THE DEATH PENALTY
IN THE OSCE AREA
B P
e Death Penalty
in the OSCE Area
B P
ODIHR
THE DEATH PENALTY
IN THE OSCE AREA
B P
is paper was prepared by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (ODIHR). Every effort has been made to ensure that the information
contained in this paper is accurate and impartial.
is paper updates e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2008. It
is intended to provide a concise update to highlight changes in the status of the death
penalty in OSCE participating States since the previous publication and to promote
constructive discussion of this issue. It covers the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June
2009.
All comments or suggestions should be addressed to ODIHR’s Human Rights
Department.
Published by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR)
Aleje Ujazdowskie 19
00-557 Warsaw
Poland
www.osce.org/odihr
© OSCE/ODIHR 2009
ISBN 978-92-9234-768-0
All rights reserved. e contents of this publication may be freely used and copied
for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such
reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of ODIHR as the source.
Designed by Nona Reuter
Contents
FOREWORD vii
THE STATUS OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE OSCE AREA 1
1. Abolitionist States 3
2. Partly Abolitionist States 4
3. De Facto Abolitionist States 6
4. Retentionist States 7
ANNEXES 15
Annex 1: OSCE Commitments on the Death Penalty 16
Annex 2: Other International Standards on the Death Penalty 18
Annex 3: Relevant Recommendations Made at the
OSCE Human Dimension Meeting in 2008 30
Annex 4: Questionnaire on the Death Penalty 31
Annex 5: Status of Ratifications of Relevant Treaties 34
Foreword
is year’s edition marks the 10th Anniversary of e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area
– Background Paper. Since ODIHR started publishing this paper on a yearly basis, the
global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty has continued. While nine
1
OSCE participating States still retained the death penalty in 1999, today two coun-
tries are left in the region that still apply capital punishment, one of which appears to
be moving towards the introduction of a moratorium in the near future.
Although there are no OSCE commitments requiring the abolition of the death
penalty, participating States have made a number of commitments regarding its use.
2
In particular, participating States have committed themselves only to impose capital
punishment in a manner that is not contrary to their international commitments and
to keep the question of whether or not to retain the death penalty under considera-
tion.
Covering the period 1 July 2008 until 30 June 2009, this year’s background paper,
as in 2008, highlights in a concise manner developments that have occurred since
the last publication.
3
It was ODIHR’s intention that the content of each country
entry should be based primarily on information provided by the participating States
themselves. All OSCE participating States have committed themselves to making in-
formation on the use of the death penalty available to the public.
4
Accordingly, in
June 2009, a questionnaire on the use of the death penalty was sent to each of the six
participating States for which there were country entries in the 2008 edition.
5
e
questionnaire is reproduced in Annex 4. Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia and the United
States responded to the questionnaire, while no reply was received from Tajikistan.
e Russian Federation replied in writing that, due to the existing moratorium on
1 “e Death Penalty: List of Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries”, Amnesty International, April 2000, < http://
www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT50/005/2000/en/34d7c521-df70-11dd-acaa-7d9091d4638f/act500052000en.
pdf>.
2 For a list of relevant OSCE commitments, see Annex 1.
3 For earlier developments, see “e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area, Background Paper 2008”, OSCE/ODIHR,
September 2008, http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2008/09/33276_1187_en.pdf>.
4 Copenhagen Document 1990, para. 17.8., see Annex 1.
5 “e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area – Background Paper 2008”, op.cit., note 3. e six participating States that
retained the death penalty in some way in 2008 were Belarus, Kazakhstan, Latvia, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and
the United States of America.
T D P OSCE A
the application of the death penalty in Russia, it did not consider the questionnaire
relevant given the country’s current practice.
6
Additional information was also col-
lected from OSCE field offices,
7
NGOs and media reports.
During the reporting period, there were some developments towards the abolition
of the death penalty, and further efforts were made by the OSCE, the Council of
Europe (CoE), the United Nations and the European Union to assist countries in
this direction.
At the national level, Uzbekistan acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 December 2008, while
Latvia is in the process of developing legislation for the abolition of the death penalty
in all cases. A broad discussion on the introduction of a moratorium has also begun in
Belarus. In the United States, the state of New Mexico abolished capital punishment,
becoming the 16th state to do so. Despite this progress, the United States and Belarus
continued carrying out executions during the reporting period.
At the international level, on 3 July 2009, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
adopted its concluding document, the Vilnius Declaration, which outlined a set of
policy recommendations to the governments of OSCE participating States.
8
e Dec-
laration, voted on by 213 parliamentarians from 50 OSCE countries, contained 28
resolutions, one of which was the “Resolution on a Moratorium on the Death Penalty
and Towards Its Abolition”.
