It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bali nine duo executed by firing squad

page: 9
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: hellobruce

Not true....


You're conveniently forgetting the Constitutional Court challenge and the Judicial Appeals court challenge .


You are having a reading comprehension problem again, you missed where I posted

The State Administrative Court of Jakarta threw out the appeal on Monday afternoon on the grounds it did not have jurisdiction to rule on presidential decrees.


They lost that appeal....
and

human rights lawyer Professor Todung Mulya Lubis earlier told Fairfax Media that any decision made by the constitutional court would not be retrospective and therefore would not affect the outcome for Chan and Sukumaran.


That would have made no difference to these admitted, convicted drug dealers.


Actually the court case was challenging the Presidents right to refuse clemency without looking at the cases individually.


That was thrown out....


How is it a false statement when it is true?


As I showed it is not true.


These men were unjustly executed,


Wrong again, they lost all their valid appeals


broke international law


Exactly which "International law" was broken?


by torturing these men


Now you really are getting silly, they were not tortured.


and pissing off a LOT of people in the process.


Wrong again, not many people were pissed off, just a few poor twitterettes and I suppose those awaiting the delivery of their drugs were pissed off.

Most people wonder why after seeing the signs at the airports they still smuggled drugs when they knew the penalty, and why they whined about it when caught.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK
You know what? If these blokes hadn't decided to start up a drug mule business in a country that executes people for such things, they'd still be alive.


Funny that, their supporters try and blame anyone and everyone for them being caught and executed, but refuse to put the blame squarely where it belongs, the drug dealers themselves.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

Regardless of your bloodlust and salivating at the thought of humans dying in horrible fashions, I shall continue to post here and challenge the vicious nonsense and barbaric talk.


I'm not involved in the discussion, but you really should consider your words. The poster you were responding to said nothing that deserved such comments and possibly say more about you than the actual poster. I'm not a moderator, feel free to ignore what I've posted here, but you're really not helping by throwing such insults around at people.
edit on 29-4-2015 by uncommitted because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

You clearly are too emotionally involved in this topic to think rationally. Your passion for this topic and compassionate stance are admirable, but it does not change the facts. While the media and greater population seem to be hoodwinked into this "evil President Joko" and "pathetic Indonesian justice system" narrative, utilising some critical thinking skills leads one to a different conclusion.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: Kryties

Whilst i disagree with their demise, i have much less sympathy for those actually executed.


Nobody ever said they deserved freedom, or that they had done no wrong. All we asked was that their rehabilitation efforts be taken into consideration, and they be treated with dignity and respect. Neither of these things occurred.

Anyone with two eyes in their head can see this was a political execution designed to bolster Jokowis standing. Justice was NOT served here by executing reformed men. A life sentence was more than appropriate, but Jokowi had just had an embarrassing public event happen in his political party room so he decided he'd just blanket deny all clemency rejections and execute reformed and sorry men who merely asked to be able to continue their good works in jail.

Does anyone commenting here actually know the amount of good Chan and Sukumaran brought to Kerokoban Prison? Amongst all the classes they started, including art, computing and religious classes, they had parts of the jail repaired, including hot water tanks for the women's bathrooms, to name but one example. Many prisoners there applauded them and said they won't be coming back to prison because of those two having helped them get off drugs. Even the bloody Governor of Kerokoban Prison gave them a glowing reference and recommended clemency - something he had NEVER done before for ANYONE.

How ANYBODY could actually look at the transformation these men went through over the last 10 years and NOT say they were rehabilitated successfully is beyond me. Apparently, in some peoples minds, prison isn't for rehabilitation purposes (despite most descriptions of them being so) - whats the point therefore of having prisons in the first place? Why don't we just take everyone out back and shoot them in the head, no matter the crime - whether it be stealing a loaf of bread or jaywalking. CRIMINALS, THEY WON'T REHABILITATE! OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!

How ridiculous. We don't live in the Dark Ages anymore, despite what some people may think.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Kryties

You clearly are too emotionally involved in this topic to think rationally. Your passion for this topic and compassionate stance are admirable,


At least I am doing something as opposed to sitting back and doing nothing about an injustice.

Angry? You're damn right I am, as are millions of other Aussies including our Prime Minister and the entire political establishment. I'll take their side on this, not the side of people who willfully ignore evidence of reformation and injustice as long as you get to kill those drug smuggling bastards eh?


but it does not change the facts. While the media and greater population seem to be hoodwinked into this "evil President Joko" and "pathetic Indonesian justice system" narrative, utilising some critical thinking skills leads one to a different conclusion.


