Hands off Cain

Comunita` di Sant'Egidio

Moratorium 2000

The Italian Academy for Advanced Studies

in conjunction with

the Human Rights Institute of the Columbia University School of Law

present an International Conference on

Global Movements

Towards a Moratorium

on the Death Penalty

Columbia University

October 13-14, 1999

Teatro - Casa Italiana

1161 Amsterdam Avenue

New York, NY 10027

RSVP (212) 854 4437

For more information:

Itacademy@columbia.edu

Introduction

Overall Goal of the Conference

The purpose of this conference is to acknowledge a crucial moment in the development of public and international attitudes towards the death penalty. That moment arises because of the sudden emergence across the globe of a variety of important movements towards a moratorium on the death penalty. The conference will bring together sponsors and observers of the various initiatives to engage in a broad-ranging public and academic discussion of the initiatives' aims, their similarities and differences, and their implications for the future of the death penalty.

Why Focus on Moratoria on the Death Penalty?

Suddenly, the issue of a moratorium on the death penalty has become a pressing topic internationally and nationally. The long-simmering debate over the death penalty has intensified during the past year in many nations around the world including the United States. Central to the attention the issue is getting are a number of different initiatives at the United Nations, in Europe and in the United States designed to secure multinational and national, governmental and non-governmental, and popular support for moratoria on the imposition of the death penalty or on executions.

The movements in support of moratoria have taken different forms. The lead internationally has been taken by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Hands off Cain, the Comunita` di Sant'Egidio, and others who are calling for a moratorium as the first step towards abolition. Important debates about the death penalty are also taking place in a number of African, Asian and European nations, sometimes as a result of efforts to bring human rights norms and international law and judicial proceedings to bear on criminal justice practices in nations that now practice the death penalty, and sometimes in response to proposals to reinstate the death penalty in nations that abolished it in the aftermath of the Holocaust and World War II or even earlier.

In the United States, the American Bar Association and numerous human rights organizations have called for a moratorium on executions until crucial issues of fairness and racial discrimination regarding the death penalty are meaningfully addressed and until executions of people with mental retardation and of juveniles are prohibited. Following on from the ABA resolution, serious moratorium proposals have been made by legislators in Nebraska, supreme court justices in Illinois, and other officials concerned with criminal justice policy. Unlike the international movement, the United States moratorium movement does not call for eventual total abolition of capital punishment, and it includes people who in principle favor the death penalty in some cases, as well as those who oppose it and are separately working for abolition, and people with no firm opinion. In addition, United States organizations such as Moratorium 2000 call for an international moratorium on the death penalty in order to ensure full protect

ion of human rights for everyone.

Recent Actions ... of the UN Commission on Human Rights ...

In 1997 the UN Commission on Human Rights for the first time approved a resolution asking Member States to suspend executions. The following year, on 3 April 1998, the Commission again said "no" to executions. Sixty-five countries signed the resolution presented by Italy. Among Commission members, 26 voted in favor, 13 against and 12 abstained. This landmark vote reflected a worldwide trend towards abolition (which has occurred recently, for example, in Hungary and South Africa). The UN moratorium proposal was again approved on 28 April 1999, by the even wider margin of 30 in favor, 11 against and 12 abstaining. To make it the official policy of the UN, this proposal must now be approved by a majority of the 185 UN Member States at the General Assembly.

In its 28 April 1999 Resolution, the UN Commission on Human Rights confirms its resolution 1998/8 of 3 April 1998 in which it expressed its conviction that abolition of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progressive development of human rights, [and] urges all States that still maintain the death penalty:

(a) To comply fully with their obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably not to impose the death penalty for any but the most serious crimes and only pursuant to a final judgement rendered by an independent and impartial competent court, not to impose it for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age, to exclude pregnant women from capital punishment and to ensure the right to a fair trial and the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence;

(b) To ensure that the notion of "most serious crimes" does not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or extremely grave consequences and that the death penalty is not imposed for non-violent financial crimes or for non-violent religious practice or expression of conscience;

