights treaties, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)(18), and as
with all other UN member states, has a responsibility under the 1945 UN
Charter to promote respect for, and observance of, human rights and
fundamental freedoms. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) representing "a common standard of achievement for all peoples
and all nations" for which "every individual and every organ of society" is
required to strive sets out and enshrines these rights and freedoms.(1)
In the 1993 Vienna Declaration, Trinidad and Tobago alongside the
international community, affirmed that these rights and freedoms are
the inalienable birthright of all human beings, that their protection and
promotion is the first responsibility of governments, and that all human
rights are "universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated."
While everyone shares a responsibility to uphold the UDHR in its
entirety, a number of its provisions have a particular relevance to
policing. These include: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and

security of the person (Article 3); No one shall be subjected to torture

or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 5);
All are equal before the law and entitled without any discrimination to
equal protection of the law (Article 7); No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary arrest and detention (Article 9); Everyone charged with a
penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to a law in a public trial at which they have had all the
guarantees necessary for their defence (Article 11(1)); No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy (Article 12);
Everyone has the rights to freedom of opinion and expression (Article
19); Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association (Article 20) Police personnel, as officers of the state (where
primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of human rights
resides) are, with all other individuals and organs in society, obliged to
know and to apply international standards for human rights. Moreover,
Article 28(2) of the UDHR recognizes that a "social order" is a necessary
condition for the realization of the above and all other rights. Within
the context of ensuring "social order", the effective deployment of a
policing service in a manner that respects human rights is one of the
key means which a sovereign state can fulfil both its international
obligations and its obligations to its own citizens.(3) This overarching
purpose is reflected in core police functions recognized and carried out
by police services around the world, notably: The prevention and
detection of crime; The maintenance and, where necessary, the
restoration of public order; The protection of individuals, including
provision of aid and assistance in emergencies of all kinds affecting the
individual or the wider community. It is clear that police officers can
and should be regarded as protectors of human rights. Not only are they
instrumental in the maintenance of "social order" generally, but they are
also directly involved in ensuring a range of specific rights set out
within the UDHR. Protection of the right to life, for example, requires
enforcement of laws which create offences of murder and other forms
of unlawful killing, and entails a continuous police process of crime
prevention and detection. In addition, police in many jurisdictions are
playing a greater role in, for example, the protection of women from
violence in the home, as governments increasingly implement their
obligation not only to respect rights by refraining from violating human
rights themselves through their state agents and apparatus, but also to
protect individuals from abuse by others (i.e., non-state actors) and to
promote enjoyment of human rights in a wider sense. However, it is also
true that police are often the perpetrators of violations of human
rights, and in certain circumstances serve to maintain repressive social
orders that undermine or deny a broad array of fundamental

rights. In such cases legitimate limitations on the enjoyment of

rights, which are recognized in Article 29 of the UDHR,(4) are
exceeded. This Article, by stipulating the only purposes for
which rights and freedoms may be restricted, sets limits on
police powers. In short, police may legitimately be given powers
that restrict human rights only for the purposes of securing the
human rights of others and of meeting the requirements of
morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic
society. In addition, police must not exceed the powers given by
law to them. While the above human rights principles
underpinning both the purpose and the implementation of
policing may appear clear, their breach within day to day police
practice around the world points to persistent obstacles to the
achievement of genuine human rights-based policing. Among
such obstacles is a belief held by many police officers, and often
shared by ordinary members of the public, that human rights
can be an impediment to "effective" policing. According to this
perspective, a human rights approach to policing tends to be
overly concerned with the rights of criminals rather than the
victims of crime, who also have a right to protection. Such
attitudes are likely to become increasingly entrenched among
police officers if the community which they serve perceives that
the threat from crime, especially violent crime, is real and rising.
In the course of their everyday work in their communities,
individual police officers often act with a degree of autonomy
and independent judgement, exercising discretion in the
discharge of their duties and the enforcement of particular laws.
If the prevailing police culture is one within which officers view
their anti-crime "law enforcement" function as trumping human
rights principles there is a risk that, over time, police practice
will become seriously tainted by unethical or unlawful conduct.
Unless checked by well-conceived procedural codes of conduct,
effective supervisory mechanisms and, if necessary, criminal
prosecutions, police misconduct including unlawful behaviour
and patterns of corruption, risk resulting in a serious
deterioration in relations with local neighbourhoods. This risks
depriving the police of the community support and assistance
which are an essential context for preventing and combating
crime. In addition, if human rights abuses by police result in
miscarriages of justice leading to the punishment of the
innocent, there is a danger of a collapse of public trust and
confidence in the police. Such policing cannot be described as
either professional or effective. It is widely acknowledged in

studies of police that they cannot be effective

ess they have the consent of the people being policed. This is
achieved when society believes that policing is impartial and
carried out on behalf of all the community, rather than favouring
certain groups within it. Further, a police service will be most
effective, and will maintain the confidence, trust and respect of
the public, when it is representative of the community. A central
challenge confronting policing reform processes around the
world is how best to guarantee that police agencies are
representative of the communities they serve and ensure their
practices recognize the human dignity and the rights of all
individuals, while providing them with effective protection from
wrongdoing. The UN, in a continuing effort to assist member
states in the development of national police practice consistent
with the human rights framework, has developed a series of
Principles, Codes and Guidelines related to policing. The
Resolution that adopted the UN Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials states that "every law enforcement
agency should be representative of and responsive and
accountable to the community as a whole".(19) It establishes a
fundamental standard on the nature of human rights-based
policing, and the relationship police should have with the
communities they serve and political system within which they
function. The commentaries that accompany the eight articles of
the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and other
international standards, help interpret these core principles and
should inform national processes of reform towards police
agencies that are representative, responsive and accountable.
a) Representative For a police agency to be representative of a
community as a whole, its membership should be representative
of the community according to key criteria, including race or
ethnic group, gender, language and religion. Minority
communities must be adequately represented, and individuals
from these groups must be able to pursue their careers fairly
and without discrimination. At a minimum, an internal police
culture should be established that is sensitive to the needs and
concerns of minority communities. b) Responsive While
democratic systems allow for public concerns to be reflected
through an elected legislature and other political institutions
that direct and guide the police, a police service striving to be
genuinely responsive to the community as a whole requires a
leadership and internal culture that is committed to

strengthening the consent and cooperation of the community

they serve. There must be an awareness of and a willingness to
respond to community concerns and expectations of police
methods and performance, especially in relation to new
dimensions of crime and criminality.(20) c) Accountable The
principle of public accountability, as in accountability to the
community as a whole, encompasses both legal accountability
and concepts of "democratic accountability". Legal
accountability requires a transparent legal framework for
policing, consistent with international human rights standards,
which makes clear what actions (or omissions) by police are
considered abuses, and which holds individual officers accountable for
those actions or omissions. Ensuring effective legal accountability
requires a framework of independent, yet interlocking oversight
mechanisms. They include: An independent prosecution service that
actively pursues cases involving members of the police. An
independent and proactive judiciary that takes action against reports of
police abuses that come to light in the course of criminal proceedings or
other legal processes, including judicial inquiries into deaths. An
internal police accountability mechanism that fairly and impartially
addresses breaches of police procedures, imposes disciplinary measures
or proposes the initiation of criminal proceedings, and that thereby
inculcates a culture of professionalism, ethical conduct and respect for
human rights throughout the police service. An external police
oversight mechanism (ombudsman or complaints investigation body)
that is empowered to effectively and independently investigate
complaints of abuses lodged against police officers and, that if
necessary, recommends prosecution and remedial action. Based on the
core principles of representation, responsiveness and accountability, the
UN Code of Conduct comprises eight articles safeguarding the rights of
all persons and stipulating that these should be incorporated into
national law and police practice. These principles are reflected and
reinforced in international human rights treaties (Conventions or
Covenants),(7) and a body of Guidelines, Principles and Rules
elaborated by the UN that are related to policing.(8) While
international human rights treaties impose binding obligations on
States Parties to prevent and investigate human rights violations, the
non-treaty standards represent the consensus of the international
community about the manner in which states should carry out their
policing functions. These standards have the persuasive force of having
been negotiated by governments over many years, and of having been
adopted by political bodies such as the UN General Assembly. They
include the: UN Guidelines for the effective implementation of the

Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials; UN Principles on the

Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and
Summary Executions; UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons
from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment; UN Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners (hereafter referred to as Standard Minimum
Rules); UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under
Any Form of Detention and Imprisonment (hereafter referred to as Body
of Principles); UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of
their Liberty; UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by
Law Enforcement Officials. Conclusion In January 2006, Amnesty
International wrote to the authorities of Trinidad and Tobago setting out
its concerns about allegations of human rights violations involving police
officers and requesting information about the cases raised in this
report. To date it has not received any substantive response to the
questions raised. Amnesty International recognizes that policing is
frequently a difficult and dangerous task requiring expert training and
skills. However, the pattern of impunity that has been the hallmark of
investigations into allegations of human rights violations committed by
police officers has further served to undermine public faith in the
institution. In a number of instances it has been impossible to establish
whether investigations to establish the circumstances surrounding the
deaths of individuals whose cases are raised in this report have made
any progress at all. In the few instances where allegations of human
rights violations by police officers have been investigated by the
authorities, progress has been so slow as to have seriously impeded any
chance of a successful prosecution. Amnesty International has identified
a serious problem of police killings and lack of proper investigations
which it believes requires the immediate and urgent attention of the
authorities. The government of Trinidad and Tobago must send a clear
message to society that human rights violations by police officers will
not be tolerated and must act now to ensure that all cases of deaths in
suspicious circumstances involving police officers are immediately, fully
and impartially investigated and that those responsible are brought to
justice. With this in mind, Amnesty International submits the following
recommendations. Recommendations The cases in this report should be
investigated fully, promptly and impartially by a body which is
independent of those allegedly responsible and which has the necessary
powers and resources to carry out the investigation. Amnesty
International hopes that the changes contemplated in the Police
Complaints Authority Bill will be instituted as soon as possible. Where
the alleged offence amounts to a criminal act, individual officers should
be brought to justice in processes which meet international standards

for fair trial. Police officers suspected of involvement in human rights

violations should be immediately suspended pending the outcome of the
investigations. Witnesses and/or relatives should be protected from
intimidation or violence and any allegations of harassment should be
thoroughly investigated and those responsible brought to justice. The
role played by coroners inquests in establishing the facts behind cases
of deaths in custody or fatal shootings and combating any perception of
police impunity should be strengthened and should comply with
international human rights standards. Coroners inquests should
therefore be made mandatory for all deaths in custody and deaths by
police shooting and should be carried out without unreasonable delay.
They should have the power to obtain all information necessary
including the authority to oblige relevant officials and other witnesses
to appear and testify and to compel the production of evidence.
Families of the deceased and their legal representatives should be
entitled to have access to all information relevant to the case, to
present evidence and to examine witnesses. Guidelines for the use of
force and firearms should conform to the UN Basic Principles on the Use
of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The standards
should be reflected in written policies, training manuals and courses,
and in operational briefings. All incidence of use of weapons or
firearms, whether intentional or not and whether or not they result in
injury, should be immediately recorded and should be subject to
scrutiny by an internal and/or an external oversight body. All allegations
of misuse of force or firearms should be investigated promptly,
thoroughly, impartially and independently, in accordance with the UN
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement
Officials and other international standards for such investigations. Such
investigations should be conducted by an impartial internal
investigation unit and/or an external investigation unit, according to
the seriousness of the incident. Ongoing analysis of incidents of use of
force and firearms should be conducted by internal and external police
oversight bodies to ensure that international human rights standards are
being adhered to and, if they are not, to identify why and on the basis
of the findings to implement any necessary reform. Participate in the
international process to promote the principles of an Arms Trade Treaty
based on international human rights and humanitarian law, in
accordance with the recommendations of Oxfam, IANSA and Amnesty
International's Control Arms campaign. Illegal and surplus arms that
could contribute to violations of international human rights and
humanitarian law should be removed and destroyed and efforts to curb
the illegal trade and transfer in arms should be reinforced. The rules
and procedures governing the conduct and reporting of medical

examinations and post- mortems should be consistent with UN principles

for the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary
and Summary Executions, the UN Istanbul Protocol on the Effective
Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and other international
standards. Information about the forms of redress available and about
the outcomes of investigations into police abuses should be publicly
disseminated nationwide to ensure transparency and improve
accessibility. All police officers should be made aware through the chain
of command that failures to protect human rights, or the violation of
human rights, will result in investigation and corresponding sanctions.
Clear guidelines requiring officers to report abuses should be issued,
and officers with chain of command control should be held responsible
for enforcing such guidelines, with penalties imposed for failing to
report, or covering up, police abuses. Internal disciplinary procedures
should be thorough, prompt and ensure fairness and due process both
for complainant and police personnel. All training and reform initiatives
should be linked to the creation of effective accountability
mechanisms. Training in human rights should be practical and reflect
the reality of policing in the field, should be compulsory for new
recruits and existing officers and should continue throughout the
careers of police officers. The United Nations Convention against
Torture and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture should be ratified and the withdrawal from the American
Convention on Human Rights and the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR
should be revoked. National legislation should be brought into line with
international standards and implemented and enforced. UN standards
for law enforcement officials including the UN Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force
and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials should be promoted,
published and incorporated in law and practice. ************** (1) The
Government of Trinidad and Tobago acceded to the Covenant on 21
December 1978. (2) See for example, "The killing of Anton Cooper:
''What I saw was murder''", AI Index: AMR 49/003/2002 and other
documents and actions against the death penalty. (3) See page 6 for
further details about the case. (4) The death penalty is mandatory for
murder in Trinidad and Tobago The last executions took place in 1999.
On 7 June 2005, the Attorney General John Jeremie announced to
Parliament that: "Our sense of terror has increased all as a relatively
small band of criminals have held us to ransom and sought to change
our lives...Government intends that every person on death row will be
hanged if the opportunity is available to the State. If the courts
intervene, the State will, cognisant with the rule of law, do everything

within its power to pursue the sentence of death in relation to every

person on death row." On 8 June 2005, the authorities issued a warrant
for the execution of Lester Pitman. Two days later, a stay of execution
was granted by the High Court pending further legal hearings. (5) The
report, entitled, "A Human Resource Survey of Policing and
Organisational Readiness in the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service" was
submitted to the office of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National
Security and the then Police Commissioner in August 2002. (6) The plan
put forward by the team of experts headed by Dr. Stephen Mastrofski,
Professor of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University
is reported to include a diverse range of topics including training
seminars in crime control, strengthening crime analysis and data,
improving investigations of complaints against police officers, building
more public support, improving performance, and the creation of a
promotion system based on merit. (7) In a visit to Trinidad and Tobago in
2003, Amnesty International delegates met with the president of the
Police Service Social and Welfare Association and was told that
conditions at the Carenage Police Station had become so bad that
officers abandoned it. In January 2006, police officers were reported to
have walked out of the St Joseph police station, saying they were no
longer prepared to work in a dilapidated building infested with rodents
and fleas. (8) "Man dies after pistol-whipping by cops" Trinidad and
Tobago Mirror, 11 March 2005 (9) Trinidad Express 3 August 2005. (10)
Krishna Jadoosingh was convicted of manslaughter in May 2002 but was
freed on bail after a judge reportedly ruled that the loss of his police
pension constituted a punishment and his lack of threat to the
community meant imprisonment was inappropriate. Trinidad Express, 8
May 2002. In July 2002, police constable Ravi Lutchman was sentenced
to two and half years imprisonment for the 1997 fatal shooting of
Ramchan Sookdeo in a game of "Russian roulette". (11) For further
information see public statement Trinidad and Tobago: Death sentence
for police officer convicted of murder AI Index: 49/002/2006 issued on
30 March 2006. (12) Trinidad and Tobago: A Summary of Concerns.
Briefing for the Human Rights Committee, UNCHR, 70th Session,
October 2000, Geneva. AI Index: AMR 49/006/2000. (13) An investigation
conducted by a team from the United Kingdoms Scotland Yard found
evidence of the failure to adequately investigate killings by police
officers and to pursue criminal allegations made against such officers, a
breakdown in effective internal disciplinary procedures and a lack of
accountability and supervision. Recommendations were made for the
review of discipline and transfer procedures, administrative and recordkeeping procedures, internal investigations and Coroners inquests.
Final report published by Metropolitan Police, 20 July 1993. Reporting