9
e resolution called on participating States retaining
the death penalty to declare an immediate moratorium on executions.
On 18 December 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted by a large majority a
second resolution on the death penalty, affirming the resolution adopted in December
2007 calling on all nations that still use the death penalty to institute a moratorium
on executions with a view towards abolishing the practice.
10
e resolution drew the
supporting votes of 106 member states, with 46 votes against and 34 abstentions.
e CoE in 2007 established 10 October as the annual “European Day against
the Death Penalty”,
11
coinciding with the “World Day against the Death Penalty”
launched by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty in 2003. In 2008, the
6 Letter to the ODIHR Director from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OSCE, dated
26 June 2009.
7 ODIHR is grateful to the OSCE Office in Minsk, the OSCE Centre in Astana and the OSCE Office in Tajikistan for
responding to the questionnaire.
8 OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, AS (09) D 1 E, Vilnius Declaration, Vilnius, 29 June–3 July 2009.
9 Ibid.
10 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 63/168, “Moratorium on the use of the death penalty”, A/63/430/
Add.2, draft res. I., 18 December 2008.
11 Council of Europe, Decision CM(2007)137 and GR-EXT(2007)CB8, “European Day against the Death Penalty”,
26 September 2007.
T D P OSCE A
EU joined in marking this day and released a joint statement with the CoE. e docu-
ment stated that the death penalty was contrary to the fundamental rights on which
the EU and the CoE were founded, and that “since 1997 there has been no instance
of capital execution in any part of the geographical area made up by the 47 Member
States of the Council of Europe, including the 27 European Union Member States”.
In 2008, the EU also revised and updated its Guidelines on the Death Penalty,
which were adopted in 1998 with the objective of enhancing work to eliminate the
application of the death penalty worldwide. On the basis of these guidelines, the EU
continues to work towards this goal.
I hope that this paper will be a useful resource for governments and civil society
alike in the further discussion of issues relating to capital punishment and its aboli-
tion.
Ambassador Janez Lenarčič
Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR)
e Status of the Death Penalty
in the OSCE Area
For the purpose of this paper, each participating State has been classified as abolition-
ist, partly abolitionist, de facto abolitionist or retentionist, according to the status of
the death penalty in the relevant state’s law and practice.
Abolitionist: e death penalty has been abolished for all crimes.
Fifty OSCE participating States are abolitionist:
Albania•
Andorra •
Armenia •
Austria •
Azerbaijan •
Belgium •
Bosnia and Herzegovina•
Bulgaria •
Canada•
Croatia•
Cyprus•
Czech Republic•
Denmark•
Estonia•
Finland•
France•
Georgia•
Germany•
Greece•
Holy See•
Hungary•
Iceland•
Ireland•
Italy•
Kyrgyzstan•
Liechtenstein•
Lithuania•
Luxembourg•
Malta•
Moldova•
Monaco•
Montenegro•
Netherlands•
Norway•
Poland•
Portugal•
Romania•
San Marino•
Serbia •
Slovak Republic•
Slovenia•
Spain•
Sweden•
Switzerland•
Turkey•
Turkmenistan•
Ukraine•
United Kingdom.•
Uzbekistan•
e former Yugoslav •
Republic of Macedonia
T D P OSCE A
Partly abolitionist: e death penalty has been abolished for crimes committed in
peacetime but is retained for crimes committed in wartime.
Two participating States are partly abolitionist:
Latvia•
Kazakhstan•
De facto abolitionist: e death penalty is retained for crimes committed in peace-
time, but executions are not carried out.
Two participating States are de facto abolitionist:
Russian Federation•
Tajikistan•
Retentionist: e death penalty is retained for crimes committed in peacetime, and
executions are carried out.
Two participating States are retentionist:
Belarus•
United States of America•
T D P OSCE A
1. Abolitionist States
On 3 March 2009, Italy ratified Protocol 13 to the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) banning the death
penalty in all circumstances and thereby becoming the 41st European country to take
this step.
Uzbekistan acceded to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Cov-
enant on Civil and Political Rights on 23 December 2008. Prior to that, Uzbekistan
had abolished the death penalty as of 1 January 2008, when 48 individuals were still
on death row, according to a report by one NGO.
12
On 29 April 2008, the Supreme
Court started reviewing the death sentences pending at the time of abolition, com-
muting the death sentences to prison terms of either 20 or 25 years while deducting
the time those sentenced to death had already spent in prison.
13
No official data on
the death penalty, including the number of sentences, executions and commutations,
were published for previous years. On 20 March 2009, the UN Human Rights Com-
mittee adopted its Views on the subject of imposition of the death sentence after the
trial of a defendant who alleged that he had been subjected to torture.
