HMG Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty 2010-2015 Human Rights and Democracy Department Revised October 2011 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked HMG Death Penalty Strategy Table of Contents 3. Executive Summary 4. Our Vision 5. Alternative Outcomes 5. Analysis 6. Developing the Policy 8. Delivery 9. Results 10. Appendix One: Priority Countries 13. Appendix Two: Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund 14. Appendix Three: Results and Trends 16 Appendix Four: Minimum Standards on the use of the Death Penalty 19. Appendix Five: International Legislation and International Mechanisms 20. Appendix Six: Steps which posts can take to advance our objectives and the tools available 22. Appendix Seven: Death Penalty Core Script Not protectively marked 2 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked Executive Summary This strategy sets out the UK’s policy on the death penalty, and offers guidance to FCO overseas missions on how they can take forward our objectives. A list of priority countries are set out in Appendix One and reviewed annually. We encourage posts in these countries to proactively drive forward the death penalty agenda, in order to make progress towards our ultimate goal of global abolition. Why is abolition of the death penalty important? Promoting human rights and democracy is a priority for the UK. It is the longstanding policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. There is a growing international momentum towards abolition of the death penalty - in the past two decades we have seen a significant rise in the number of countries becoming abolitionist, and we are keen to see this trend continue. Goals Our goals are: i) to further increase the number of abolitionist countries, or countries with a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; ii) further restrictions on the use of the death penalty in retentionist countries and reductions in the numbers of executions; and iii) to ensure EU minimum standards are met in countries which retain the death penalty. Channels of influence We will work to achieve these objectives through three main channels- bilateral initiatives, the EU, and the UN. Bilaterally, we continue to work hard to lobby governments to establish moratoriums or abolish the death penalty, raise individual cases of British Nationals, use political dialogue and fund projects to further our objectives. We will continue to raise cases of third country nationals through the EU, and work with the EU taskforce on the death penalty to lobby states and pursue common action in international fora, such as the UN. In the UN General Assembly, we support activity to work towards a global moratorium on the death penalty and co-sponsor the cross-regional resolution “on the Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty”, which is tabled biennially. We will continue to work to ensure that an increasing number of countries sign up to the resolution each time it is tabled. Opportunities for posts Posts can help to deliver these objectives through a variety of different methods, including via conveying the UK position on the death penalty; lobbying governments to establish moratoriums/abolish the death penalty or to comply with minimum standards relating to its use, in line with their international obligations (under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if ratified); and lobbying their host country to support the UN Resolution on the Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty. Posts can also support project work, through suggesting, implementing and monitoring a range of projects. In the past and currently, our projects have included mounting legal challenges to the mandatory death penalty and work which involves changing public opinion. Not protectively marked 3 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked Our Vision Why is the death penalty an issue for us? 1. The UK cares about the death penalty because:  Promoting human rights and democracy overseas is a priority for HMG. It is the longstanding policy of the UK to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle because we consider that its use undermines human dignity, that there is no conclusive evidence of its deterrent value, and that any miscarriage of justice leading to its imposition is irreversible and irreparable.  It affects British Nationals – there are a number of British Nationals who have been sentenced to death and others awaiting trial for a crime which may carry the death penalty.  It affects our provision of police or other justice and security assistance to countries which retain the death penalty – In countries where the assistance we offer could lead to the death penalty, the assistance we may be able to offer will be limited.  It affects extradition cases - we cannot extradite someone to a country which retains the death penalty if there is a risk that they will face the death penalty. 2. While the death penalty is not outlawed in international law, there is considerable international pressure for its abolition. In particular, article 6.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the Covenant. The ICCPR also states that the death penalty can only be used for the most serious crimes, for example murder. However, where the death penalty is retained, we will continue to lobby for it to be used within the EU’s minimum standards, the UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of those facing the Death Penalty, and other internationally recognised standards on restricting the death penalty (see Appendix Four), and regularly call for steps to be taken towards its abolition. We will continue to lobby states to sign up to and implement international legislation on the death penalty and conform to international standards. What might happen next? 3. We want to see a continuation of the international trend towards abolition, with more retentionist countries establishing moratoriums with a view to full abolition in the future. Consular directorate addresses cases of British nationals facing the death penalty separately but clearly they remain an extremely high priority. 4. Therefore our overarching goals are:  Increase in the number of abolitionist countries, or countries with a moratorium on the use of the death penalty Not protectively marked 4 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked  Reduction in the numbers of executions and further restrictions on the use of the death penalty in retentionist countries  Ensuring EU minimum standards are met in countries which retain the death penalty Alternative Outcomes There are two other potential outcomes which we do not want to happen- the trend could level out or the situation could get worse, with abolitionist countries taking a step backwards and reinstating the death penalty or ending long standing moratoriums. Taiwan, for example, broke its 5 year moratorium in 2010. Analysis What is the current situation regarding the death penalty? 