Subject: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ITALY)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List
49TH SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY - THIRD COMMITTEE -
NOVEMBER 21, 1994
STATEMENT BY LORENZO FERRARIN, DEPUTY PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ITALY
Since this is the first time that I take the floor in this Committee, I
would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chiarman, and the other members of the
Bureau on your elections, I am confident that under your guidance, the
Third Committee will successfully conduct its works.
Let me begin bu saying that the Italian delegation fully supports the views
expressed this morning on item 100(e) by Germany in its capacity as the
current President of the European Union.
Italy wishes to express its sincere appreciation to all delegations that
have participated in the discussion on the inclusion of the additional
sub-item "Capital Punishment" in the General Assembly agenda. We address
our thanks both to those who have expressed their support for the
initiative and those who have expressed their opposition.
Capital punishment is a sensitive issue that is subject to a wide spectrum
of often divergent cultural, religious and ideological viewpoints. Yet
despite our differences, there is a considerable amount of common ground
that we all share based on humanitarian principles. Italy has its own
strong convictions on the issue, but let me make it loud and clear that we
do not intend to impose anything on anyone. When together with other member
States we requested the inclusion of the question of capital punishment in
the agenda, our aim was certainly not to force a confrontation between
abolitionist and antiabolitionist States, but to re-open the discussion in
a costructive and co-operative spirit. This process will bring us
up-to-date on current international standards, and allow us to reasses them
for present and for future generations. Capital punishment is a general
heading that describes a number of issues, not solely the dilemma of wether
or not to reatain the extreme punishment.
In the past both the General Assembly and ECOSOC have discussed the various
implications of this issue and adopted a number of resolutions.
As far back as 1968, a General Assembly resolution (2393-XXIII) focused on
full respect for due process and and for the rights of the accused in cases
punishable by death. It also focused on the possibility of Member States
placing restrictions on capital punishment or abolishing it altogether.
In 1971, General Assembly resolution 2857 (XXVI) affirmed that in order to
fully guarantee the right to life, provided for in article 3 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the "main objective to be pursued is
that of progressively restricting the number of offences for which capital
punishment may be imposed, with a view to the desirability of abolishing
this punishment in all countries." This goal was confirmed in GA resolution
32/61 of December 8, 1977.
These same principles were reaffirmed in various ECOSOC resolutions,
starting in 1973, and most recently on July 24, 1990 (N/1990/51).
In view of the importance attached to the question of capital punishment by
the U.N. the international community and public opinion. In 1989 the GA
adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
Finally, the UN's ongoing attention to monitoring this problem is confirmed
by the regular preparation of a five-year report on capital punishment by
the Secretary-General-the last having been in 1990, and the next fue out in
1995.
This short summary of UN precedents shows that this issue is of paramount
importance and worthly of continued and perhaps increased attention.
In the last report to the UN Committee on Crime Prevention and Control
(1989), the Rapporteur noted that "Although the world-wide trend towards
abolition has proceeded at a steady pace, it has to be recognized that in
many regions of the world there has been a marked resistance to appeals for
change."
The rise in the most heinous crimes in some countries have led their
governments to reaffirm the belief that capital punishment has a general
deterrent effect. However, various statistical studies demonstrate, on the
contrary, that there is no correlation whatsoever between the rate of
heinous crimes and instances of capital punishment. It is the job of
Governments to ensure that public policy on this sensitive matter be
determined in a judicious and dispassionate manner.
An increasing number of States with the death penalty in their legislation
have become abolitionist "in practice." But while the suspension of
executions may pave way to the abolition of the death penalty, it provides
no legal guarantees to the immates who remain on death row.
The UN approach to a future with no death penalty has been reinforced by
the decision to exclude this punishment at the international level for the
most terrible crimes. Crimes against international peace and security and
violations of humanitarian law are not punishable by the death sentence,
which has been excluded from the Statutes of the International Tribunals
for crimes committeed in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda. In more
general terms, it has also been excluded from the Draft Statute of the
proposed International Criminal Court, which was just prepared by the
International Law Commission.
The right to life is a fundamental human right. This is spelled out not
only in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also in article 6 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 6 of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the international customary law. Italy
fully believes that the imposition of capital punishment is a violation of
the right to life. Many Countries share this view. Many others do not. We
very much hope that the progressive development of international custom
will lead all Countries to this same conclusion. The abolition of the death
penalty can only come about by means of a voluntary process, through an
autonomous decision by individual Countries to freely amend their laws, or
to accept international rules such as the Second Optional Protocol.
However long the road to a generalized abolition of capital punishment may
seem, certain aspects of executions raise serious legal, social and
humanitarian concerns.
ECOSOC resolution 1984/50 adopted a series of nine safeguards guaranteeing
the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.
According to a general and fundamental principle of criminal law and
justice, the death penalty - like any other criminal penalty - cannot be
introduced retroactively.
Since the death penalty represents the most serious punishment, it shoul be
applied exclusively to the most serious crimes. It cannot be looked upon as
an antidote or a deterrent for crime. The GA's and ECOSOC's many years of
action in this direction are still awaiting more positive action by non
abolitionist States.
Despite numerous resolutions and international instruments to which we have
already referred, there still appears to be some reluctance to introduce
rules prohibiting the execution of minors, pregnant women and the insane.
These restrictions represent a minimun standard that shoul be observed
without exception.
It is not the intention of my Delegation to explore all the different
aspects of the legal and humanitarian guarantees in the applications of
capital punishment (fair trial, posibility of an appeal, pardon,
commutation of sentence). However, we wish to reacall ECOSOC resolution
1984/50, which states that "when capital punishment occurs, it shall be
carried out so as to inflict the minimun possible suffering."
In consideration of possible future developments of the abolitionist
movement, and of humanitarian implications of the question of the death
penalty, the Italian Government wishes to submit a concrete proposal.
A growing number of Countries that have not abolished capital punishment
are following the path of retaining the death penalty without enforcing it.
Thei are convinced that the very existence of the death penalty, even if
not enforced, may have a positive deterrent effect. As was stated in the
last UN report on capital punishment, "the death penalty in many Countries
has so far greater symbolic than practical significance."
The practice of not enforcing death sentences could then become a sort of
general practice based on humanitarian principles.
For all these reasons, my Government advanced the proposal that all
retentionist States should consider suspending executions until the year
2000. This six-year moratorium would represent a tangible step toward a
possibile reconciliation between divergent positions and allow a period of
reflection on the issue.
In conclusion, my Government wishes to stress that our initiative on
capital punishment is two-fold: to stimulate a greater opening in the
debate on the abolition of the death penalty; and to make the international
community more aware of the importance of full respect for all safeguards,
in compliance with relevant international instruments and in adherence to
universal moral and humanitarian standars. In this perspective, it is the
view of my Government that our proposal for a moratorium on executions is
the best and most widely-acceptable way to achieve these goals.