14
In its decision,
the Human Rights Committee ruled that torture or ill-treatment was used in order to
force the accused to confess to a murder, thus violating the rights of the person under
article 7 and article 14, paragraph 3 (g) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. According to the Human Rights Committee, Uzbekistan was thus
obliged to provide the accused with effective legal remedies, including compensation,
an investigation into the allegations of torture, and a re-trial. e Committee added,
however, that the convicted person’s right to life had not been violated, as claimed in
the initial filing, because the death sentence had been commuted on 16 April 2004.
In September 2008, the Federal Court of Canada heard an application by Ronald
Smith, a Canadian citizen who was sentenced to death in the US state of Montana
in 1983 and remained on death row. Mr. Smith was challenging a recent change in
Canadian policy, under which Canada would no longer seek clemency for its citizens
sentenced to death in countries that it considered to be democratic and adherent to
12 Interview with Tamara Chikunova from Mothers Against the Death Sentence and Torture, Ferghana.Ru, 28 February
2008, <http://enews.ferghana.ru/article.php?id=2335>.
13 Country information on Uzbekistan, Hands Off Cain website, <http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/sched-
astato.php?idcontinente=23&nome=uzbekistan>.
14 Human Rights Committee, Views on Communication No. 1163/2003, 22 April 2009, CCPR/
C/95/D/1163/2003.
T D P OSCE A
the rule of law.
15
e new policy had been introduced in October 2007 and, in March
2009, the Federal Court declared the government’s approach to handling Mr. Smith’s
case “unlawful” and ordered it to resume its efforts for clemency with the government
of the state of Montana. e government declined to appeal the ruling and said it
would comply with the Federal Court order. In the same month, the United Na-
tions Human Rights Council issued its Universal Periodic Review of Canada’s human
rights record and recommended that the policy of seeking clemency for all Canadian
citizens sentenced to death in other countries be reinstated.
16
Canada rejected this rec-
ommendation and stated that it would consider whether to seek clemency for Cana-
dians facing the death penalty when such cases arose (i.e. on a case-by-case basis).
17
Canada also reinforced its recent practice of requiring a no-execution guarantee
from US prosecutors before returning any individuals to face capital charges. Arthur
Charles Carnes IV, a citizen of the United States, was extradited on 15 May 2009 after
attempting to gain refugee status in Canada on the basis that he could face capital
punishment if sent back to the United States to face trial. e Canadian Government
secured a guarantee from the US authorities that the suspect would not face the death
penalty.
18
2. Partly Abolitionist States
LATVIA
At present, the Criminal Code of Latvia allows for the imposition of the death sen-
tences in convictions for murder with aggravating circumstances, and only when
committed in wartime.
19
e country is in the process of ratifying Protocol No. 13 to
the ECHR concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, which
it signed on 3 May 2002. On 19 May 2008, the Government of Latvia endorsed
a draft law on the ratification of the Protocol, and parliamentary approval is being
15 Information on Canada in “Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World’s Human Rights”, Amnesty
International, 2009, <http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/americas/Canada>.
16 Human Rights Council, Eleventh session, Agenda item 6, page 19, A/HRC/11/17, Report from the Working Group
on the Universal Periodic Review of Canada, 3 March 2009.
17 Human Rights Council, Eleventh session, Agenda item, Addendum, page 8, A/HRC/11/17/Add.1, Report from the
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of Canada, 8 June 2009.
18 “Canada: Murder suspect extradited with guarantee no death penalty”, Hands Off Cain website, June 3 2009,
<http://www.handsoffcain.info/archivio_news/200906.php?iddocumento=12308128&mover=2>.
19 Article 37 of the Criminal Code, 15 October 1998, with amendments of 18 May 2000.
T D P OSCE A
sought. Along with the draft law, corresponding amendments to the criminal law and
other relevant legislation are being prepared.
20
In September 2008, several high-level officials, including the head of the parlia-
mentary Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee, the Minister of Justice and
the Minister of the Interior, called for a review of domestic law on the abolition of
the death penalty with a view to its reintroduction, as a new capital punishment de-
bate emerged in the country following the murder of a young girl.
21
e President of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) expressed his concern
about such statements saying: “Under no circumstances can the reintroduction of the
death penalty ever be on the Council of Europe or European Union agenda again.”
22
Outside this discussion, on 9 January 2009, the Government of Latvia, through its
Cabinet of Ministers, approved a Strategy on the Policy of Criminal Sanctions, which,
inter alia, reaffirmed the Government’s support for the full removal of the death pen-
alty from national legislation.
23
KAZAKHSTAN
In Kazakhstan, the death penalty has been abolished in all cases except acts of terror-
ism entailing loss of life and grave crimes committed in wartime.