Officer Graham Seaby, LLB., M.Phil, Detective Superintendent, New

Scotland Yard. (14) The Police Service Commission is responsible for
appointments, promotion, transfer, removal, disciplinary control and
the enforcement of standards of conduct and can act on allegations of
corruption that are brought to its attention. It is also responsible for the
appointment of the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Police. In
its March 2005 report on Trinidad and Tobago on the Follow-up
Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter-American Convention
against Corruption, the Committee of Experts expressed concern about
the "excessive amount of time" that the investigative and disciplinary
rules for Service Commissions took in practice. It noted that the system
used by the Police Service Commission of delegating to individuals the
power of a tribunal over "minor acts of misconduct" had resulted in
"problems with individuals not following the proper procedure or failing
to ensure a fair hearing for officers. Often witnesses do not show up, or
an excessive number of adjournments are called for by police officers,
and allegations of misconduct are not thoroughly investigated by
Investigating Officers of the Police Service Commission, 2002, section 10
cited in the report by the Committee of Experts on the Follow-up
Mechanism for the Implementation of the Inter- American Convention
against Corruption. 11 March 2005. SG/MESICIC/doc.136/04.rev.4. (15)
See information about the case on page 5. (16) Problems at the inquest
phase are compounded by the frequent failure of police officers called
as witnesses to appear before the coroner and failure to disclose all
documentation to those representing the family of the deceased. (17)
On 31 January 2006 the Trinidad Express reported that a High Court
Judge, Justice Rajendra Narine had complained about the lack of
resources allocated to the judiciary and prison authorities. His
complaints were connected to a ruling over the failure of police and
prison authorities to "put adequate security measures in place to
protect Rajesh Mathura while he was in a cell at the San Fernando
Magistrates Courts in 1998 with close to 25 prisoners". Ordering
compensation for the man who had been beaten and stripped during a
riot, he highlighted a number of areas of concern "Legal departments
of the State are understaffed because of poor remuneration;
magistrates at the San Fernando courts have complained that as many
as 80 prisoners are kept in the holding cells; police officers seem to be
ill-equipped to deal with increased criminal activity; the Director of
Public Prosecutions does not have enough staff and so has to rely on
police officers to prosecute certain cases; the Forensic Sciences Centre
is understaffed". (18) Regrettably, Trinidad and Tobago has yet to
become party to the United Nations Convention against Torture or the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition,

the government has withdrawn from two key international human rights
instruments. In May 1999, the government withdrew from the American
Convention on Human Rights and in 2000 from the Optional Protocol of
the ICCPR, thereby denying citizens of Trinidad and Tobago access to
lodge petitions with international bodies. (19) See resolution 34/169
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 17 December 1979. See also the UN Office of the
High Commissioner on Human Rights training materials on human rights
for police which describe democratic policing principles in the following
way: Representative policing ensures that: Police personnel sufficiently
represent the community they serve; Minority groups and women are
adequately represented through fair and non-discriminatory recruitment
policies in police services; and The human rights of all people are
protected, promoted and respected. Responsive policing ensures that:
Police are responsive to public needs and expectations, especially in
preventing and detecting crime and maintaining public order; Policing
objectives are attained both lawfully and humanely; Police understand
the needs and expectations of the public they serve; and Accountable
policing is achieved in three ways: Legally: police are accountable to
the law, as are all individuals and institutions in States; Politically:
police are accountable to the public through the democratic and
political institutions of government as well as through the police and
citizen liaison groups; and Economically: police are accountable for the
way they use resources allocated to them. OHCHR Professional Training
Series No. 5: Human Rights and Law Enforcement: A Manual on Human
Rights Training for the Police, 1997. (20) Caracas Declaration, of the 6th
UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, Caracas, 1980, and Milan Plan of Action, Article 5(h), of the
7th UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders, Milan, 1985. AI Index: AMR 49/001/2006 26 April 2006 Death
Penalty: 20,000 on death row across the world Related documents Death
sentences and executions in 2005 20/04/2006 Facts and figures on the
death penalty (1 January 2006) 20/04/2006 Death penalty developments
in 2005 20/04/2006 Press release, 20/04/2006 Amnesty International
today revealed that over 20,000 people on death row across the world
are waiting to be killed by their own governments. In its latest annual
analysis on the use of the death penalty worldwide, Amnesty
International also disclosed that at least 2,148 people were executed
during 2005 in 22 countries -- 94 percent in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and the USA alone. 5,186 people were sentenced to death in 53
countries during 2005. The organization cautioned that these figures are
approximate because of the secrecy surrounding the death penalty.
Many governments, like China, refuse to publish full official statistics on

executions while Viet Nam has even classified statistics and reporting on
the death penalty as a 'state secret'. Figures around the death penalty
are truly disturbing: 20,000 people are counting down to the day when
the state will take their life. The death penalty is the ultimate,
irreversible denial of human rights, because it contravenes the essence
of human values, It is often applied in a discriminatory manner, follows
unfair trials or is applied for political reasons. It can be an irreversible
error when there is miscarriage of justice," said Irene Khan, Amnesty
International's Secretary General. "The death penalty is not a unique
deterrent against crime. Instead of relying on the illusion of control
given by the death penalty, governments must focus on developing
effective measures against crime." Despite the shocking figures on the
death penalty, the trend towards abolition continues to grow: the
number of countries carrying out executions halved in the last 20 years
and has dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Mexico and Liberia are
the two most recent examples of countries that have abolished the
death penalty. "As the world continues to turn away from the use of the
death penalty, it is a glaring anomaly that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and
the USA stand out for their extreme use of this form of punishment as
the 'top' executors in the world," said Ms Khan. In China -- the country
that accounts for almost 80% of all executions -- a person can be
sentenced and executed for as many as 68 crimes, including non-violent
crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and drug offences. In Saudi
Arabia, people have been taken from their prison cells and executed
without knowing that a death sentence has been passed against them.
Others have been tried and sentenced to death in a language they
didnt speak or read. In the US, two men were released from death row
in 2005 after evidence of their innocence emerged. Iran was the only
country known to Amnesty International to have executed juvenile
offenders in 2005. Iran executed at least eight people in 2005 for crimes
committed when they were children, including two who were still under
the age of 18 at the time of their execution. The USA banned the
execution of juvenile offenders in March 2005 having previously been a
"world leader" in the practice. "The fact that the USA, which was the
world's main perpetrator for the execution of juvenile offenders, has
now ended the practice should be a clear message to those remaining
countries that execute children that this barbaric practice must stop.
The US Supreme Court decision banning the execution of juvenile
offenders is one of the final milestones on the road to a remarkable
human rights achievement: the global abolition of death penalty for
children" said Ms Khan. In some countries, the use of the death penalty
may be dangerously mixed with economic interests. In China, many
worry that the high profits behind organ transplants from those

