"The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible, for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process.
"Let the states that still use the death penalty stay their hand lest in time to come they look back with remorse knowing it is too late to redeem their grievous mistake." — Kofi Annan, United Nations secretary-general
Kofi Annan spoke these thought-provoking words in December 2000 on being presented with a petition, signed by more than three million people, calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty. Those who signed the petition came from 146 different countries and all of the world's major religions.
His statement reflected not only a message consistently voiced by the UN, but also the worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. By July 2002 the number of countries to abolish the death penalty for either all crimes, all but exceptional crimes , or in practice, totalled 111.
In the last decade more than three countries every year abolished the death penalty for all crimes. These countries include Azerbaijan, Hong Kong, Mozambique and Nepal. Yet 86 countries still retain the death penalty. To the knowledge of Amnesty International, only 31 of these carried out executions in 2001.
Amnesty International's unconditional opposition to the death penalty is grounded in Articles 3 and 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which state "everyone has the right to life" and "everyone has the right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
The organisation seeks to defend and promote all the fundamental rights, belonging to every human, enshrined in the UDHR. As such the organisation has profound sympathy for the victims of crime, and its opposition to the death penalty in no way condones the crimes for which people may be sentenced to death.
However, the organisation believes that the rights enshrined in the UDHR are inalienable, and as such must apply to all individuals at all times, regardless of the crime that may have been committed. Human rights apply to the worst of us as well as the best, which is why they protect us all.
Debate documented
As a worldwide movement with more than one million members in 192 countries, Amnesty International represents opinion from a vast range of cultures and countries, working independent of governments, political persuasion or religious creed.
The organisation has thus documented the debate for the abolition of the death penalty in many different countries. Whatever a country's cultural or historic circumstances, two consistent arguments against the death penalty appear again and again.
Firstly, the state can no longer justify the risk of innocent people being executed due to the fallibility of the judicial process. Secondly, despite popular perceptions, there is no evidence that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent against crime.
Judicial error
The possibility of judicial error can occur in any legal system and, despite rigorous appeal procedures, at any stage of criminal proceedings. On at least four occasions in 1986 the Federal Court of Malaysia overruled mandatory death sentences imposed on alleged drug traffickers by the High Courts.
Three prisoners were set free by the court on the grounds that there had been "serious breaks in the chain of evidence" and because of "inadmissible evidence" presented to the High Courts by the prosecution.
In one case, a death sentence imposed by the High Court was reduced to five years' imprisonment by the Federal Court after it was found that incorrect weighing methods had been used and the amount of drugs held by an alleged trafficker actually fell short of the requirement for a mandatory death sentence.
In the United States more than 100 prisoners have been released from death row since 1973 after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were convicted.
In January 2000, the governor of Illinois declared a moratorium on executions following the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state.
Announcing the moratorium, he said: "I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so fraught with error and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the state's taking of innocent life.Until I can be sure that everyone sentenced to death in Illinois is truly guilty, until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."
Executing the innocent
The fallibility of the judicial process means that, where executions are carried out, inevitably someone who is innocent will be executed. The irreversible nature of the punishment means there is no remedy to such mistakes.
Maniam Manusami of Malaysia, for instance, was arrested in Indonesia 1985 for trafficking heroin. He admitted his guilt but claimed Chan Ting Chong, also from Malaysia, was the owner of the drug. Chan denied involvement but was tried and sentenced to death.
Maniam later wrote to the Indonesian Supreme Court stating he had falsely implicated Chan, whom he had only met by chance. Despite this new evidence, Chan's second appeal and petition for clemency were turned down. He was executed on Jan 13, 1995.
This possible execution of an innocent man is by no means unique or confined to Indonesia. In Kuwait on June 30, 2002, after a trial that reportedly failed to meet international standards of fairness, Bangladeshi migrant workers Mohammad Zahar Abdul Sattar, Anwar al-Zamaan and Anwar Khan Mohammad were convicted of the rape and murder of a Sri Lankan national.
However, reports suggest the conviction was gained through confessions obtained after days of ill-treatment and torture.
Presumption of guilt
In Malaysia those accused of drug trafficking face both a mandatory death penalty and a weakening of a fundamental fair trial safeguard — the right to be presumed innocent.
In its 1995 report the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitary Executions urged the Malaysian government to review its anti-drug trafficking legislation, expressing particular concern about provisions contained in the Dangerous Drugs Act which places the burden of proof upon the defendant.
The Rapporteur also expressed concern that the provision of mandatory death sentences for certain drugs offences removes a judge's discretion to personalise the sentence or to take into account mitigating circumstances once a guilty verdict is reached.
The UN has also consistently made recommendations regarding the use of the death penalty for drug related crimes. In December 1996 the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions concluded "that the death penalty should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and drug-related offences". The Malaysian government to date has not heeded this advice.
No deterrence
Amnesty International recognises the need for governments to address serious crime, including the problem of illicit drugs. There is no doubt that many government officials, as well as members of the public, genuinely believe that the death penalty will deter people from criminal activities.
However there is no scientific evidence that the death penalty deters crimes more than other forms of punishment, or that it will provide a solution to rising crime rates.
Amnesty International is aware that public debate on the death penalty in Malaysia is limited and urges government officials, rather than prescribing the death penalty as a cure for rising crime, to assist civil society organisations to inform the wider public of the relevant evidence.
In a working paper prepared for the Sixth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, the UN Secretariat concluded that it was "an important task of governments, the academic communityto educate the public as to the uncertainty of the deterrent effect of capital punishment'
The UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions went further, saying that given the lack of evidence for its deterrent effect, governments should make an effort to abolish the death penalty.
Since the early 1990s, when Malaysia's execution rate reached a peak, there has been a decline in the number of people being executed. Amnesty International welcomes this reduction, and urges the government to use this positive development as an opportunity to declare a moratorium on executions, pending a full review of the application of the death penalty with a view to progressing towards total abolition.
AI Malaysia is organising a Human Rights Film Workshop entitled "Towards a world without executions" on Aug 2-3 at 7.30pm and Aug 4 at 4pm at the Cahaya Suara Communications Centre, Pudu. Further details at the film workshop website .