5. According to Amnesty International, 58 countries retain the death penalty, while 96 are abolitionist for all crimes, 9 are abolitionist for ordinary crimes only (countries which retain the death penalty for exceptional crimes such as crimes under military law) and 34 are abolitionist in practice (countries which retain the death penalty but have not executed anyone during the past 10 years)1. 6. There has been considerable progress on abolition over the past 20 years and the international trend towards abolition is increasing [see figure A]. Our aim is to harness this global momentum to achieve our ultimate aim of global abolition and to avoid the risk that this progress will begin to level out. Figure A (source: Amnesty International) 1 Amnesty International: September 2011 Not protectively marked 5 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked 7. There are several key pieces of international legislation, most importantly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the American Convention on Human Rights. Article Six of the ICCPR states that in countries where the death penalty remains in force, it may only be imposed for the most serious crimes, and it shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons under 18 years old or pregnant women. Articles 7 and 14 of the ICCPR, which deal with cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right to a fair trial respectively, are also key elements of the ICCPR which relate to the imposition of the death penalty. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aims for the abolition of the death penalty. The Sixth Optional Protocol to the ECHR abolishes the death penalty except for in times of war, and the Thirteenth Optional Protocol abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances. For a more exhaustive list of international legislation, as well as key mechanisms available to promote their implementation, see Appendix Five. Developing the Policy What methods can we use to advance our objective of global abolition? 8. There are three main channels which the FCO can use to achieve our aims: Bilateral initiatives:  High level lobbying  Political dialogues, including through raising the death penalty in bilateral human rights dialogues  Funding projects through the Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund and Bilateral Programme Budgets  Raising individual cases of British Nationals. HMG policy is to use all appropriate influence to prevent the execution of any British national.  Raising individual cases of third country nationals where deemed necessary and/or effective, for example when EU minimum standards have not been met. Through the EU:  EU Death Penalty Taskforce. The taskforce meets approximately twice a year to discuss and drive forward EU action on the death penalty, and continues work virtually throughout the year.  Raising individual cases in countries which retain the death penalty and which do not meet the minimum standards as set out in the EU Guidelines on Human Rights. These standards include only imposing the death penalty for the most serious crimes, and not imposing the death penalty on juveniles, pregnant women or the insane. There must have also been a fair trial, a right to appeal, and the right to seek a pardon or commutation. The full list of EU minimum standards can be found at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/10015.en08.pdf  Lobbying to restrict and reduce its application in retentionist countries Not protectively marked 6 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked  General demarches in favour of abolition of the death penalty in other countries  Factoring the death penalty into political and human rights dialogues  Funding projects through the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) and promoting the EIDHR to stakeholders and as a useful source of funding  Pursuing common action in international fora such as the UN – including by taking a coordinated approach to UN Resolutions on the death penalty Through the UN:  UN General Assembly Resolution on the Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty biennially, working with others and lobbying where required to secure appropriate language and increased support for each successive resolution.  Making recommendations to specific countries through the Universal Periodic Review process, and following up on recommendations which have been accepted, for example through funded projects or lobbying activities  Following up on recommendations made by the UN Human Rights Committee Supporting the UN Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions- acting on the basis of his reports, and using them as a tool to apply pressure 9. The FCO can also use the following channels to achieve our aims on the death penalty: The Commonwealth:  Given the number of Commonwealth countries who retain the death penalty and the specific interest of the Commonwealth Secretariat in Human Rights, we will be looking to continue to expand the work we do through the Commonwealth  Through the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM), which are held every two years  Through the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which deals with violations of the Harare Declaration, which sets out the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values  Through the Eminent Persons Group, which will set out recommendations on how to strengthen the Commonwealth.  Through the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, who have a set policy on abolition of the death penalty, and are committed to seeking abolition worldwide  By working with Commonwealth countries who support abolition of the death penalty Other international and regional institutions - Working with other international and regional institutions, including organisations such as the OSCE. Not protectively marked 7 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked Delivery How can posts deliver our objectives on the death penalty? 10. There is no single identified route to abolition of the death penalty. But there are a range of steps which posts can take to advance our objectives towards moratoriums and eventually abolition. (Their use must be adapted to the circumstances of each country.) 