executed might act as an incentive to maintain the death penalty. In

many countries, inhumane procedures often exacerbate the inherent
cruelty of being on death row. For example, in Belarus and Uzbekistan
neither death row prisoners nor their relatives are informed of the date
of the execution in advance, denying them a last chance to say
goodbye. The body of the prisoner is not given to relatives for burial
and they are not informed of the place of burial. Amnesty
Internationals report also highlights the deadly consequences of unfair
trials. In Japan, a number of people have been sentenced to death after
ill-treatment and the extraction of forced "confessions" for crimes they
did not commit. The flawed criminal justice systems in Uzbekistan and
Belarus provides a fertile ground for judicial error. Executions in
Uzbekistan often follow credible allegations of unfair trials, torture and
ill-treatment, often to extract confessions. The momentum against
the death penalty has become unstoppable. In 1977, only 16 countries
had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. By 2005, that figure had
risen to 86. Amnesty International's campaign will continue until every
death sentence is commuted and capital punishment abolished,
declared Ms Khan. "Human rights are for the guilty as well as the
innocent, the best of us and the worst of us. That is why the death
penalty must be abolished worldwide." Background information Amnesty
International's death penalty statistics cover the period between
January and December 2005. Data available to Amnesty International
pointed to around 1,770 executions reported as being carried out in
China during 2005. However, the real figure is undoubtedly much higher.
A Chinese legal expert was recently quoted as stating the true figure for
executions at approximately 8,000. Iran executed at least 94 people,
Saudi Arabia at least 86. There were 60 executions in the US. LIBRARY
DEATH PENALTY AI Index: ACT 50/002/2006 20 April 2006 Death
sentences and executions in 2005 During 2005, at least 2,148 people
were executed in 22 countries. At least 5,186 people were sentenced to
death in 53 countries. These were only minimum figures; the true
figures were certainly higher. Executions are known to have been
carried out in the following countries in 2005: BANGLADESH BELARUS
CHINA INDONESIA IRAN IRAQ JAPAN JORDAN KOREA (North) KUWAIT LIBYA
MONGOLIA PAKISTAN PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY SAUDI ARABIA SINGAPORE
SOMALIA TAIWAN USA UZBEKISTAN VIET NAM YEMEN Death sentences are
known to have been imposed in the following countries and territories
in 2005: AFGHANISTAN LEBANON ALGERIA LIBYA BAHAMAS MALAWI
BAHRAIN MALAYSIA BANGLADESH MALI BELIZE MONGOLIA BARBADOS
MOROCCO BURKINA FASO NIGERIA BURUNDI OMAN CHINA PAKISTAN
CONGO (Democratic Republic) PHILIPPINES EGYPT QATAR ETHIOPIA
SAUDI ARABIA GHANA SINGAPORE GUINEA SOMALIA INDIA SRI LANKA

INDONESIA SUDAN IRAN SYRIA IRAQ TAIWAN JAMAICA TANZANIA JAPAN

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JORDAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA KAZAKSTAN
UZBEKISTAN KOREA (North) VIET NAM KOREA (South) YEMEN KUWAIT
ZIMBABWE LAOS As in previous years, the vast majority of executions
worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of countries. In 2005, 94
per cent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia
and the USA. Based on public reports available, Amnesty International
estimated that at least 1,770 people were executed in China during the
year, although the true figures were believed to be much higher. A
Chinese legal expert was recently quoted as stating the figure for
executions is approximately 8,000 based on information from local
officials and judges, but official national statistics on the application of
the death penalty remained classified as a state secret. Iran executed
at least 94 people, and Saudi Arabia at least 86. There were 60
executions in the USA. The total figure for those currently condemned
to death and awaiting execution is difficult to access, although human
rights researcher Mark Warren has estimated the number at between
19,474 and 24,546. These figures are based on information from human
rights groups, media reports and the limited official figures available.
Again, the true total is probably higher. INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1
EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED KINGDOM ******** AI Index:
ACT 50/002/2006 20 April 2006 LIBRARY DEATH PENALTY AI Index: ACT
50/006/2006 20 April 2006 FACTS AND FIGURES ON THE DEATH PENALTY
(1 January 2006) The following document is regularly updated on the
Amnesty International website, www.amnesty.org 1. Abolitionist and
Retentionist Countries Over half the countries in the world have now
abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Amnesty International's
latest information shows that: 86 countries and territories have
abolished the death penalty for all crimes 11 countries have abolished
the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes such as wartime crimes
25 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: they retain the
death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for the
past 10 years or more making a total of 122 countries which have
abolished the death penalty in law or practice. 74 other countries retain
and use the death penalty, but the number of countries which actually
execute prisoners in any one year is much smaller. 2. Progress Towards
Worldwide Abolition Over 40 countries have abolished the death penalty
for all crimes since 1990. They include countries in Africa (recent
examples include Cote dIvoire and Liberia,), the Americas (Canada,
Mexico, Paraguay), Asia and the Pacific (Bhutan, Samoa, Turkmenistan)
and Europe and the South Caucasus (Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Cyprus, Serbia and Montenegro, and Turkey). 3. Moves to Reintroduce
the Death Penalty Once abolished, the death penalty is seldom

reintroduced. Since 1985, over 50 countries have abolished the death

penalty in law or, having previously abolished it for ordinary crimes,
have gone on to abolish it for all crimes. During the same period only
four abolitionist countries reintroduced the death penalty. One of them,
Nepal, has since abolished the death penalty again; one, the
Philippines, resumed executions, but later stopped. There have been no
executions in the other two (Gambia, Papua New Guinea). 4. Death
Sentences and Executions During 2005, at least 2,148 prisoners were
executed in 22 countries and 5,186 people were sentenced to death in
53 countries. These figures include only cases known to Amnesty
International; the true figures are certainly higher. In 2005, 94 per cent
of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the
USA. Based on public reports available, Amnesty International estimated
that at least 1,770 people were executed in China during the year,
although the true figures were believed to be much higher. A Chinese
legal expert was quoted as stating the figure for executions is
approximately 8,000 based on information from local officials and
judges, but official national statistics on the application of the death
penalty remained classified as a state secret. Iran executed at least 94
people and Saudi Arabia at least 86, but the totals may have been much
higher. Sixty people were executed in the USA. 5. Methods of Execution
Executions have been carried out by the following methods since 2000:
Beheading (in Saudi Arabia, Iraq) Electrocution (in USA) Hanging (in
Egypt, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Pakistan, Singapore and other countries)
Lethal injection (in China, Guatemala, Philippines, Thailand, USA)
Shooting (in Belarus, China, Somalia, Taiwan, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam
and other countries) Stoning (in Afghanistan, Iran) 6. Use of the Death
Penalty Against Child Offenders International human rights treaties
prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being
sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention
on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than
110 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least
some offences have laws specifically excluding the execution of child
offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being
parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of
countries, however, continue to execute child offenders. Eight countries
since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18
years old at the time of the crime China, Congo (Democratic
Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. China,
Pakistan and Yemen have raised the minimum age to 18 in law. The USA
executed more child offenders than any other country (19 between 1990
and 2003) before the US Supreme Court ruled in March 2005 that the

execution of children under the age of 18 was unconstitutional. 7. The

Deterrence Argument Scientific studies have consistently failed to find
convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more
effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research
findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates,
conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002,
concluded: " it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital
punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the
threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life
imprisonment." (Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)
8. Effect of Abolition on Crime Rates Reviewing the evidence on the
relation between changes in the use of the death penalty and crime
rates, a study conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in
2002 stated: "The fact that all the evidence continues to point in the
same direction is persuasive a priori evidence that countries need not
fear sudden and serious changes in the curve of crime if they reduce
their reliance upon the death penalty". Recent crime figures from
abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. In
Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population fell
from a peak of 3.09 in 1975, the year before the abolition of the death
penalty for murder, to 2.41 in 1980, and since then it has declined
further. In 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73
per 100,000 population, 44 per cent lower than in 1975 and the lowest
rate in three decades. (Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A
World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p.
214) 9. International Agreements to Abolish the Death Penalty One of
the most important developments in recent years has been the adoption
of international treaties whereby states commit themselves to not
having the death penalty. Four such treaties now exist: The Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which has now been ratified by 56 states. Eight other states
have signed the Protocol, indicating their intention to become parties to
it at a later date. The Protocol to the American Convention on Human
Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty which has been ratified by eight
states and signed by one other in the Americas. Protocol No. 6 to the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which
has been ratified by 45 European states and signed by one other.
Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human
Rights), which has been ratified by 33 European states and signed by 10
others. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is