No it doesn't. Any small amount of research into the subject will show that Indonesia is corrupt to the core, that the men were denied clemency unfairly and that the executions were political and not justice.

Do you deny that Jokowi didn't look at the clemency applications individually? If so, why?

Do you deny that the men were rehabilitated? If so, why?

Do you deny that these men were executed before all their appeals were heard and concluded? If so, why?

Do you deny that executing drug smugglers is against international law? If so, why?

Please answer these questions with evidence.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
At least I am doing something as opposed to sitting back and doing nothing about an injustice.

Angry? You're damn right I am, as are millions of other Aussies including our Prime Minister and the entire political establishment. I'll take their side on this, not the side of people who willfully ignore evidence of reformation and injustice as long as you get to kill those drug smuggling bastards eh?

You are only confirming that you are too emotionally involved in this topic to think objectively and rationally.


No it doesn't. Any small amount of research into the subject will show that Indonesia is corrupt to the core, that the men were denied clemency unfairly and that the executions were political and not justice.

You think Indonesia is the only place where corruption is an issue? Just because corruption exists does not mean every case involves corruption. Do you think Australia is immune to corruption? If not, then how many cases should we assume involve corruption here?

You can't be denied clemency "unfairly" in the sense you are implying. The whole idea of clemency is that the person with the necessary authority feels mercy should be shown. The president didn't feel mercy should have been shown, it was his authority and just because you disagree with it does not make you correct.

The executions may have been politically-motivated, but it does not change the rest of the facts or make you right on the outcome.


Do you deny that Jokowi didn't look at the clemency applications individually? If so, why?

Do you deny that the men were rehabilitated? If so, why?

Do you deny that these men were executed before all their appeals were heard and concluded? If so, why?

Do you deny that executing drug smugglers is against international law? If so, why?


1. Please indicate where it states in Indonesian law that the president is required to look at clemency applications individually.

2. I don't deny that they were rehabilitated and never have in any of my posts. Maybe you are confusing me with somebody else?

3. They launched various appeals over 10 years and all were dismissed. A sinking ship that was not going to meet any other fate.

4. Please indicate where international law states that execution is forbidden for those tried and convicted for smuggling drugs.


edit on 29/4/2015 by Dark Ghost because: for clarification



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
This gives a simple explanation of why Aussies and many others are angry at what occurred, although I think he was being careful not to say too much, there is a lot more he could have added. I shall post it here anyway...

Video in link.

From: news.com.au...

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were let down five times



The Project host Waleed Aly has cut through the political and legal red tape surrounding the two Bali Nine ringleaders, and told it straight.

Aly said he realised a lot of people had been “very understandably” emotional following this morning’s executions.

“Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were guilty men, they were criminals and ringleaders of an operation to smuggle drugs into this country,” he said.

“They were let down time and again, right up to their final hours.”

Aly listed five reasons he believed the pair were let down.

His segment sent his name trending on Twitter Across Australia.

THE AFP (Australian Federal Police)

“The AFP let them leave and told the Indonesians they were coming, knowing that this could end with a bullet put through their chest. And the AFP have never explained this.”

CORRUPTION

“The judges who would eventually convict them allegedly offered Andrew and Myuran a chance to pay $130,000 to take the death penalty off the table. They should have taken it. They probably would have taken it but they were let down by an even higher level of corruption.”

JOKO WIDODO

“He cared more about his image than the facts of the case or Andrew and Myuran’s rehabilitation.”

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

“Don’t get me wrong, the Australian Government did everything they could to save Andrew and Myuran, but that was the fourth time they were let down. I don’t want to overstate this, misrepresent it or politicise it. This is a moment I’m sure Tony Abbott regrets.”

NO SPIRITUAL GUIDE

“The pair were initially denied their right to have their chosen spiritual guides with them as they prepared to face a firing squad. The six others who were to be executed alongside them were not denied that right. Only Andrew and Myuran were.”



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: PeachesNCream
Capital punishment is barbaric. Who would think in 2015 we were still instituting the death penalty.


I think capital punishment is a perfect fit for some crimes--Jeff Dahmer, John Wayne Gasey, and Charles Manson come to mind. It is, IMHO, more barbaric to leave monsters alive than put them down.