24
On 10 July 2009,
the President of Kazakhstan signed the Law “On the introduction of amendments
to some legislative acts on the issue of capital punishment,” aimed at bringing the
country’s laws related to the death penalty into compliance with the Constitution
of Kazakhstan, which was amended in 2007.
25
e Law introduced changes to the
Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code of Kazakhstan. According to these
changes, capital punishment may only be imposed for terrorist crimes causing death
and for severe crimes committed during wartime.
e legislative changes reduced the number of crimes during wartime carrying the
death penalty from 18 to eight: genocide; mercenary activity (the participation of a
20 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the OSCE,
7 July 2008.
21 Information on Latvia in “Amnesty International Report 2009: State of the World’s Human Rights”, Amnesty Inter-
national, 2009, <http://thereport.amnesty.org/en/regions/europe-central-asia/latvia>.
22 Council of Europe, Press release - 660(2008), 25 September 2009, <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.
jsp?id=1345947&Site=COE>.
23 Response from the Permanent Mission of Latvia to the OSCE, op. cit., note 20.
24 Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as amended on 21 May 2007.
25 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan to the
OSCE, 22 July 2009.
T D P OSCE A
mercenary in a military conflict or military actions that entailed the death[s] of people
or other grave consequences); high treason; an attempt upon the life of the President
of the Republic of Kazakhstan; sabotage; terrorism; the application of prohibited
means and methods of conducting a war; and planning, preparing, starting or waging
a war of aggression.
26
e sentence for the remaining ten crimes that had previously
carried the death penalty was changed to life imprisonment.
27
3. De Facto Abolitionist States
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Since the bill “On the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Russian Federation” was
submitted to the State Duma by its Legislation Committee on 20 February 2008
28
,
no further developments related to capital punishment have been reported. At a press
conference in Moscow on 11 March 2009, PACE Co-Rapporteur eodoros Pan-
galos called on the Russian Federation to abolish the death penalty and questioned
arguments made by the Russian authorities that public opinion was not ready for such
a move. Russia had imposed a moratorium on the death penalty shortly after it joined
the Council of Europe in 1996, but did not move to formally abolish capital punish-
ment within the following three years, as membership in the organization requires.
TAJIKISTAN
Tajikistan has had a temporary moratorium on executions and the handing down of
death sentences in place since 15 July 2004. It is believed that approximately 50-60
individuals who have been sentenced to death currently have had their executions
stayed as a result of the moratorium.
29
26 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the OSCE Centre in Astana, 17 July 2009.
27 Ibid. Capital punishment has been replaced by life imprisonment for the following crimes during wartime: murder;
an attempt upon the life of a person administering justice or carrying out a preliminary investigation; disobedience or
other non-execution of an order; resistance to a superior or coercion of such superior to violate service duties; violent ac-
tions toward a superior; desertion; evasion of military service by way of self-mutilation or other method; violation of the
rules governing active duty; abuse of power, exceeding competence or inaction; and surrendering or leaving material for
waging war to the enemy.
28 “e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area – Background Paper 2008”, op.cit., note 1.
29 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the OSCE Office in Tajikistan, 18 August 2009.
T D P OSCE A
On 6 April 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued its Views
on the case of Vyacheslav Dunayev, a Russian national imprisoned in Tajikistan.
30
Mr.
Dunayev was originally held on death row following sentencing in October 2002.
Due to the UN Human Rights Committee’s intervention in 2003, the Supreme
Court of Tajikistan commuted his sentence in November 2003 to 25 years in prison.
In a decision of April 2009, the Committee asked for compensation for Mr. Dunayev
and criminal proceedings against those who caused him suffering while in custody.
e complainant alleged he had been repeatedly tortured in detention. e Commit-
tee further asked for either a retrial with guarantees enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or Mr. Dunayev’s release from prison.
Until recently, only the Administration of the President was responsible for ensur-
ing compliance with decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee. Following the
establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman on 27 May 2009, this body was also
entrusted with this responsibility.
31
4. Retentionist States
BELARUS
During the reporting period, government officials have on several occasions publicly
spoken in favour of limiting and, potentially, later abolishing the death penalty in the
Republic of Belarus. e Prosecutor General of Belarus, for example, said at a press
conference on 21 January 2009: “If we are moving towards joining the Council of
Europe, we should stick to the rules of this organization.”
32
In a letter to Amnesty
International in November 2008, the Deputy Minister of the Interior also stated that
recent legislative changes and the handing down of life sentences as an alternative to
the death penalty were evidence of “an irreversible movement towards gradual rejec-
tion of the death penalty”.