an agreement to abolish the death penalty in peacetime. The other two

protocols provide for the total abolition of the death penalty but allow
states wishing to do so to retain the death penalty in wartime as an
exception. Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights
provides for the total abolition of the death penalty in all
circumstances. 10. Execution of the Innocent As long as the death
penalty is maintained, the risk of executing the innocent can never be
eliminated. Since 1973 122 US prisoners have been released from death
row after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which
they were sentenced to death. There were six such cases in 2004 and
two in 2005. Some prisoners had come close to execution after spending
many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases
include prosecutorial or police misconduct; the use of unreliable
witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate
defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths
despite serious doubts over their guilt. The then Governor of the US
state of Illinois, George Ryan, declared a moratorium on executions in
January 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death
row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since
the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period,
12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed. In January 2003 Governor
Ryan pardoned four death row prisoners and commuted all 167 other
death sentences in Illinois. 11. The Death Penalty in the USA 60
prisoners were executed in the USA in 2005, bringing to 1,004 the total
number executed since the use of the death penalty was resumed in
1977. Around 3,400 prisoners were under sentence of death as of 1
January 2006. 38 of the 50 US states provide for the death penalty in
law. The death penalty is also provided under US military and federal
law. ******** AI Index: ACT 50/006/2006 20 April 2006 LIBRARY DEATH
PENALTY AI Index: ACT 50/005/2006 20 April 2006 DEATH PENALTY
DEVELOPMENTS IN 2005 Abbreviations EU = European Union European
Convention on Human Rights = European Convention on Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms ICCPR = International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights UN = United Nations ABOLITION The world continued to
move closer to the universal abolition of capital punishment during
2005. By the end of the year 86 countries had abolished the death
penalty for all crimes (see Table 1). A further 11 countries had abolished
it for all but exceptional crimes, such as wartime crimes. At least 25
countries were abolitionist in practice: they had not carried out any
executions for the previous 10 years or more and were either believed
to have an established practice of not carrying out executions or had
made an international commitment not to do so. Seventy-four other
countries and territories retained the death penalty, but not all of them

passed death sentences and most did not carry out executions during
the year (see below, Death sentences and executions). Regular updates
on abolitionist and retentionist countries are posted on the Amnesty
International website at www.amnesty.org/deathpenalty Liberia On 16
September, Gyude Bryant, Chairman of the National Transition
Government of Liberia since former President Charles Taylor
relinquished power in 2003, ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the
ICCPR which provides for the total abolition of the death penalty. This
followed the 18 other international human rights treaties the
government had signed or ratified in September 2004. Mexico On 21
April the only remaining provision in Mexican criminal law permitting
the death penalty was abolished. The Mexican Chamber of Deputies
unanimously voted to reform the military penal code and replace the
death penalty with prison terms of 30 to 60 years for serious offences.
Although the last execution for ordinary crimes took place in 1937, and
the last execution under the military penal code in 1961, military courts
continued to pass death sentences which were then commuted by the
president. On June 23, the Mexican House of Representatives approved
a constitutional reform by 412 votes in favour and 2 abstentions which
explicitly prohibits the death penalty for all crimes. MORATORIA AND
SUSPENSIONS OF EXECUTIONS Kyrgyzstan The moratorium on executions
which had been in place since 1998 was extended for another year.
Draft amendments to the Constitution during the year included the
permanent and full abolition of the death penalty. COMMUTATIONS USA
Indiana On 29 August, just two days before Arthur Baird was due to be
executed, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels commuted his death sentence
on grounds of mental illness. The Governor noted that "it is difficult to
find reasons not to agree" with the findings of the courts that Arthur
Baird suffered from mental illness when he murdered his parents and
his pregnant wife in 1987. Previously, the Indiana Parole Board had
decided against recommending clemency by a vote of three to one, and
the state Supreme Court had voted against stopping the execution by
three votes to two. USA Virginia On 29 November, the day before Robin
Lovitt was due to become the 1000th person to be executed in the USA,
Virginia Governor Mark Warner commuted his execution on grounds that
DNA evidence which might have cleared him had been destroyed.
INNOCENCE China Several miscarriages of justice in death penalty cases
published in the Chinese press in 2005 caused considerable public
disquiet and increased momentum towards reform, including moves
towards re-introduction of Supreme Court review of all death sentences
in China. Nie Shubin, a young farmer from North China, was executed
in 1995 for the rape and murder of a local woman. He had reportedly
been tortured in police custody. In early 2005, a suspect detained in

connection with another case, reportedly confessed to the same crime,

apparently describing the crime scene in detail. Judicial authorities
later admitted their mistake and Nie Shubins family is reportedly
seeking compensation from the authorities. She Xianglin and Teng
Xingshan were both convicted of the murder of their wives in two
separate cases in 1994 and 1987 respectively. Both were sentenced to
death despite pleas of innocence and allegations that both had
confessed because they had been severely beaten during interrogations.
In both cases, the alleged murder victims reappeared several years later
- in April and June 2005 respectively. She Xianglins sentence was
commuted to 15 years imprisonment after a re-trial. He was released
after 11 years in prison on 1 April 2005 and officially cleared of all
charges later the same month. He and his family were awarded
compensation of 450,000 yuan (approx. US$55,500) in October 2005.
Teng Xingshan, however, was executed in 1989. USA During 2005 two
names were added to the list of US prisoners sentenced to death and
later released on grounds of innocence, bringing to 122 the number of
such cases since 1973. Derrick Jamison, who was sentenced to death
in Ohio in 1985, had charges against him dismissed after serving 20
years on death row. His conviction had been overturned on appeal in
2002 and the prosecuting authorities eventually decided not to retry
him. Harold Wilson, who was sentenced to death in 1989 in
Pennsylvania, had his death sentence quashed in a review in 1999 when
it emerged that his defense counsel at the original trial had failed to
investigate and present mitigating evidence. In 2003, the court found
that the prosecutor had used racially discriminatory practices in jury
selection and granted Harold Wilson a retrial. New DNA evidence
confirmed Harold Wilsons innocence and in November 2005 a jury
acquitted him of all charges. POSTHUMOUS PARDON USA Lena Baker,
who was executed in Georgia in 1945 for the murder of her employer,
was granted a formal pardon in August by the Georgia Board of Pardons
and Paroles. The pardon cited that as she acted in self-defence, she
could have been charged with the lesser offence of manslaughter which
carries an average sentence of 15 years CLEMENCY India The President
of India, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam used his prerogative under Article 72 of the
Constitution to request the government, for the second time, to pardon
around 50 prisoners who have been sentenced to death. His earlier
recommendation for clemency in these cases had been returned by the
Home Ministry stating the cases were not fit for a Presidential pardon.
In October, President Kalam publicly called for the death penalty to be
discussed in Parliament and a comprehensive policy of reform to be
drawn up. The newly-appointed Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.K.
Saberwal, also expressed his support for abolition of the death penalty,

publicly telling reporters that as a citizen of the country, he was in

favour of abolishing the death penalty and that as Chief Justice he
would apply it only "in the rarest of rare cases". The last execution in
India took place in August 2004. USA Indiana In January, the outgoing
governor of the state of Indiana granted clemency to death row inmate
Michael Daniels and commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment.
The governor noted that Daniels had an IQ of 77, indicating borderline
mental retardation, and that evidence casting doubt on his guilt had
never been presented in court. DEFEAT OF ATTEMPTS AT
REINTRODUCTION USA - New York In April, the Codes Committee of the
New York Assembly (the state legislature) voted 11-7 against considering
legislation to reinstate the death penalty in New York, effectively
ending reinstatement of the death penalty in that state during the
current session. New Yorks 1995 death penalty law had been declared
invalid by a ruling from the states highest court in 2004. No executions
were carried out under that law. Puerto Rico In May, a federal jury in
Puerto Rico rejected the prosecutions appeal for the death penalty
against two defendants convicted of murder in the course of an armed
robbery in 2002. Puerto Rico has not had an execution since 1927, and
prohibits the death penalty in its constitution. However, the US federal
death penalty applies to Puerto Rico, in the face of widespread public
opposition. EXPANSION OF SCOPE Iraq In October the Iraq Parliament
passed a law stipulating the death penalty for anyone convicted of
"committing acts of terror" or "financing, planning or provoking"
terrorism. The law defined terrorism as any criminal act against people,
institutions or property that "aims to hurt security, stability and national
unity and introduce terror, fear or horror among the people and cause
chaos." It also cited "activity threatening to spark sectarian differences
or civil war including by arming citizens or encouraging or financing
their arming." DEATH SENTENCES AND EXECUTIONS At least 2,148 people
were executed in 22 countries in 2005, and at least 5,186 people were
sentenced to death in 53 countries, according to Amnesty International.
The true figures were certainly higher. As in previous years, the vast
majority of executions worldwide were carried out in a tiny handful of
countries. In 2005, 94 per cent of all known executions took place in
China, Iran, the Saudi Arabia and the USA. Based on public reports
available, Amnesty International estimated that at least 1,770 people
were executed in China in 2005, but the true figures were believed to
be much higher. A Chinese legal expert was recently quoted as stating
the figure for executions is approximately 8,000 based on information
from local officials and judges, but official national statistics on the
application of the death penalty remained classified as a state secret.
Iran executed at least 94 people, and Saudi Arabia at least 86. There

