Crime & Justice, Europe, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights

Q&A: ‘A Key Step Towards Abolition’

Interview with Amnesty International's Martin Macpherson

LONDON, Sep 18 2007 (IPS) - Amnesty International has been fighting since its foundation for the universal abolition of the death penalty. In the next weeks, the UN General Assembly will be voting on a resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions.

Directing Amnesty’s campaign for the moratorium is Martin Macpherson. How close are we to an end to all state killings? Macpherson makes no predictions to Julio Godoy, European correspondent of IPS. But the UN vote will be an historic milestone in the campaign to end capital punishment.

IPS: Why does Amnesty International want the UN General Assembly to adopt a resolution calling for abolition of the death penalty?

Martin Macpherson: Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases and without exception, believing it to be a violation of the right to life and the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. The death penalty legitimises an irreversible act of violence by the state and will inevitably claim innocent victims. Amnesty therefore demands unconditional and worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

A resolution by the UN General Assembly – a universal body representing the entire UN membership – calling for a moratorium on executions as a step towards abolition would be an important international milestone in the campaign to abolish the death penalty worldwide.

IPS: Why is there a push for this resolution on the death penalty just now?

Martin Macpherson: A death-penalty-free-world is increasingly becoming a real possibility. But to achieve that goal there must be strong political leadership and a well-crafted strategy to create global support.

This past year has seen renewed debate on the use of the death penalty prompted in part by the execution of Saddam Hussein. A time has been reached when it should be possible to adopt a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for a moratorium on executions.

One-hundred-and-thirty-one countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Only 25 countries actually carried out executions in 2006. In 2006, 91 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the U.S. Amnesty International’s statistics also show an overall decline in the number of executions in 2006 – a recorded 1,591 executions, compared to 2,148 in 2005. These figures demonstrate that there is now a real momentum to end capital punishment.

Statements by both the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour have supported the “trend in international law and in national practice towards a phasing out of the death penalty”.

IPS: Has the General Assembly ever taken a position on the death penalty?

Martin Macpherson: To date, the UN General Assembly has not adopted a resolution either calling for a moratorium on executions or abolition of the death penalty. It has adopted standards to limit the application of the death penalty and safeguards to protect the rights of those facing the death penalty.

One of these standards is the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Sixty-one states have now ratified this Protocol and a further eight are signatures to it. Amnesty International believes the UN General Assembly should now call for a global moratorium on executions as a key step towards the ultimate goal of abolition.

IPS: Calls for a UN General Assembly resolution on the death penalty failed in the past. Why should the efforts be successful this time?

Martin Macpherson: Yes, there were unsuccessful attempts in 1994 and 1999. But since then the number of abolitionist states in law or practice has increased. At the UN General Assembly in 2006, Finland, as the President of the EU, delivered a statement supported by 95 states which expressed “deep concern at the continuing use of the death penalty around the world”. The statement went on to call on states that still maintain the death penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to establish a moratorium on executions.

The international trend is towards abolition. But fierce opposition can be expected now from some states that retain the death penalty who will seek to defeat the resolution on the grounds that this is not a human rights issue that affects the right to life but a question that solely falls within the domestic jurisdiction of states. They will attempt to defeat the resolution, for example, by introducing “wrecking amendments” as happened in the past.

IPS: What is a “wrecking amendment”?

Martin Macpherson: “Wrecking amendments”, sometimes called “killer amendments”, seek to undermine the purpose of the resolution. They are neither friendly nor made it good faith. “Wrecking amendments” in the past have sought to undermine the draft by denying that the question of the death penalty resolution is a human rights issue of concern to the world community and by introducing language which reaffirms the sovereignty of states to decide on issues of criminal justice and sentencing.

IPS: Surely, though, it is for each UN member state to decide for itself whether it uses the sanction of capital punishment?

Martin Macpherson: The promotion and protection of human rights is a concern for the international community as a whole. It is not solely a matter for individual states. Amnesty International has declared its total and unconditional opposition to the death penalty, and consequently the organisation does not accept that states have a right to execute people in any situation. Even the best judicial systems are fallible, and innocent people will invariably be put to death. There is no perfect judicial system.

IPS: Your critics may say this is just another instance of rich countries and their non-governmental organisations seeking to impose their values on developing countries. How would you reply to this?

Martin Macpherson: Opposition to the death penalty is not exclusive to any particular region, political system, world religion, culture or tradition. States that have abolished the death penalty are to be found in all regions and cut across religious divides. Furthermore, international human rights law and standards on the death penalty has been elaborated by international and regional bodies, including the UN General Assembly and the development of those standards draws on many different experiences and legal systems.

The current initiative to table a resolution on moratorium on executions at the UN General Assembly is supported by states from all regions of the world.

IPS: The next UN General Assembly – the 62nd – opens in the last week of September. We can expect, then, that the moratorium initiative will be introduced into the new Assembly for a vote in the coming weeks. What will it take for it to be successful?

Martin Macpherson: It must build a strong, broad cross-regional support and be carefully prepared in order to secure a successful outcome. A number of the states that are opposed to such a resolution are influential and determined to defeat or distort it with wrecking amendments. With strong political leadership and a well thought out strategy it will be possible to achieve a resolution on a universal moratorium.

IPS: Will the resolution you are expecting make any difference to states which are now executing people?

Martin Macpherson: A UN General Assembly resolution by itself will not prevent a state carrying out an execution as such resolutions are not legally binding. However, a clear call from the UN’s highest political body for a moratorium on executions would carry considerable moral and political weight. It would be a very valuable tool in convincing reluctant states to implement a moratorium as a significant step towards worldwide abolition. For us at Amnesty, it would be an important advocacy tool in the campaign for worldwide death penalty abolition.