33
e Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives
of the National Assembly of Belarus told a press conference in Strasbourg on 23 June
30 UN Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1195/2003, CCPR/C/95/D/1195/2003, 6 April 2009.
31 Response from the OSCE Office in Tajikistan, op.cit., note 29.
32 “Grigory Vasilevich: possible abolition of capital punishment as Belarus joins Council of Europe”,
Belarusian Tel-
egraph Agency, 21 January 2009, <http://news.belta.by/en/news/politics/?id=324457>.
33 “Ending Executions in Europe. Towards Abolition of the Death Penalty in Belarus”, Amnesty International, p.
14, 26 November 2008, <http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR49/001/2009/en/d3b9c42d-a356-4dee-ad16-
5b05842ba01a/eur490012009en.pdf>.
T D P OSCE A
2009 that Belarus has been consistently moving towards restricting the imposition of
the death penalty.
34
On 23 June 2009, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe voted to
restore the Belarusian Parliament’s Special Guest status in the Assembly if and when
the Republic of Belarus declared a moratorium on the death penalty.
35
Following
this development, on 29 June 2009, the Chair of the Parliamentary Commission on
National Security of Belarus stated that a working group had been established in the
House of Representatives of the National Assembly to draft a proposal for the intro-
duction of a moratorium.
36
e human rights community in Belarus has been very active in promoting the ab-
olition of capital punishment. In January 2009, the Belarusian Human Rights House
initiated the “Human Rights Activists against Death Penalty” campaign, which also
included the preparation by human rights community representatives of a petition to
the authorities calling for the abolition of capital punishment. As of 10 March 2009,
the petition had been signed by 11 major public figures, including the head of the
Belarusian Association of Journalists and a number of authors, musicians, and televi-
sion and radio hosts, as well as many other private individuals.
37
Legal Framework
e Constitution of the Republic of Belarus provides that, until the death penalty is
abolished, it may be applied in accordance with the law as an exceptional penalty for
particularly serious crimes.
38
e Criminal Code provides that the death penalty may
be imposed for severe crimes connected with the deliberate deprivation of life with ag-
gravating circumstances.
39
e death penalty is envisaged for 12 crimes in peacetime,
with an additional two in times of war.
40
34 Country information on Belarus, Hands Off Cain website,
< http://www.handsoffcain.info/bancadati/schedastato.php?idstato=12000076>.
35 PACE granted Special Guest status to the Belarus Parliament in 1992. Due to what was cited as a considerable lack of
progress in terms of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, this status was suspended in 1997, and Belarus’ request
for membership of the Council of Europe was frozen the following year.
36 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the OSCE Centre in Minsk, 1 July 2009.
37 “Human Rights Defenders against Capital Punishment: first results of the campaign”, Viasna website, 10 March
2009, < http://spring96.org/en/news/27628/>.
38 Article 24 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, 27 November 1996.
39 Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code, 9 July 1999, amended on 17 July 2006.
40 e death penalty is envisaged for the following crimes: “unleashing or conducting a war of aggression” (Article 122
part 2 of the Criminal Code of Belarus); “murder of a representative of a foreign state or international organization with
the intention to provoke international tension or war” (Art. 124 part 2); “international terrorism” (Art. 126); “genocide”
(Art. 127); “crimes against humanity” (Art. 128); “premeditated, aggravated murder” (Art. 139 part 2); “terrorism” (Art.
289 part 3); “terrorist acts” (Art. 359); “treason accompanied by murder” (Art. 356 part 2); “conspiracy to seize power”
(Art. 357 part 3); “sabotage” (Art. 360 part 2); “murder of a police officer” (Art. 362); “use of weapons of mass destruction”
(Art 134); and “murder of a person in violation of the laws and customs of war” (Art. 135 part 3).
T D P OSCE A
Moratorium
ere is no moratorium yet in place on either the imposition or carrying out of death
sentences. As mentioned above, a group has recently been established in the Belarus
House of Representatives to work on a moratorium. Supreme Court Chairman Valy-
antsin Sukala told reporters in June 2009 that Belarus’ judicial system was ready to
introduce a moratorium on the death penalty.
41
Method of execution
e death penalty is carried out in private by means of shooting.
42
Statistics
Death sentences
e Belarusian Government has emphasized on a number of occasions that the im-
position of the death penalty has been on the decline in recent years.
43
During the
reporting period, one individual, Vasil Yazepchuk, was sentenced to death, by the
Brest Regional Court on 29 June 2009.
44
e conviction of Pavel Lenoy, who had
been sentenced to death on 20 June 2008, was appealed and became final on 30
September 2008.
45
Executions
According to official statistics provided by the Supreme Court of Belarus,
46
two in-
dividuals were executed during the reporting period: Nikolai Kaled was sentenced to
death on 5 December 2007 by the Minsk Regional Court for murder with aggravat-
ing circumstances;
47
and the above-referenced Mr. Lenoy.