were 60 executions in the USA. (See Amnesty International, Death

sentences and executions in 2005, April 2006, AI Index: ACT
50/002/2006. See below, Table 2, for historical comparisons.)
RESUMPTION OF EXECUTIONS Iraq Following reinstatement of the death
penalty in 2004, criminal courts handed down more than 50 death
sentences during 2005. There were three executions. According to Iraqi
government spokesman Leith Kubba, Ahmad al-Jaf, Uday Dawud alDulaimi and Jasim Abbas, were hanged on 1 September 2005. All three
were said to be members of the Ansar al- Sunna armed group and to
have been tried and convicted by a criminal court in al-Kut, southeast
of Baghdad. They were sentenced do death on 22 May 2005 on charges
of kidnapping, killing police officers and raping women. Palestinian
Authority (PA) On June 12, PA President Mahmoud Abbas authorised the
execution of four prisoners. These were the first executions to be
carried out by the PA since August 2002. According to PA officials, the
President ordered the resumption of executions in response to increased
crime and lawlessness in areas of the Occupied Territories which fall
under PA jurisdiction Wa'el Sha'ban al-Shoubaki, Salah Khalil Musallam,
and 'Oda Muhammad Abu 'Azab, had been sentenced to death in 1995
and 1996 for murder. A fourth man, Muhammad Daoud al-Khawaja, had
been sentenced to death for murder in 2000 by the notoriously unfair
State Security Court, which has since been abolished. On 22 June,
President Mahmoud Abbas reportedly ordered a retrial for all those who
had been sentenced to death by the State Security Court. USA Connecticut On 13 May, the state of Connecticut carried out is first
execution since 17 May 1960. Michael Ross had been sentenced to death
for the murder of four female teenagers in 1983 and 1984. He was
executed after dropping his appeals against his death sentence. MOVES
TO STRENGTHEN JUDICIAL REVIEW China On 27 September the Deputy
Director of the Supreme Peoples Court (SPC), Wan Exiang, announced
that the SPC would establish three new courts that would reclaim the
SPCs prerogative to review all death sentences. In apparent
acknowledgement of political interference in the trial process in lower
courts, Wan Exiang claimed this reform "will ensure the death penalty
process is fully neutral from administrative departments and prevent
the intervention of other powers". The UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights, Louise Arbour, visited China in late August and met with
the Justice Minister and the president of the SPC. She noted that
despite Chinas ratification of several major human rights treaties, the
death penalty continues to be applied extensively, and to offences that
do not meet the international standard of "most serious crimes". She
deplored the lack of reliable statistics on the death penalty, stating that
"transparency is critical for informed public debate on the issue". The

death penalty applies to around 68 crimes in China, including nonviolent offences such as tax fraud, embezzlement of state property and
accepting a bribe. Zambia The Constitution Review Commission (CRC)
has recommended that the death penalty should be retained in the next
Constitution following submissions made by petitioners across Zambia.
Some of the submissions made to the CRC on fundamental human rights
called for the Bill of Rights to be made superior to other provisions of
the Constitution. The CRC also recommended that all offences should
be eligible for bail and the question of whether bail should be granted
or not should be left to the discretion of the courts. It recommended
that the Constitution should guarantee the right to judicial review. USE
AGAINST CHILD OFFENDERS The use of the death penalty against child
offenders people under 18 years old at the time of the crime is
forbidden under international treaties including the Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) and the ICCPR. Iran In 2005, at least eight
executions of child offenders have been recorded. These include: Iman
Faroki was executed on 19 January for a crime he allegedly committed
when he was 17 years old 18-year-old Ayaz M, and a child, Mahmoud A,
were publicly hanged in Mashhad on 19 July. According to reports, they
were convicted of sexual assault on a 13-year-old boy. An unnamed 17year-old was among four men executed on 23 August in Bandar Abbas.
They were convicted of kidnapping, rape, and theft. On 13 July, Ali
Safarpour Rajabi was hanged for killing a police officer in Poldokhtar. He
had been sentenced to death in February 2002 when he was 17 years old
for a crime committed when he may have been only 16 years old.
Farshid Farighi, aged 21, was hanged in prison in the city of Bandar
Abbas. He was convicted of five murders, reportedly carried out
between the ages of 14 and 16. On 12 September, a 22-year-old
convicted of rape was publicly hanged in the southern province of Fars.
He had reportedly been sentenced to death in 2000, suggesting that he
was under the age of 18 when the crime was committed. On 10
December Rostam Tajik was publicly executed in a park in the city of
Esfahan, central Iran He had reportedly been sentenced to qisas
(retribution specified by the victim's family) by the General Court of
Esfahan for a murder committed in May 2001 when he was 16 years old.
For the past four years, the Iranian authorities have been considering
legislation that would prohibit the use of the death penalty for offences
committed by persons under the age of 18. Under Article 1210(1) of
Irans Civil Code, the ages of 15 lunar years for boys and nine lunar
years for girls are set out as the age of criminal responsibility. In
January 2005, following its consideration of Iran's second periodic
report on its implementation of the provisions of the CRC, the United
Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee), the

body of independent experts established under this Convention to

monitor states parties' compliance with the treaty, urged Iran: "to take
the necessary steps to immediately suspend the execution of all death
penalties imposed on persons for having committed a crime before the
age of 18, to take the appropriate legal measures to convert them to
penalties in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and to
abolish the death penalty as a sentence imposed on persons for having
committed crimes before the age of 18, as required by article 37 of the
Convention." Pakistan A decision by the High Court in Lahore in 2004
that the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), promulgated in
2000, should be revoked meant that child offenders could once again be
sentenced to death in Pakistan. The decision to revoke the JJSO, which
the Lahore High Court reportedly found to be "unreasonable,
unconstitutional and impracticable", would do away with juvenile
courts, and children would again be tried under the same procedure as
adults. Convictions of juveniles during the time the JJSO was in force
between 2000 and December 2004 would not be affected by this
judgment, but cases pending in juvenile courts will be transferred to
the regular courts. The federal government and a non-governmental
organization working on child rights filed appeals against the Lahore
High Court judgment and on 11 February 2005 the Supreme Court stayed
the Lahore High Court judgment until a decision was made. The
Supreme Court did not hear the appeals during 2005 and pending its
decision, the JJSO has been temporarily reinstated by the Supreme
Court Sudan The new Interim Constitution for Sudan, ratified on 9 July
2005, failed to abolish the death penalty in Sudan, particularly as it
applies to those under the age of 18. Article 36 (2) of the Interim
Constitution states that: "The death penalty shall not be imposed on a
person under the age of eighteen or a person who has attained the age
of seventy except in cases of retribution or hudud. This last exception
makes the first safeguard almost worthless; for instance hudud crimes
include murder and burglary over a certain amount, according to the
1991 Sudanese Penal Code. Article 36 (2) is incompatible with Sudan's
international obligations that prohibit child executions. There is no
official record of those on death row or of executions in Sudan.
However, Amnesty International receives cases every year of persons
convicted to death in Sudan for crimes committed when under 18 yearsold. USA The US Supreme Court ruled by five votes to four that the use
of the death penalty against people under the age of 18 at the time of
the offence contravenes the US Constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual
punishments". The decision, delivered on 1 March in the case of Roper v.
Simmons, meant that the lives of over 70 child offenders currently on
US death rows would be spared and no others would be sentenced to