OTOH, death is not a fitting punishment for selling an arbitrarily banned plant or plant substance.
edit on 29-4-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

edit on 4/29/2015 by eriktheawful because: removed at poster's request to fix editing problem



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

You are only confirming that you are too emotionally involved in this topic to think objectively and rationally.


Nope, I still have all my faculties thank you very much. One can be angry and still maintain logical and rational thought processes.

Please stop insinuating I don't know what I am talking about because I am angry, it's ridiculous.


You think Indonesia is the only place where corruption is an issue? Just because corruption exists does not mean every case involves corruption. Do you think Australia is immune to corruption? If not, then how many cases should we assume involve corruption here?


PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT. I cannot stress enough how way off the mark you are with this, you clearly haven't looked deeply into the case, even though it's plastered all over the news at the moment.


You can't be denied clemency "unfairly" in the sense you are implying. The whole idea of clemency is that the person with the necessary authority feels mercy should be shown. The president didn't feel mercy should have been shown, it was his authority and just because you disagree with it does not make you correct.


How could the President feel that no mercy should be shown when he didn't look at the applications and their reasoning as to be why they should be shown mercy? I am fascinated by your thought process here, thinking that one can deny clemency fairly when Jokowi admitted publically that he didn't look at the case.


The executions may have been politically-motivated, but it does not change the rest of the facts or make you right on the outcome.


Are you kidding?

You must be.



1. Please indicate where it states in Indonesian law that the president is required to look at clemency applications individually.


The fact that the men were challenging that in court and were not allowed to have that concluded before execution should be enough to make any reasonable person suspicious of the motives for executing them. Apparently not though.


2. I don't deny that they were rehabilitated and never have in any of my posts. Maybe you are confusing me with somebody else?


OK fine. Let me ask you a simple question in light of your admittance that they were rehabilitated. Was, therefore there execution right? Should these men have been given a second chance and not a blanket clemency denial that didnt take rehab into account?


3. They launched various appeals over 10 years and all were dismissed. A sinking ship that was not going to meet any other fate.


Whoopdy doo. Its called DUE PROCESS. These men HAD A RIGHT to have their appeals fully heard and concluded before any decision made on their execution. Apparently DUE PROCESS this means nothing to you - or to the Indonesian President.


4. Please indicate where international law states that execution is forbidden for those tried and convicted for smuggling drugs.



I have found where leading human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson, QC has listed the laws off, I am currently trying to find the source of that, in case you don't take his word for it:

From: smh.com.au...

the executions of Chan and Sukumaran would breach international law in three ways:

*Because capital punishment should be kept to the worst offences, such as murder and terrorism, not drug smuggling

*Because no execution should proceed while legal procedures are underway (i.e the Constitutional Court appeal due to be heard on May 12)

*Because people should not be executed after a prolonged stay on death row, because "the constant alternation of hope with despair [amounts] to mental torture, and [is] contrary to the convention on torture"


See? I provided evidence. Something I asked YOU to do, but you failed to.


edit on 29/4/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   


Wrong again, not many people were pissed off, just a few poor twitterettes and I suppose those awaiting the delivery of their drugs were pissed off.

Most people wonder why after seeing the signs at the airports they still smuggled drugs when they knew the penalty, and why they whined about it when caught.



You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now hellobruce. YOU ARE TOTALLY WRONG about the twittering. Majority of the Australian people WERE PISSED OFF and I don't understand why you would DELIBERATELY LIE to try to win an argument. Most of the comments made by informed Australians in popular and mainstream media as well as social media were against the executions and the abhorrent treatment they received beforehand. Whatever fantasyland do you live in where you don't hear the comments or feel the mood of the people? You obviously don't live in Australia because you are "out of touch" - maybe you need to broaden your outlook.

and I suppose those awaiting the delivery of their drugs were pissed off" what a strange thing to say if you want people to take you seriously.

Thanks again for reminding us again about the signs at the airport, if you read all the posts you would see the same thing mentioned over and over and over............ find something new to tell us!


edit on 4/29/2015 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties



I have found where leading human rights barrister Geoffrey Robertson, QC has listed the laws off, I am currently trying to find the source of that, in case you don't take his word for it:

From: smh.com.au...

the executions of Chan and Sukumaran would breach international law in three ways:

*Because capital punishment should be kept to the worst offences, such as murder and terrorism, not drug smuggling

*Because no execution should proceed while legal procedures are underway (i.e the Constitutional Court appeal due to be heard on May 12)

*Because people should not be executed after a prolonged stay on death row, because "the constant alternation of hope with despair [amounts] to mental torture, and [is] contrary to the convention on torture"


See? I provided evidence. Something I asked YOU to do, but you failed to.