(c) Not to enter any new reservations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which may be contrary to the object and the purpose of the Covenant and to withdraw any such existing reservations, given that article 6 of the Covenant enshrines the minimum rules for the protection of the right to life and the generally accepted standards in this area;

(d) To observe the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, and to comply fully with their international obligations, in particular with those under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations;

(e) Not to impose the death penalty on a person suffering from any form of mental disorder or to execute any such person;

(f) Not to execute any person as long as any related legal procedure, at international or at national level, is pending;

The Commission also calls upon all States that still maintain the death penalty:

(a) Progressively to restrict the number of offences for which the death penalty may be imposed;

(b) To establish a moratorium on executions, with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty;

(c) To make available to the public information with regard to the imposition of the death penalty;

It requests States that have received a request for extradition on a capital charge to reserve explicitly the right to refuse extradition in the absence of effective assurances from relevant authorities of the requesting State that capital punishment will not be carried out;

It requests the Secretary-General to submit his sixth quinquennial report on capital punishment and implementation of the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, due in 2000 in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1995/57 of 28 July 1995, to the Commission at its fifty-sixth session;

It decides to continue consideration of the matter at its fifty-sixth session under the same agenda item"

àand of the American Bar Association

The genesis of the differently focused moratorium efforts in the United States is the American Bar Association's resolution, passed by a vote of 280-119 by its House of Delegates in February 1997, supporting a moratorium on executions in all United States jurisdictions with capital punishment until numerous basic due process concerns are all redressed consistent with longstanding ABA policies. These concerns include the inexperience, lack of resources, and incompetence of counsel for many indigent capital defendants and death row inmates, the decreasing availability of habeas corpus and other judicial remedies for clear violations of the Constitution that compromise the integrity of guilt and/or sentencing phase verdicts at death penalty trials, continuing racial discrimination in the implementation of capital punishment, and the execution by many U.S. jurisdictions of people with mental retardation or who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. Recently, support for statewide moratoria on the d

eath penalty has been expressed by the Illinois Supreme Court and a majority of the members of the Nebraska Senate, and efforts to reinstate the death penalty in such states as Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Michigan have been defeated.

Program

(Please note that all names on this program have confirmed unless indicated.

Changes may occur prior to the conference.)

Wednesday, October 13, 1999

8:30AM Coffee and registration

9:15AM Introduction

Richard Brilliant, Italian Academy, Columbia University

9:30AM Session 1: COMPARATIVE MORATORIA ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The formal conference program will begin with a description of three important death penalty-focused moratorium initiatives. The goal of this session is to acquaint conference participants with the aims of the various moratorium initiatives, the degrees of success and obstacles they have encountered, and the ways in which they differ from each other both in their aims and in the strategies and tactics their supporters have employed. This session will provide the raw material for both formal and informal discussions among participants during the remainder of the conference about (1) the most appropriate ways to foster public and international discussion about the death penalty, (2) the virtues and potential difficulties of the various initiatives, and (3) the possibility for interaction, cooperation, and even coordination among the initiatives' supporters.

Chair: Mario Marazziti, Community of Sant'Egidio

The UN proposals for a moratorium on the death penalty

Sergio D'Elia - Secretary Hands off Cain

The ABA proposal for a moratorium on executions

Ronald Tabak, Lawyer

Moratorium 2000: Civic and Religious Forces Supporting the Moratorium

Sister Helen Prejean, Author

11:00 AM Session 2: RECENTLY SUCCESSFUL AND ONGOING NATIONAL AND MULTINATIONAL INITIATIVES ON THE DEATH PENALTY

The next session will add to the information base, by presenting participants with brief case studies of successful and ongoing national initiatives around the world to limit or abolish the death penalty, or to keep it from reappearing in nations that previously have abolished it. In this session, participants will consider and compare the social and political conditions, and the strategies and tactics, that have contributed to successful and pending death penalty initiatives in a variety of nations in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America and on the multinational front in Europe. The session aims to demonstrate that the success or failure of death penalty initiatives is not a foregone conclusion in any nation in the world or a function solely of social and political conditions (although they are very important) and that success depends, in addition, on strategic and tactical choices, timing, and hard work.