48
e exact dates of the
executions were not made public.
41 “Judiciary said to be ready for death penalty abolition”, Viasna Website, 25 June 2009, <http://spring96.org/en/
news/28904/>.
42 Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code.
43 OSCE Permanent Council meeting No. 771, Statement by the Belarusian Delegation, PC.DEL/656/09, Vienna,
30 July 2009.
44 OSCE Permanent Council Meeting No. 769, Statement of the European Union, PC.DEL/594/09, Vienna, 16 July
2009.
45 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire from the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Belarus to the OSCE, 6
August 2009.
46 Ibid.
47 Article 139 (2) of the Criminal Code.
48 Response from the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Belarus to the OSCE, Note 45.
T D P OSCE A
Safeguards
Pregnant women and minors
e execution of individuals who were less than 18 years of age at the time the crime
was committed or of women is not permitted.
49
Persons over 65 years of age
50
can also
not be sentenced to death.
Pardon or commutation
e Constitution gives the President the authority to grant clemency by commuting
a death sentence to one of life imprisonment.
51
Appeals are initially considered by the
Clemency Commission. e case of any individual sentenced to death is automati-
cally considered, regardless of whether the sentenced person has submitted an appeal
for clemency.
52
During the reporting period, no clemencies or commutations were
granted.
53
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Legal Framework
Within the US federal system, the death penalty can be authorized by states, the
Federal Government or the US Military. New Mexico became the 16th jurisdiction
within the United States
54
to abolish capital punishment when it did so on 18 March
2009, meaning, to date, that 35 of the 50 states retain the death penalty. In Con-
necticut, for the first time, both chambers of the General Assembly – the state House
of Representatives and the state Senate – voted to abolish the death penalty in May
2009. e Governor, however, vetoed the bill on 5 June 2009, thus putting the aboli-
tion of the death penalty in Connecticut on hold for the time being.
55
e other jurisdictions without the death penalty include Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.
56
49 Article 59 (1) (2) of the Criminal Code.
50 Article 59 (2) (3) of the Criminal Code.
51 Article 84 (19) of the Constitution.
52 Presidential Decree No. 250 “On confirmation of the regulation on the pardoning procedure in the Republic of
Belarus”, 3 December 1994.
53 Response from the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Belarus to the OSCE, op. cit., note 45.
54 Including the District of Columbia.
55 Website of the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty, on the page “Recent legislative activity”, as of 15
August 2009, <http://cnadp.org/dpConn.php>.
56 Response to the ODIHR questionnaire on the death penalty from the United States Mission to the OSCE, 5 August
2009.
T D P OSCE A
Capital punishment is generally only imposed for crimes of murder or felony mur-
der, and generally only when aggravating circumstances were present in the commis-
sion of the crime, such as multiple victims, rape of the victim or murder-for-hire.
e Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) allows for the death penalty as a
possible sentence for 15 offences, many of which must occur during time of war. In
recent practice, the death penalty has primarily been exercised at the state level; the
Federal Government has not executed anyone since 2003. Similarly, under the UCMJ
no one has been put to death since 1961.
57
Moratorium
ere is no moratorium on executions in place at the federal level. e last four execu-
tion dates at the federal level
58
were postponed due to issues surrounding lethal injec-
tion as the method of execution.
59
A formal moratorium on executions has been in
place in Illinois since 2000. A de facto moratorium on executions exists in California,
Delaware and Maryland, due to the aforementioned dispute over lethal injection as
the method of execution.
60
Despite the fact that the Nebraska State Legislature ap-
proved a new lethal injection law in 2009, executions also remain halted there because
the law is currently being challenged in the courts. Executions also remain effectively
halted due to issues over lethal injection in Nevada, North Carolina and Tennessee.
Method of Execution
Authorized methods of execution vary from state to state, although most use lethal
injection.
Statistics
Death Sentences
e number of individuals sentenced to death decreased slightly in 2008, as com-
pared to the previous year, following a pattern of decreasing use of capital punishment
since 1999. e civilian death row population was 3,297 as of 1 January 2009.
61
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Background note: e United States Supreme Court on 16 April 2008 upheld the use of lethal injection, one of the
most widely used execution methods. For seven months prior to the decision, executions across the United States had been
postponed as states awaited a ruling from the high court. In a case in Kentucky, death penalty opponents had argued that
the three-drug cocktail widely used for lethal injection could cause excruciating pain, in violation of the Constitution’s ban
on cruel and unusual punishment.
60 Response from the United States Mission to the OSCE, op. cit., note 56.
61 Ibid.
T D P OSCE A
Executions
According to official statistics received, 60 persons were executed in the United States
between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009.
