Guyana should remove the death penalty from its terrorism legislation and all other parts of the law books, former UN Commissioner on Human Rights Navi Pillay said yesterday, arguing that its retention goes against international humanitarian law.
“The concern is you don’t pass a law just because something terrible has happened. Law is not done emotionally. The rule of law follows international standards and Guyana is very much a part of the international community… and so they have vowed to pass laws that are certain and definite and not responding each time there is a terrorism act committed here, in France and elsewhere,” she said.
Pillay, now a Commissioner of the International Commission against the Death Penalty and two other human rights experts addressed a news conference just moments before the start of a Judicial Colloquium on the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Chancellor of the Judiciary (ag) Carl Singh, judges and magistrates attended the one-day forum which was held at the Marriott Hotel.
While the state has not enacted the death penalty here since 1997 and the present APNU+AFC administration has not shown any inclination to change this, it has been criticised for assigning the death penalty for 14 offences under anti-money laundering legislation passed last year.
Pillay, a South African jurist, told reporters that the UN has very specific requirements for counter-terrorism measures. “It must still comply with international humanitarian law so we will add our voice to ask Guyana to advance forward and not to go backward. We are very aware that this country has made many advances. This country should be very proud that for 20 years there has been no execution there has been a moratorium… Inter-nationally and in the United Nations almost 160 countries have signed up either to a moratorium or abolition and that is what we want, as a first step, Guyana to take, is to formalise it, make it into law.”
She stressed that this visit is timely and expressed hope that government would review the Terrorism Act which has 12 provisions providing for the death penalty. The terrorism legislation was passed in the National Assembly late last year.
Ivan Šimonović, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, said there is temptation among many states to reintroduce death penalty in cases of terrorism threats. He stressed that there is no conclusive finding that the death penalty deters any crime, including terrorism.
Later, Pillay singled out Justice Navindra Singh for not imposing the death penalty. She said that he has many reasons for doing so including findings that they would not comply with the provision of a mandatory death sentence. “He looked at the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR]. Guyana is a party to that convention and he said that it is implicit when ICCPR speaks of death penalty for serious crimes …that the mandatory provision of death sentence violates that. It’s interesting and I hope soon judges will see how death sentence itself violates the ICCPR,” she said.
She said she has noticed the President’s strong statements against the death penalty. She singled out a recent comment from him in which he said he would never execute anyone. “That is a very important statement and it has to be translated into law now. We just don’t want rhetoric”’ she said.
According to Pillay, the President has expressed concerns at the high level of violence particularly by men on women or husbands and fathers on their families. “What was the President saying about how to deal with that? He said they tried and tried with penalizing, with punishment. But it’s not working [and] he is concerned about protecting women and children in the family.” She said the President is talking about an integrated approach.
“Let me tell you, domestic violence occurs in every part of the world… So you are not alone in the problems that you face but each and every one of you can do something to develop a Caribbean culture of values,” she said, adding that when looking at the map, “Guyana is the only country in South America which still has the death penalty on your statutes.”
She said she hopes that during her visit she and the other members of her team will be able to meet with the President. “We sincerely hope so. We have come a long way. All three of us are busy engaged all over the world…We do hope to meet with the President but the Attorney General undertook to convey our messages to the President and I have a feeling he will,” she informed.
Decide
Baron Marc Bossuyt, member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Emeritus President of the Constitutional Court of Belgium, said it is up to the people of Guyana to decide what “they think they want to do with the death penalty but when you compare situations in different countries the more people are exposed to information about death penalty the more likely it is that they will be moving away from the death penalty.” He said that this comment is based on the experiences of other countries.
Bossuyt spoke of Guyana signing and ratifying the second optional protocol which was adopted in 1989 by the General Assembly of the UN and which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.
“So if your country would become a party to that protocol then there is a legal obligation to abolish the capital offences, not only not to execute, but also to abolish it in the text books,” he said adding that already 81 states are party to this protocol.
“It would be very welcome if also Guyana can envisage to become a party to that protocol that is the best way of taking that commitment internationally,” he said.
He said this is not a matter of criminal policy but rather human rights. “It is the right to life. We value very highly the right to life and we think that executing people is in fact contrary to right of life,” he said.
Asked by Pillay how he would respond to Guyanese saying that they want the death penalty to remain, he said that in most countries, there is not a general consensus. “Many countries are divided on this issue but it is an issue that needs leadership,” he said explaining that it is up to the leaders to show that this has no place in modern society.
Šimonović told reporters that it would be good for Guyana to be on the right side of history. He said that traditionally UN Secretaries General were cautious when speaking on the issue of the death penalty.
In the book Moving away from the death penalty – Arguments, trends and perspectives, which he edited, he said, present Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has presented a strong position that he is against it. Ban said that it had no place in the 21st century and that “leaders across the globe must boldly step forward in favour of abolition.” Ban recommended the book to those countries that still have the death penalty on its law books.
The team expressed the view that its visit here is very timely. They were scheduled to meet the Minister of Public Security last night.
A statement from the European Delegation to Guyana had said that the colloquium would consider the following subjects: The Role of the United Nations in the Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Experience of Other Countries in Abolishing the Death Penalty; The Second Optional Protocol to the Inter-national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and The Role of Judges in Abolishing the Death Penalty.
It noted that the European Union, the International Com-mission against the Death Penalty and the United Nations advocate for the universal abolition of the death penalty. This is based on the fundamental nature of the right to life; the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people; and the absence of proof that the death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime. The abolition of the death penalty is essential for the protection of human dignity, as well as for the progressive development of human rights, the statement added.