11. Steps to take and the tools available to help posts take these forward include:  Supporting projects which mount constitutional and other legal challenges to the death penalty, restrict the scope of the death penalty and promote alternatives  Encourage adherence to international standards  Lobbying countries to immediately establish moratoriums with a view to abolition (core script attached at Appendix Seven)  Lobbying countries to vote in favour of the UN Resolution on the Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty  Lobbying on individual cases of British Nationals who have been sentenced to the death penalty or are facing death penalty charges. (Consular Directorate lead on this lobbying strategy, which is specifically tailored to each case)  Support projects which change opinions, engaging with civil society, the public, the media and policy makers  Other bilateral and regional projects supporting our three goals 12. See Appendix Six for further recommendations of actions posts can take and for more information on the tools available to take these initiatives forward. Projects funded by the Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund 13. The death penalty is a thematic priority of the FCO Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund.2 Details of past and present projects funded by the Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund are set out in Appendix Two and updated annually. 14. Projects on the death penalty funded by the Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund aim to contribute to one or more of our three goals and ultimately the abolition of the death penalty. The following indicators have been identified to help posts assess project proposals and their outcomes:  More legislative, constitutional or procedural amendments leading to a reduction in the number of offences to which the death penalty applies or to the number of sentences imposed. 2 The Programme Fund runs until March 2012. Subsequent decisions on the Programme Fund will be taken annually. Not protectively marked 8 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked  Greater transparency in the application of the death penalty (including trial procedures) and debate between policy makers regarding its effectiveness and alternatives.  Legislative, procedural, constitutional or policy amendments leading to a reduction in the number of offences to which the death penalty applies, or number of sentences imposed.  Governments enabled to ratify the 2nd optional protocol to the ICCPR or have greater adherence to international standards and principles in relation to the death penalty. 15. Posts can also run their own bilateral projects from their own bilateral funds. HRDD would be happy to advise on any suggested project proposals. What are our priority countries and regions? 16. Priority countries and regions are listed in Appendix One and updated annually. Priority countries are selected for a number of different reasons, including where we would most like to see change, where we think HMG efforts may have an impact, or where the country in question is an influential player in the region. Our posts in the priority countries should actively be pursuing our objectives on the death penalty. Results What has been achieved to date 17. A report of our project work under the Human Rights and Democracy Fund and bilateral funding streams, detailing both our achievements and the challenges we have faced, is set out in Appendix Three. Appendix Three also contains an assessment of progress more generally towards the abolition of the death penalty. We will continue to review progress by updating Appendix Three annually. Human Rights and Democracy Department October 2011 Not protectively marked 9 Death Penalty Strategy: October 2011 Not protectively marked APPENDIX ONE - PRIORITY COUNTRIES We use five criteria to identify our priority countries. These are: 1. The ability to make progress against our three goals 2. Willingness of country to engage on the abolition of the death penalty 3. Numbers of executions 4. Lack of minimum standards/transparency 5. Global influence of country concerned/ impact of country’s abolition elsewhere in the world We have identified the following priority countries for 2011/12. China [criteria 3, 4 & 5] China is the most prolific user of the death penalty, but its use remains very opaque. Statistics remain a state secret so we do not know the true figure of the number of executions which take place in China every year. However, there have been positive developments over the past few years, such as the return of the power of final review to the Supreme People’s Court and the reduction of the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty from 68 to 55 in February 2011. We engage with the Chinese through our bilateral human rights dialogue, our project work and through the EU. We focus our work in China on Goals two and three. Iran [criteria 3 &4] Iran is second only to China in the total number of people it executes. It is one of the few countries which still executes juvenile offenders in contradiction to its commitments under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Iran continues to execute juveniles and uses stoning as a method of execution. Lack of fair trials and due process are also areas of grave concern. There are no state published statistics on the numbers of executions but Amnesty International estimate that in 2010 there were over 252 executions. International pressure including ministerial statements can have a positive impact on individual cases. We have identified Iran as a priority due to its numbers and method of executions and the lack of due process prior to sentence, and continue to focus our work on Goals two and three. The Commonwealth Caribbean [criteria 1] All of the countries in this region retain the death penalty and there is much public support for its use. We have had successes with projects there, particularly over restricting the use of the death penalty. The mandatory death penalty in Barbados was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2009, although this decision is yet to come into force, and in Dominica the gallows were demolished as a direct result of our projects. There is however more work we can do in the Caribbean over restricting the use of the death penalty. Executions are extremely rare in the Caribbean, and the most recent execution was in St Kitts and St Nevis in 2008. Our main area of work here is under goals one and two. Not protectively marked 10