death. In 1989 the Supreme Court had ruled that the use of the death
penalty against offenders aged 16 or 17 was not unconstitutional. One
of the grounds for the decision was that there was insufficient evidence
in the form of state legislation to indicate a "national consensus" against
the use of the death penalty for offenders under 18. In the new
decision, the Court noted that five states since 1989 had outlawed the
use of the death penalty against offenders under 18 and none had
reinstated it. Moreover, of the six states that had executed child
offenders since 1989, only three had done so during the past 10 years.
In its opinion, written for the majority by Justice Kennedy, the Court
concluded that "today our society views juveniles. . . as categorically
less culpable than the average criminal". However, there are believed
to be at least three and possibly as many as six detainees held as
"enemy combatants" at the US Naval Base in Guantnamo Bay in Cuba
who were under 18 years old when they were taken into custody. The US
administration maintains that constitutional protections do not apply to
the Guantnamo detainees and intends to try some of them before
military commissions, executive bodies with the power to impose death
sentences. Concerns remain that the detainees could be sentenced to
death and executed despite the Roper v. Simmons ruling. USE AGAINST
THE MENTALLY ILL USA California Donald Beardslee was executed in
California in January despite suffering from severe brain damage. He
was sentenced to death in 1984 for a murder committed in 1981. The
jury was not presented with evidence of his brain damage, allowing the
prosecutor to argue that the defendant was "not suffering from any
mental disorder". USA Oklahoma In May, a county judge stopped the
execution of Garry Allen in order that his mental competency for
execution could be assessed. He had been sentenced to death for
murder in 1986. A recent evaluation had suggested that Garry Allen may
be legally insane in that he does not understand the reason for, or
reality of, his impending execution. The question of his competency will
now be decided by a jury. The execution of the insane is prohibited
under US constitutional law. At years end, Garry Allen had not been
executed. INTERNATIONAL COURTS International Court of Justice In a
memorandum to the US Attorney General dated 28 February 2005,
President George W. Bush affirmed that the USA would comply with the
International Court of Justices 2004 decision by having state courts
review and reconsider the effect of violations of the Vienna Convention
in the cases of 51 Mexican nationals on US death rows who were the
subject of the ruling. However, in March, the USA subsequently
announced its withdrawal from the Vienna Convention's Optional
Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, the
international legal instrument which empowers the ICJ to interpret and

apply the terms of the treaty. Inter-American Court The Inter-American

Court of Human Rights has issued two judgements in relation to the
application of the death penalty in Guatemala. On 20 June, in the case
of Fermin Ramrez v. Guatemala, the Court ordered Guatemala to
correct grave judicial errors and reform article 132 of the Penal Code
that regulates the crime of murder, stating it violates the principle of
legality and the right to a fair trial, and ordered Guatemala to grant a
new trial to Fermin Ramrez. On 15 September, the Court issued its
judgement in the case of Ronald Ernesto Raxcacot Reyes v. Guatemala.
Ronald Ernesto Raxcaco Reyes was sentenced to death for kidnapping, in
line with legislation that was modified to expand the scope of the death
penalty after Guatemala had already ratified the American Convention
on Human Rights which prohibits expansion of the application of the
death penalty. The Court ordered Guatemala to suspend Ronald Ernesto
Raxcaco Reyes' death sentence and to impose another sentence
proportional to the nature and gravity of the crime. The Court also
ordered Guatemala not to execute any person condemned to death for
the crime of kidnapping under the current legislation. On 3 May a draft
law was presented to Congress for the abolition of the death penalty.
The Congressional Commission on Legislation and Constitutional Issues
was given 45 working days to deliver their judgement on the draft law.
Seven months later, and despite international pressure, there still had
been no judgement. EXTRADITION In October, the Court of Appeals of
Puerto Rico issued a decision regarding the case of Puerto Rican Juan
Martinez Cruz and his possible extradition to the State of Pennsylvania
in the USA. The Court ruled that the government of Puerto Rico is
prohibited by its Constitution to grant the extradition of Juan Martnez
Cruz to a state that may impose the death penalty if he were to be
found guilty. In December, the Attorney General appealed this decision
to the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico OFFICIAL
ADMISSIONS China After years of official denial that such a practice
existed, Vice Health Minister Huang Jiefu admitted in December that
the sale of organs from executed prisoners was widespread. Since the
late 1990s when the method of execution was changed from shooting to
lethal injection, there have been reports from medical personnel of
being present at executions in "mobile execution vans" in which they
would harvest organs as quickly after death as possible. Speaking to
Caijing magazine, Huang Jiefu said new regulations were now being
drafted to end the lucrative trade in organ transplants.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS UN Commission on Human Rights
A resolution calling for a worldwide moratorium on executions
was co-sponsored by 81 countries, five more than in 2004 and
the highest number ever. Resolution 2005/59 on "The question

of the death penalty" was adopted by the UN Commission on

Human Rights on 20 April at the Commissions annual session in
Geneva. It was the ninth such resolution adopted by the
Commission on Human Rights since 1997. As in previous years,
the resolution calls upon all states that still maintain the death
penalty "to abolish the death penalty completely and, in the
meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions". It urges
states that still maintain the death penalty to observe agreed
UN safeguards and restrictions on the death penalty and "not to
impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any mental
or intellectual disabilities or to execute any such person". The
resolution also contains new elements. It affirms the right of
everyone to life and states - for the first time - that abolition of
the death penalty is essential for the protection of this right.
This statement represents the closest the UN has yet come to
condemning the death penalty as a violation of human rights.
The resolution also condemns the application of the death
penalty on the basis of any discriminatory legislation, p
cies or practices and the disproportionate use of the death
penalty against persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious
and linguistic minorities and calls on states not to impose
mandatory death sentences. It calls on states that have recently
lifted or announced the lifting de facto or de jure of moratoriums
on executions once again to commit themselves to suspend
such executions. Resolution 2005/59, backed by the European
Union (EU), was co-sponsored by all EU countries and attracted
many co-sponsors from other parts of the world. The resolution
was adopted by a vote of 26 countries in favour and 17 against,
with 10 abstentions - a slightly narrower margin than in 2004,
when there were 29 countries in favour, 19 against and five
abstentions. Nigeria, which had voted against the resolution in
previous years, abstained this year; its representative explained
that the death penalty was currently under review in the
country. But the Republic of Congo and Gabon, both of which
had voted yes in 2004, abstained this year, and Guinea, which
had previously abstained, voted no. As in previous years, a
group of countries submitted a statement dissociating
themselves from the resolution. This years statement of
dissociation was signed by 66 countries, two more than in 2004
and the highest number yet. Chad and Guinea signed the
statement for the first time. UN Quinquennial Report on Capital
Punishment Every five years the UN Secretary-General is

mandated to produce a report on capital punishment. These

reports are a unique source of information because they are
based on information supplied by governments, as well as nongovernmental organizations and other experts. The SecretaryGeneral's latest quinquennial report, the seventh in the series,
was issued in March 2005. Fifty-two governments responded to
the Secretary-General's request for information, down from the
53 which supplied information for the previous report in 2000.
Only eight countries that retained and enforced the death
penalty replied to the survey. The report notes that the number
of abolitionist countries continued to increase in the period
covered by the survey (1999-2003). While the pace of change to
full abolition was slower, there has been a very substantial
reduction in the number of countries that regularly execute their
citizens. Furthermore, the rate of executions has fallen. As far as
could be ascertained from the data available, 16 of the 43
countries that remained retentionist throughout 1999-2003
executed fewer than 10 people during the period, and 11 of the
countries executed fewer than five people. Only 19 countries
were known to have carried out 20 or more judicial executions
during this time. In only one country, Viet Nam, did the
estimated number of executions appear to have increased
substantially and regularly during the period. The report
includes calculations of the per capita rate of executions in
countries reported to have carried out 20 or more executions
between 1999 and 2003. As in the previous period, Singapore
was found to have the highest per capital rate of executions (6.9
executions per one million population); it was followed by Saudi
Arabia (3.66) and Jordan (2.08). INTERNATIONAL TREATIES The
community of nations has adopted four international treaties
providing for the abolition of the death penalty. One is of
worldwide scope; the other three are regional. The Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty and
the Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to
Abolish the Death Penalty provide for the total abolition of the
death penalty but allow states parties to retain it in wartime if
they make a reservation to that effect at the time of ratifying or
acceding to these protocols. Protocol No. 6 to the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) concerning
the abolition of the death penalty provides for the abolition of
the death penalty in peacetime. Protocol No. 13 to the European