Sorry, and it's infuriating because I'm as much against the death penalty as you - I really am, but they are not international laws that are actually signed up to, it's a human rights barristers opinion of them. If they were the case then why are there people on Death Row in America for well over 10 years who are at some point executed and America is facing no huge legal wrangle? This isn't by the way anything to do with any particular president, so no excuse to attack Obama. Perhaps that's more down to the appeals process.

I'm not even sure who gets to decide the 'worst offences', I think this is the barristers opinion, not any defined statute that a particular country may or may not have subscribed to.

Feel free to fling mud in my direction for not agreeing with everything you have said, you seem to be doing a lot of that in this particular thread, but I'm not condoning or advocating capital punishment.
edit on 29-4-2015 by uncommitted because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

Sorry, and it's infuriating because I'm as much against the death penalty as you - I really am, but they are not international laws that are actually signed up to, it's a human rights barristers opinion of them.


Errr, no they are not mate sorry. They are the actual laws.


If they were the case then why are there people on Death Row in America for well over 10 years who are at some point executed and America is facing no huge legal wrangle? This isn't by the way anything to do with any particular president, so no excuse to attack Obama. Perhaps that's more down to the appeals process.


No it's because America completely ignores international organisations when it doesn't suit them - and nobody does a damn thing about it because it's "America". Think Iraq War 2.


I'm not even sure who gets to decide the 'worst offences', I think this is the barristers opinion, not any defined statute that a particular country may or may not have subscribed to.


No it's very well defined by international law.


Feel free to fling mud in my direction for not agreeing with everything you have said, you seem to be doing a lot of that in this particular thread, but I'm not condoning or advocating capital punishment.


I may come across as harsh but those people saying that are ignoring the nonsense being thrown at me, such as myself apparently not caring about drug victims and fully supporting drug smugglers - nonsense like that. When mud is thrown at me, I throw it back harder.

Also, it's hard not to 'fling mud' when people talk about killing other humans as if they gain some sort of pleasure from it. It's sickening. I'm not saying everyone has done that, but there have been a few.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: uncommitted

Sorry, and it's infuriating because I'm as much against the death penalty as you - I really am, but they are not international laws that are actually signed up to, it's a human rights barristers opinion of them.


Errr, no they are not mate sorry. They are the actual laws.




Link please - to the actual laws, not an Australian human rights barristers definition of them and then I'll concede the point with grace. You have demanded the same of others in this thread so it's only fair to ask the same of you.

I'd also want to see where each country on the globe has signed up to such laws.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

From: www.anu.edu.au...

International law experts at the ANU have released legal advice on Indonesia's death penalty and found the punishment for drug offences breaches international law.

The legal advice was prepared by Professor Donald Rothwell from the ANU College of Law, and Dr Chris Ward, a Sydney barrister and Adjunct Professor at ANU, for the legal team representing Australians Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukamaran, who are on death row in Indonesia.

The legal advice is being released publicly after Indonesian officials gave official notification of the pending executions of the two men, alongside eight other prisoners from Brazil, Nigeria and the Philippines.

Australia's government has made regular calls for Indonesia to stop the executions and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to Indonesia to spare the group from execution.

"This legal advice was originally prepared in 2007 and explores international legal arguments regarding Indonesia's imposition of the death penalty for drug offences," Professor Rothwell said.

"The United Nations Secretary-General on 25 April released a statement observing that Indonesia's imposition of the death penalty for drug-related offences is contrary to international law. This legal advice agrees with that position.

"As a signatory to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Indonesia may only impose the death penalty for the 'most serious crimes'. International law does not recognise drug trafficking as meeting this threshold.

"Indonesia must uphold the international legal obligations it has agreed to. These obligations are especially owed to those countries whose nationals are listed for execution including Australia and those other countries whose citizens are on death row including Brazil, France and the Philippines."

Chan and Sukamaran were convicted and sentenced to death in 2006 for their part in the so-called Bali Nine drug smuggling operation.

Legal appeals and calls for clemency to Indonesia's President Joko Widodo have so far failed.

