CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY

54th SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

(Geneva 16 March - 24 april 1998)

STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR MARIO ALESSI

HEAD OF THE ITALIAN DELEGATION

ITEM 13

STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Geneva, 23 March 1998

Permanent Mission of Italy to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva

Mr. Chairman,

In the high level debate that opened this exceptional session of the Commission many speakers have referred to the question of the death penalty, which we consider today under item 13 of our agenda. The Italian Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Senator Toia, illustrated the reasons that have induced Italy, with the support of numerous countries, to continue in its action aimed at gradually abolishing such dramatic exception to the right to life. I will not therefore go into lengthy explanations of our objectives or criteria. I would merely like to reiterate that, since we initiated our action a few decades ago, it has never been, nor is it now, aimed at any country or group of countries: its intent is essentially to favour a debate among governments which would hopefully lead to a mutually agreed evolution of conceptions and policies on this grave issue.

For these reasons we feel the need, I would say the obligation, to address some of the objections which have been voiced by countries not sharing our approach to the issue. We do this with clarity of, purpose and determination, but also with much respect.

In the first place, some of our interlocutors have maintained that our initiative touches upon a matter, capital punishment which has a direct connection with religious principles that no one should challenge or question. We think it is extremely important to dispel this misunderstanding. In no way Italy, a country which has a deep respect for all religions, would conceive of expressing critical judgments on any religious faith. Our starting point is definitely not one that aims at building walls or deepening cultural divides, quite the opposite. In this, as well as 'M any other aspect of the human rights debate, we feel on the contrary that our task is to find what we all have 'm common, after recognizingwith respect all our cultural differences. And the way we approach the issue of the death penalty is indeed on the basis of concepts which are common to all religions: the sanctity of human life, the value of human dignity, the precept of mercy, the gift of compassion. The fact that historically these princ

iples have been applied to different degrees in different parts of the world certainly does not justify their appropriation by any one religion, nor, conversely, can their rejection be attributed to the precept of any religion. Another criticism we have heard concerns the absolute sovereignty of each country, which would allegedly be questioned by our initiative, in matters relating to criminal law. Now, it would be one thing to say (and we do not say it!) that the death penalty today is illegal under international law and quite another to maintain the erroneous notion that matters relating to the application of the death penalty fall totally and invariably outside the scope of international obligations. This is proved by the fact that there are many international norms m matters pertaining to the application of the death penalty, some of which are recalled in resolution 1997/12 adopted by this Commission. As for the broader issue of the possible evolution of international law toward total abolition of the d

eath penalty, we are convinced that it is perfectly appropriate to discuss it in the context of this Commission insofar as it pertains a major exception to the most basic human right, the right to life - a fact which not even those who feel it is a legitimate exception can deny. As to the appeal addressed to all States to establish a moratorium on executions, I wish to underline that it does not create by itself a legal or moral obligation, but leaves to the sovereign choice of each member of the international community to follow the example of the many States that, even if they retain the death penalty in their constitution or legislation, have freely decided to follow such a course. A third argument has to do with the presumed deterrent effect of the death penalty. It is used especially by the representatives of countries in which crime, often organized crime, threatens the peace and security of citizens in an alarming and destabilizing way. We recognize the good faith of those who have this reaction to su

ch evident social evils and threats, but we would like to stress that criminologists and statisticians have not established a self-evident connection between the application of the death penalty and the decrease of violent crime, especially murder. A sounder, more factual, correlation seems to exist, on the contrary, between the certainty of punishment (jail sentences) and the decrease of crimes m general: the real deterrent is not the level of the punishment, but its inevitability. And let me say finally, on this point, that a glance at the map of capital punishment would justify the impression of a correlation which is diametrically opposed to what is imagined by those who speak of the death penalty as a deterrent: the places which register more executions are the same that register more murders.What we consider as the moral inadmissibility of taking a human life seems to us to be hardly discouraged by subsequently taking another human life, legal as it might be 'm some countries. In our opinion, the State

should punish, and harshly when necessary; but should break the chain of death, and aim instead at protecting its citizens and reforming the culprit at the same time. It should abstain from an act which, we feel, inevitably lies (and we see it from the vehement passions that executions arouse in the public) on the border between justice and revenge.

Thank you Mr. Chairman