Chair: Catherine Powell , Law School, Columbia University

A Global Overview

William Schabas, Professor of International Law, Quebec University, Montreal

The "Towards Abolition" Report

Elisabetta Zamparutti, Editor, Hands off Cain

The South African Case

George Bizos, member of the State Council - South Africa

The Russian Case

Igor A. Bezrukov, Member of the Commission of Pardon by the President of the Russian Federation

The Turkmenistan Case

Aksoltan Ataeva, Ambassador of Turkmenistan to the United Nations

The Brazilian Case

Jose Gregori, Secretary of State of Brazil for Human Rights

Action on the Moratorium: The European Case

Renate Wholwend, Council of Europe

October 13, 1999 Afternoon

2:30PM Session 3: INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS BETWEEN COUNTRIES ON THE DEATH PENALTY

This session will discuss a variety of efforts to bring human rights norms, international law, international judicial scrutiny, and the force of international relations to bear on exercises of the death penalty in the United States. Participants in, and scholars who have studied and supported these efforts, will describe them. Some of the participants will discuss cases filed in the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court. Others will discuss substantive topics of interest for international law and international relations, including juveniles and the death penalty, human rights norms obliging nations to decrease their use of the death penalty, extradition, and the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs. The question this session will address is whether human rights norms, international law, international tribunals, and foreign relations can make positive contributions to judicial and public policy consideration of the death penalty in the United States.

Chair: Louis Henkin, Law School, Columbia University

Lori Damrosch, Law School, Columbia University

Steven Hawkins, Director, National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Jaap E. Doek, Rapporteur UN Committee on the Rights of the Child

Dennis Daley, Layer, Jamaica

Thursday, October 14, 1999

8:30AM Coffee and registrations

9:00AM Session 4: CONDEMNING INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS: CAUSES AND DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL CONSEQUENCES

This session will use recent events, in Illinois and elsewhere in the United States, as a case study of (1) unjust exercises of the death penalty in the United States and the role of the denial of fair judicial process in causing those injustices, (2) the use of documented injustices to inspire and influence debate on the death penalty and to contribute to moratorium initiatives, (3) the impact of such cases on foreign audiences and foreign initiatives in regard to the death penalty in the United States and elsewhere, and (4) the role of the domestic and international media in documenting injustices and in influencing the death penalty debate.

Chair: James S. Liebman, Law School, Columbia University

Lawrence Marshall, School of Law, Northwestern University

Barry Scheck, Co-Director, The Innocence Project, Cardozo School of Law, New York *

Richard Sindel, Layer, Missouri

Testimonial 1: Rolando Cruz

Testimonial 2: Kerry Max Cook

Testimonial 3: George White

Testimonial 4: Ellen Reasonover

12:30PM Special Address

Emma Bonino, Former European Commissioner for Human Rights

1:00PM Closing Remarks

This session will provide a forum for a leading American legal scholar and anti-death-penalty advocate and strategist in the courts to reflect on the implications of the various moratorium, international law, and foreign relations initiatives for a nation in which so much of the death penalty debate has taken place in and in which the first national moratorium on executions was sponsored by the courts in the course of applying domestic law.

Chair: Jack Greenberg, Law School, Columbia University

Remarks: Anthony Amsterdam, Law School, New York University

2:30PM Follow Up Round Table: MORATORIUM: COORDINATION AND INITIATIVES

Chair: Magdaleno Rose Avila, Moratorium 2000

Too often, conferences of this kind end without any effort to use what is learned as the basis for new strategies and tactics aimed at achieving the goals of the convocation. Too often, participants in the various international and domestic initiatives on the death penalty work apart from, and occasionally even risk working at cross-purposes with, each other. The goal of this session is to rectify these tendencies by convening an action- and policy-oriented private meeting among the representatives of national and international organizations concerned with the death penalty to discuss ways of coordinating and jointly enhancing the effectiveness of their efforts. This will be an action and policy oriented meeting among the representative of national and international organizations supporting a moratorium on the death penalty. For a list of participants in this session please contact the organizing committee.