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) concerning
the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances provides
for the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances,
including time of war or of imminent threat of war. Any state
party to the ICCPR, the American Convention on Human Rights
or the European Convention on Human Rights can become a party to
the respective protocols. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR
was ratified by Liberia and Mexico in 2005 bringing the total number of
ratifications to 56. Another eight others have signed .the protocol.
There were no new signatures or ratifications of the Protocol to the
American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty
during 2005. At year end eight countries had ratified the Protocol and
one other had signed it. Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on
Human Rights was ratified by Monaco on 30 November 2005 bringing the
total number of ratifications to 45. One other country has signed the
protocol. Greece, Monaco, Norway and Slovakia, ratified Protocol No.
13 to the European Convention on Human Rights in 2005 bringing the
total number of ratifications to 33. Ten other countries have signed the
protocol. (Up-to-date lists of states parties and other signatories of
international treaties on the death penalty are available on the Amnesty
International website at www.amnesty.org/deathpenalty. For a printed
list, see Amnesty International, Ratifications of international treaties to
abolish the death penalty (1 January 2006), January 2006, AI Index: ACT
50/003/2006.) EVENTS World Day against the Death Penalty The third
annual World Day against the Death Penalty took place on 10 October.
The theme this year was "abolition in Africa" with events in over 40
countries including Benin, Congo, Mali, Sierra Leone, Hong Kong,
France, Germany, India, Japan and Puerto Rico. Events included
demonstrations, petitions, concerts and radio and televised and radio
debates. The World Day is organized by the World Coalition against the
Death Penalty, a group of around 40 human rights organizations
including Amnesty International, bar associations, trade unions and local
and regional authorities which work together towards the abolition of
capital punishment. Cities for Life Cities for Life, Cities against the
Death Penalty, organized by the Italian organization, the Community of
Sant' Egidio, was celebrated on 30 November with the illumination of
public buildings in 391 cities and towns in 44 countries. Abidjan in Cte
dIvoire, Lom in Togo, Montevideo in Uruguay and Reykjavk in Iceland
were among the cities that took part in the event for the first time in
2005. OPINION POLLS The annual Gallup poll of Americas "Moral Values
and Beliefs", which has been carried out every year since 1936, was
conducted from 2 to 5 May. According to the poll results, support for the

death penalty for a murder conviction is currently at 74%, up from last

year, while 23% of Americans are against it. The highest figure in
support of the death penalty occurred in 1994 with 80%; the lowest was
in 1966 when it was at 42%. According to the poll, a significant number
of Americans, 61%, believe that the death penalty is applied fairly in
the USA, despite the fact that 122 prisoners have been released in the
USA since 1973 after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes
for which they were sentenced to death and strong evidence of racial
bias in the use of capital punishment. TABLE 1: ABOLITIONIST
COUNTRIES AT YEAR END, 1981- 2005 Year No. countries abolitionist for
all crimes No. countries abolitionist in law or practice 1981 27 63 1982
28 63 1983 28 64 1984 28 64 1985 29 64 1986 31 66 1987 35 69 1988 35
80 1989 39 84 1990 46 88 1991 46 83 1992 50 84 1993 53 90 1994 54 96
1995 59 102 1996 60 101 1997 64 103 1998 70 106 1999 73 109 2000 75
109 2001 76 112 2002 78 112 2003 79 118 2004 84 120 2005 86 122 TABLE
2: RECORDED WORLDWIDE EXECUTIONS BY YEAR, 1980-2005 (NA =
figures not available) Year No. countries carrying out executions No.
executions recorded No. countries with over 100 executions % of all
recorded executions in countries with over 100 executions 1980 29 1229
NA NA 1981 34 3278 NA NA 1982 42 1609 NA NA 1983 39 1399 NA NA 1984
40 1513 4 78% 1985 44 1125 3 66% 1986 39 743 3 56% 1987 39 769 3 59%
1988 35 1903 3 83% 1989 34 2229 3 85% 1990 26 2029 4 84% 1991 32 2086
2 89% 1992 35 1708 2 82% 1993 32 1831 1 77% 1994 37 2331 3 87% 1995
41 3276 3 85% 1996 39 4272 4 92% 1997 40 2607 3 82% 1998 37 2258 2
72% 1999 31 1813 4 80% 2000 28 1457 2 77% 2001 31 3048 2 86% 2002 31
1526 2 77% 2003 28 1146 2 73% 2004 25 3797 2 94% 2005 22 2148* 1 82%
*Amnesty International believes that the estimated figure for China still
represents only the tip of an iceberg. In March 2005, Liu Renwen, a
well-known legal expert, said that "as many as 8,000" people are
executed per year in China. ******** AI Index: ACT 50/005/2006 20 April
2006 UN Human Rights Council: New website to monitor candidates'
human rights records Press release, 19/04/2006 Amnesty International
will today launch a new website enabling states voting in next month's
election of the first 47 members of the new UN Human Rights Council to
assess the human rights records of candidate states. "The promise by
states to take account of candidate countries' human rights records
when casting their votes in the Human Rights Council elections is a
major step forward," said Martin Macpherson, Director of Amnesty
International's International Law and Organizations Programme. "This
first election of the Council will help to determine the future strength
and reputation of the UN's human rights work." "With this website, we
are providing UN member states with an easy-to-use tool that provides
information on all candidates. This will help them to fulfil their

obligation to use their votes wisely -- in the interest of human rights

internationally." The website, What you should know: Amnesty
International's Guide to UN Human Rights Council candidates, will go
live today at 12.01 GMT and can be accessed through
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/un-index-eng. The site allows
government delegates and other interested parties to click on individual
countries on the list of candidates to easily access concise information
about their current human rights situation and record -- including on
ratifications of treaties, reservations to treaties, submission of reports
on how they have fulfilled their obligations to such treaties, and their
record of cooperation with special procedures. The compilation of
records has already revealed some interesting facts. "While 45 of the 50
countries that have announced their candidacy as of 13 April are party
to the two International Covenants -- which together with the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights form the International Bill of Rights -some candidate countries have not even signed either Covenant," said
Macpherson. "States clearly need to do a lot more to enable them to
credibly fulfil their roles as members of the United Nations most
important human rights body and be truly effective in protecting all
human rights in all countries." The election of the new Human Rights
Council on 9 May is widely seen as an opportunity to move away from
the regional politics and horse-trading that characterized the nowdefunct UN Human Rights Commission, which allowed for the selection
of members in regional blocs. "The election of the new Human Rights
Council is a golden opportunity to start afresh, putting human rights at
the heart of the Council's work -- precisely where they should be," said
Macpherson. "The new Council will only be as good as its membership.
Any future criticism of the Council on the part of member states will
ring hollow if they fail to elect those members that have demonstrated
a commitment to work seriously and objectively to promote and protect
human rights at home and around the world." Background Elections to
the Human Rights Council will take place through secret balloting, with
candidates being voted on individually by all members of the General
Assembly -- rather than without a vote as members of regional slates in
ECOSOC. Candidates must attain a full majority of the General Assembly
(96 votes) to win a seat. Operative paragraph 8 of General Assembly
A/60/25 establishing the Human Rights Council requires that "when
electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account
the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of
human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made
thereto." Candidate countries and pledges are listed on the UN website
for the Human Rights Council elections at
http://www.un.org/ga/60/elect/hrc/. Not all candidate countries have

posted their candidacies and voluntary pledges. In the spirit of the

genuine election required by resolution A/60/251, Amnesty
International calls on all candidate countries to do so. Further
information : What you should know: Amnesty International's Guide to
UN Human Rights Council candidates.
Posted 09:37

No comments

Post a Comment:

w riteback

Your Name:*

Your E-mail Address:

Title of Your Comment:

Comment:*

Enter Validation Code:*

* Required Fields

Back to Top | Back to Main |

site

zoomshare

Post Comment

(what's this?)