62
is constitutes almost three times the
number of executions for the previous 12 months, which was unusually low as a result
of the aforementioned issue surrounding lethal injections.
63
Of these executions, 33
were carried out in Texas; five in Alabama; three in each of Florida, Georgia, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia; and one in each of Kentucky, Mississippi,
Missouri and Tennessee.
64
International safeguards
e US Constitution, which applies to both state and federal convictions, prohibits
the imposition of the death sentence if the offender was under the age of 18 when the
capital offense was committed
65
, is mentally retarded
66
, or is legally insane at the time
of the scheduled execution
67
.
Fair trial guarantees
On 1 April 2009, the US Supreme Court decided that federally appointed counsel
can represent indigent clients in state clemency procedures in capital cases.
68
e case
raised the issue of whether a federal law that provides lawyers for indigent death row
inmates at the state level for parts of inmates’ appeals guarantees them the continu-
ation of that representation through the state clemency process. e law says that
such lawyers are to represent their clients in “all available post-conviction processes”,
including “proceedings for executive or other clemency”. US Supreme Court Justice
John Paul Stevens stated that “[i]n authorizing federally funded counsel to represent
their state clients in clemency proceedings, Congress ensured that no prisoner would
be put to death without meaningful access to the ‘fail-safe’ of our justice system.”
Foreign Nationals
According to official data, as of 19 June 2009, there were 130 foreign nationals, com-
prising 34 nationalities, under sentence of death in the United States.
69
62 Ibid.
63 “e Death Penalty in the OSCE Area, Background Paper 2008”, op. cit., note 1.
64 Response from the United States Mission to the OSCE, op. cit., note 56.
65 See Roper v. Simmons, 543 US 551 (2005).
66 See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 US 304 (2002).
67 See Ford v. Wainwright, 477 US 399 (1986).
68 See Harbison v. Bell, 129 S. Ct. 1481 (2009).
69 Response from the United States Mission to the OSCE, op. cit., note 56.
T D P OSCE A
In the case of the Mexican national José Medellín, the State of Texas did not sur-
render to domestic and international pressure calling on the state to heed the decision
of the International Court of Justice in the case of Avena and Other Mexican Nation-
als
70
. e 2004 decision ruled that the United States should provide judicial “review
and reconsideration” of convictions and sentences in order to determine whether the
defendants had been prejudiced by violations of Article 36(1) of the 1963 Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations
71
e US Secretary of State and Attorney General
72
, the Secretary General of the
Council of Europe
73
and the UN Secretary General,
74
among others, called on Texas
to respect the decisions and orders of the International Court of Justice. Further, on
16 July 2008, the International Court of Justice issued “provisional measures” in the
cases of Mr. Medellín (and four other Mexican nationals) facing execution in Texas.
e International Court of Justice ordered the United States “to take all measures
necessary” to ensure that these individuals “are not executed unless and until these
five Mexican nationals receive review and reconsideration”. Despite these joint efforts,
Mr. Medellín was executed on 5 August 2008.
Notwithstanding this development, the US Federal Government continues efforts
to implement the Avena and Other Mexican Nationals decision.
75
Pardon or commutation
For federal death row inmates, the President has the power to grant pardon. At the
state level, the clemency process varies from state to state, but usually involves the gov-
ernor, a board of advisors or both. A formal petition for clemency must be filed in all
70 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, Mexico v. United States of America, 31 March 2004.
71 Background note: On 31 March 2004, in a case brought by Mexico, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled
that the United States had violated its obligation to inform foreign nationals without delay of their right to have their
consulate notified of their detention in 51 cases regarding Mexican nationals. On 28 February 2005, the US President
issued a memorandum to the US Attorney General affirming that the United States would comply with the ICJ judge-
ment. As a result, a number of cases have gone before US courts for review and reconsideration of the imposition of the
death penalty. e Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that this presidential determination did not constitute binding
federal law and, thus, did not pre-empt the state’s prohibition against the filing of successive habeas petitions. In a deci-
sion handed down on 25 March 2008, the United States Supreme Court held that, while the ICJ’s decision constituted
an international law obligation on the part of the United States, neither the decision nor the President’s determination
constituted binding federal law, enforceable in United States courts, that could pre-empt state limitations on the filing of
successive habeas petitions.
72 “Condolezza Rice asks Perry to stop execution of Jose Medellin”, Texas Death Penalty Blog, 29 July 2008, <http://
texasdeathpenalty.blogspot.com/2008/07/condoleezza-rice-asks-perry-to-stop.html>.
73 “Execution in Texas: US should end its pick and choose attitude towards international law”, Statement by
Council of Europe Secretary General Terry Davis, Strasbourg, 6 August 2009, < https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.
jsp?id=1330555&Site=CM>.