A summary of the legal advice is attached below.


Continued next post......



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Continued from previous post....


A SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW ISSUES REGARDING AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS ON DEATH ROW IN INDONESIA

1. This note describes in summary form the main international legal arguments that arise from the proposed execution by Indonesia of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan. It is based on earlier work done on behalf of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan, and proceeds on the basis that all local remedies available to those Australians facing the death penalty in Indonesia have been exhausted. As such, Australia is now in a position to exercise diplomatic protection on behalf of its citizens, whose rights under international law would be violated if sentence of execution was carried out.

2. In summary, the proposed execution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan is clearly inconsistent with Indonesia's treaty obligations to Australia and the international community.

1966 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

3. Australia and Indonesia are both parties to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR was drafted in the recognition that, at the time of its conclusion, the death penalty was not prohibited by international law but that its application should be severely limited.

4. Article 6 of the ICCPR relevantly provides as follows (emphasis added):

(1) Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

(2) In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.


5. Although drug trafficking is clearly "a" serious crime, it cannot be characterized as "the most serious crime".

6. As a party to the ICCPR, Indonesia is obliged under international law (including the general obligations of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (Article 26) and related customary international law) to perform its treaty obligations in good faith. It must perform its treaty obligations in a manner consistent with the fundamental international legal doctrine of pacta sunt servanda, and must interpret treaties "in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose" (Vienna Convention Article 31 (1)).

7. In addition to these principles of treaty interpretation, an understanding of how Article 6 of the Covenant is to be interpreted can be found in the work of the UN Human Rights Committee. Human Rights Committee General Comment 6 (1982) emphasised that the right to life is not to be interpreted narrowly. With particular reference to the death penalty, General Comment 6 notes:

6. While it follows from article 6 (2) to (6) that State parties are not obliged to abolish the death penalty totally they are obliged to limit its use and, in particular, to abolish it for other than the "most serious crimes". Accordingly, they ought to consider reviewing their criminal laws in this light, and in any event, are obliged to restrict the application of the death penalty to the "most serious crimes". ...

7. The Committee is of the opinion that the expression "most serious crimes" must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure.


8. In 1984, the UN Economic & Social Council adopted the "Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty" (endorsed by the UN General Assembly in resolution 39/118, adopted without a vote on 14 December 1984) which included the following:

9. The view of the Human Rights Committee that the term should be interpreted restrictively confirms our opinion that drug trafficking does not constitute such a crime when it involves no prima facie harm or violence to another person. We concede that one of the possible consequences of the trafficking of drugs is self-abuse of the drug, possibly resulting in death. However, this is an event which is considerably removed from the actual trafficking of the drugs and ultimately involves an act of self-choice by the drug user.

10. This argument is further strengthened when the drug trafficking at issue in this matter relates to a conspiracy to export drugs from Indonesia to Australia. There is in this instance such a considerable level of remoteness from the acts for which the accused have been convicted and the potential consequences of human harm and even possibly death that it is not possible to legitimately classify these acts as the most serious of crimes.

11. In addition to the points noted above, it is strongly arguable that the proposed form of execution and the treatment of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan over time represents cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 7 of the ICCPR. It is strongly arguable that the method of proposed execution, by firing squad, in a massed group of convicts and with large numbers of executioners, is cruel, inhuman and degrading. It is cruel and inhuman because it is an inherently painful method of execution with a serious risk of prolonged suffering (apparently requiring the possibility of a further single bullet to the head some minutes after the initial shots are fired). It is degrading because of the extraordinary process of execution in large groups, described by Indonesia as 'batches' in the presence of each other and before a massed group of executioners.

1. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences.

2. Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty is prescribed by law at the time of its commission, it being understood that if, subsequent to the commission of the crime, provision is made by law for the imposition of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.


12. Additionally, the treatment of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan, who have been subjected to prolonged suspense as to their status, and who have been given a period of ten years in which their execution was not a realistic possibility and during which time they have clearly and successfully rehabilitated themselves, is for that reason alone cruel inhuman and degrading. It also appears to be inconsistent with Indonesia's obligations under Article 10 of the ICCPR.


Continued next post....


edit on 29/4/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/4/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Continued from previous post...


