Subject: MORATORIUM AT ONU
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
GENERAL COMMITTEE POSTPONES DECISION ON WHETHER CURRENT SESSION OF ASSEMBLY
SHOULD TAKE UP QUESTION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Forty-ninth General Assembly - GA/8795 - General Committee - 4 November
1994 - 5th Meeting (AM)
Sponsors of Item Say United Nations Should Contribute to Eventual
Abolition;
Pakistan Says Delay May Help to Produce Consensus for Issue to be Discussed
The General Committee this morning deferred a decision on the inclusion of
a new agenda item on capital punishment in the current session of the
General Assembly.
The Committee decided to defer action until a date to be announced
following a brief recess in which an initial attempt to reach the necessary
consensus for inclusion of a new agenda item was unsuccessful. The
representative of Sudan had raised an objection based on religious
principles to the inclusion of an item on capital punishment. The
representative of Pakistan suggested that, in the spirit of consensus that
had ruled the Committee's past work, there should be delay to allow time
for consensus to be achieved.
Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Italy and Malta had requested the
inclusion of the item, stating their wish to promote appropriate action
within the United Nations aimed at contributing to an eventual abolition of
capital punishment. The request for inclusion of the item on capital
punishment was made in a note to the Secretary-General (document A/49/234).
In the explanatory memorandum attached to the note, dated 25 October, those
countries stated that the question of capital punishment had become
particularly urgent in recent times, in view of the continuing high number
of death sentences and executions in various parts of the world.
Annexed to the memorandum was a draft resolution by which the Assembly
would encourage all Members States to consider introducing the necessary
amendments in their legislation with a view to the desirability of
abolishing the death penalty in all countries, thus promoting full respect
for the right to life. By that draft, the Assembly would also encourage all
States to consider instituting moratoria on pending executions, with a view
to ensuring that the principle that no States should dispose of the life of
any human being is affirmed throughout the year 2000.
Statements
The representative of Italy, introducing the proposed agenda item, said the
Italian Parliament, on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the Italian
people, had passed a motion mandating the Government to submit a request
for inclusion of the item in the current agenda of the Assembly. Other
initiatives had emphasized the death penalty issue, such as the resolution
adopted by the Council of Europe which asked all States that had not yet
done so to abolish capital punishment. The Secretary-General, on 21
September 1994, had urged States that had not yet done so to ratify the
Second United Nations Protocol, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty. The Italian Chamber of Deputies on 26 October had approved the
Protocol and sent it on to the Senate for final approval. In addition,
Italy had just abolished the death penalty for crimes committed in wartime
under military law.
He said his Government was aware that it was a controversial issue, and
many countries had laws that provided for capital punishment. A suggested
draft resolution had been included with the memorandum to prove that the
initiative was not intended to be intrusive. Italy was open to amendments
to that initial effort. The abolition of capital punishment had become a
principle felt deeply by many segments of public opinion.
The representative of Honduras said inclusion of the item on the agenda
would be an important step towards implementation of an inherent right to
life. There was a growing public opinion against capital punishment as
reflected in the General Assembly resolutions which stipulated the General
Assembly was determined to abolish capital punishment worldwide. It had
achieved a high degree of international acceptance. The right to life was a
fundamental principle, as stated in the Declaration of Rights. Inclusion of
the item on the agenda was not meant to exert pressure on the States that
had not abolished capital punishment. Rather, it reflected a strong
movement to abolish capital punishment, which had tangible results in
adoption of international covenants and agreements where an individual's
right to life was stipulated. He believed that States where there was
capital punishment should adopt legislation to ensure that those who had
not reached maturity should not be subjected to capital punishment. In
1987, Honduras had abolished capital punishment and constitutionally
prohibited it. His country's participation in regional and other covenants
on human rights led his country to support the item, because in a democracy
human life was respected.
The representative of Uruguay said his country fully supported the
inclusion of the item on capital punishment. Uruguay did not believe that
the death penalty was the best way to combat crime, and also opposed it on
reasons of principle. The Constitution of his country expressly forbade the
death penalty. No country was more respectful of the domestic jurisdiction
of other States than Uruguay. He could understand how legislation would
gradually evolve towards the abolition of the death penalty; that abolition
should be enshrined as an important goal to be sought by the entire
international community to further ensure the most basic of human rights.
The representative of Austria said his country had traditionally called for
world-wide abolition of capital punishment and supported the initiative.
The representative of Sudan said his delegation had been taken by surprise
by the tabling of the item on capital punishment. His Government could not
agree with the initiative. The punishment was designed to match the
severity of certain crimes. Capital punishment was a divine right in some
religions. It was embodied in Islam and those beliefs must be respected. He
understood the logic of the sponsors of the new item that it was part of
human rights declarations. It could also be said that capital punishment
was part of Islamic law. In Islam there were over 85 forms of self-defence
in response to a call for capital punishment. The punishment could not be
imposed as easily as it was in other countries where only a handful of
legal defences existed.
The representative of Senegal said the item should be included under
existing Item 100 on human rights issues, and be taken up by the Third
Committee.
The representative of Guinea Bissau said signatories of the request to
include the item and those supporting the proposal were convinced that
there was a growing awareness that the international community would find a
speedy decision to ensure abolition worldwide, especially where
jurisdiction was lacking or poorly organized. In view of the complexity of
problems in the world, the United Nations had demonstrated a will to
eradicate some legal injustices. He hoped international efforts to abolish
capital punishment would be fully realized. It was related to international
peace and security and connected to the issue of human rights and rights of
individuals. Joint action was the only viable option for abolishing the
death penalty and ensuring respect of human rights. It was necessary to be
courageous and seek justice for all, thereby protecting the world from any
imbalances. All countries in the General Assembly would build together a
new sense of humanism to confirm the desire for the changes which would
lead to new relations between both States and individuals.
The representative of Burundi said the request for the inclusion of the
item on capital punishment was an important step towards implementation of
the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. His delegation considered the
right to life, personal security and physical integrity to be the most
important human right. His country's penal code had a stipulation for
capital punishment, but lately it had always been delayed. Instead, life
imprisonment was generally used, but it was a de facto abandonment of
capital punishment, for life was in the hands of God and people were
increasingly sensitive to the issue. There were different ways of
approaching the problem and more joint action should be undertaken by the
co-sponsors. His delegation would have no difficulty with the inclusion of
the item.
The representative of Italy, in response to Sudan, assured that country's
representative that there was no attempt to surprise anyone with the
initiative. Italy had attempted to notify everyone. The ongoing
rationalization of the work of the Third Committee might require it to be
added to existing Item 100 as part of human rights questions. He would
agree with the suggestion to add it as a separate sub-item under Item 100.
The representative of Sudan said his country opposed the inclusion of the
item on the agenda as a matter of religious principle.
The Chairman said a vote would be necessary, considering the principled
stand of the representative of Sudan.
The representative of the Russian Federation said the tradition prevailing
in the Organization showed such decisions should be adopted without a vote.
The delegations with strong views on the problem would in the Third
Committee have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion. The
Committee was not deciding on the substance of the question but whether it
should be included. The substance would be discussed at a different time.
The representative of Pakistan said there had been previous cases in which
objections to new items had been raised. He suggested that a decision on
the item be deferred until a later date.
The representatives of China and India expressed support for the solution
proposed by Pakistan.
Following a brief recess, the representative of Sudan agreed to the
suggestion of Pakistan. The representative of the United States also
supported the delay until a fixed date, preferably within a week.
The Committee decided to defer consideration until a date to be announced,
preferably next week.