13. Since early February 2015 Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan have been faced with repeated public statements by the Attorney General that their execution is "imminent", "will not be delayed", may be "this week", and that "on-going legal processes would not be respected and would make no difference to their imminent execution." Those repeated statements have the cumulative effect of rendering the execution cruel or inhuman (Pratt & Morgan v A-G of Jamaica [1994] 2 AC 1 at 33; Supreme Court of India, Sher Singh & Others v State of Punjab [1983] 2 SCR 583).

14. The proposed execution of Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan when there remain two legal processes unresolved is in clear breach of Indonesia's obligations under Article 6 of the ICCPR.

15. First, because the allegation of bribery that is yet to be resolved by the Indonesian Judicial Commission fundamentally affects the process of sentence upon which the proposed execution is based, in conflict with the obligation imposed by ICCPR Article 6(2) requiring a trial by a fair and impartial Court. No execution in accordance with ICCPR Article 6(2) could occur while that issue remains to be resolved.

16. Secondly because Article 6(4) of the ICCPR requires that a process of commutation or pardon must be available to anyone sentenced to death. That right to commutation and pardon must be available in "all cases".

17. It is entirely clear that the blanket refusal of pardon or commutation of sentence without reference to individual circumstances is inconsistent with Article 6(4). Mr Sukumaran and Mr Chan challenge the refusal by President Widodo to grant clemency without consideration of their circumstances in proceedings now before the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. Not only is the refusal to consider pardon a breach of Article 6(4), but the rush to execution before resolution of the Constitutional Court proceedings appears to be inconsistent with the rights guaranteed by Article 6(2).

ADDITIONAL LEGAL ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE DEATH PENALTY AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

18. Australia has additional legal arguments that can challenge the imposition of the death penalty for drug trafficking based on the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. In addition, it is also arguable that the imposition of the death penalty in these circumstances is independently contrary to customary international law. Such an argument requires a broader assessment of the status of international human rights law, developments in international human rights law prohibiting the death penalty, and relevant state practice in the area.

19. Australia and Indonesia are parties to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The 1961 Single Convention provides in Article 36(1) that:

"(a) Subject to its constitutional limitations, each Party shall adopt such measures as will ensure that cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, delivery on any terms whatsoever, brokerage, dispatch, dispatch in transit, transport, importation and exportation of drugs contrary to the provisions of this Convention, and any other action which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of this Convention, shall be punishable offences when committed intentionally, and that serious offences shall be liable to adequate punishment particularly by imprisonment or other penalties of deprivation of liberty."

20. In our view, the proper interpretation of the Convention is inconsistent with the imposition of the death penalty for serious offences as defined. Whilst it is clearly intended that the commission of a serious offence shall be the subject of an appropriately grave sanction, the repeated reference to the sanction of imprisonment or deprivation of liberty, consistent through the history of the 1961 Single Convention but also the related 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, leads to an overwhelming inference that the imposition of the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment.

21. That position is not affected by the traveaux preparatoire, which make it clear that it was the intention of the parties that narcotics trafficking be the subject of serious penalties which would adequately deter narcotics trafficking. Whilst it may well be the case that some of the parties to the Convention did, in 1961, retain the death penalty for narcotics offences, it does not follow that the Convention is capable of an interpretation permitting, today, the imposition of the death penalty for narcotics offences.

edit on 29/4/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

From: www.un.org...


Statement

Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on announcement of executions in Indonesia

New York, 25 April 2015

The Secretary-General appeals to the Government of Indonesia to refrain from carrying out the execution, as announced, of ten prisoners on death row for alleged drug-related crimes.

Under international law, if the death penalty is to be used at all, it should only be imposed for the most serious crimes, namely those involving intentional killing, and only with appropriate safeguards. Drug-related offenses generally are not considered to fall under the category of “most serious crimes”.

Recalling that the United Nations opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, the Secretary-General urges President Joko Widodo to urgently consider declaring a moratorium on capital punishment in Indonesia, with a view toward abolition.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

While i'm sure i'm about to make points already stated by others here, and responded to by yourself; i'm going to share my feelings on the matter.

I've known plenty of people whose lives have been ruined or ended as a result of their choice to take heroin.

I also know someone very well indeed who smuggled Class A's across international borders and ended up in a third world jail.

While i am against the death penalty and have heard/read how these two apparently became rehabilitated, it is no one's fault but their own. They knew the risks, and still decided to try and get rich quick by totally destroying the lives of others.

Entirely their fault. I don't celebrate their death but i feel no sadness for them either.
edit on 29-4-2015 by skalla because: typo



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join