74 “José Medellín henrettet”, Amnesty International Norway, 7 August 2009, <http://www.amnesty.no/web.nsf/pages/
AD43F81669FCC7BBC125749E003D8068>.
75 Response from the United States Mission to the OSCE, op. cit., note 56.
T D P OSCE A
cases. According to the UCMJ, only the President has the power to commute a death
sentence for military personnel to whom the UCMJ applies. Furthermore, no service
member can be executed unless the President confirms the death penalty. From the
beginning of 2008 through June 2009, five inmates of state prisons have had their
death sentences commuted on humanitarian grounds.
76
76 Ibid.
Annexes
T D P OSCE A
Annex 1
OSCE Commitments on the Death Penalty
Concluding Document of the 1989 Vienna Follow-up Meeting
Questions relating to security in Europe
(24) With regard to the question of capital punishment, the participating States note
that capital punishment has been abolished in a number of them. In participating
States where capital punishment has not been abolished, sentence of death may be
imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the
time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to their international commit-
ments. is question will be kept under consideration. In this context, the participat-
ing States will co-operate within relevant international organizations.
Document of the 1990 Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference
on the Human Dimension of the CSCE
17. e participating States
17.1 recall the commitments undertaken in the Vienna Concluding Document to
keep the question of capital punishment under consideration and to co-operate with-
in relevant international organizations;
17.2 recall, in this context, the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Na-
tions, on 15 December 1989, of the Second Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty;
17.3 note the restrictions and safeguards regarding the use of the death penalty which
have been adopted by the international community, in particular Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
17.4 note the provisions of the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, concerning the abolition
of the death penalty;
17.5 note recent measures taken by a number of participating States towards the abo-
lition of capital punishment;
17.6 note the activities of several non-governmental organizations on the question of
the death penalty;
T D P OSCE A
17.7 will exchange information within the framework of the Conference on the Hu-
man Dimension on the question of the abolition of the death penalty and keep that
question under consideration;
17.8 will make available to the public information regarding the use of the death
penalty.
Document of the 1991 Moscow Meeting of the Conference
on the Human Dimension of the CSCE
(36) e participating States recall their commitment in the Vienna Concluding
Document to keep the question of capital punishment under consideration and reaf-
firm their undertakings in the Document of the Copenhagen Meeting to exchange
information on the question of the abolition of the death penalty and to make avail-
able to the public information regarding the use of the death penalty.
(36.1) ey note
(i) that the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty entered into force on
11 July 1991;
(ii) that a number of participating States have recently taken steps towards the aboli-
tion of capital punishment;
(iii) the activities of several non-governmental organizations concerning the question
of the death penalty.
Concluding Document of the 1992 Helsinki Summit
e participating States
(58) Confirm their commitments in the Copenhagen and Moscow Documents con-
cerning the question of capital punishment.
Concluding Document of the 1994 Budapest Summit
Capital Punishment
19. e participating States reconfirm their commitments in the Copenhagen and
Moscow Documents concerning the question of capital punishment.
T D P OSCE A
Annex 2
OTHER INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE DEATH PENALTY
UNITED NATIONS
Extract from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. is right shall be protected by
law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be
imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the
time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present
Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide. is penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement ren-
dered by a competent court.
3. When deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide, it is understood that
nothing in this article shall authorize any State Party to the present Covenant to dero-
gate in any way from any obligation assumed under the provisions of the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
4. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation
of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may be
granted in all cases.
5. Sentence of death shall not be imposed for crimes committed by persons below
eighteen years of age and shall not be carried out on pregnant women.
6. Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capi-
tal punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights
Article 1
1. No one within the jurisdiction of a State Party to the present Protocol shall be
executed.
T D P OSCE A
2. Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty
within its jurisdiction.
Article 2
1. No reservation is admissible to the present Protocol, except for a reservation made
at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death
penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military
nature committed during wartime.
2. e State Party making such a reservation shall at the time of ratification or acces-
sion communicate to the Secretary-General of the United Nations the relevant provi-
sions of its national legislation applicable during wartime.
3. e State Party having made such a reservation shall notify the Secretary-General
of the United Nations of any beginning or ending of a state of war applicable to its
territory.
Article 3
e States Parties to the present Protocol shall include in the reports they submit
to the Human Rights Committee, in accordance with article 40 of the Covenant,
information on the measures that they have adopted to give effect to the present
Protocol.
Article 4
With respect to the States Parties to the Covenant that have made a declaration under
article 41, the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider
communications when a State Party claims that another State Party is not fulfilling
its obligations shall extend to the provisions of the present Protocol, unless the State
Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the moment of ratification
or accession.
Article 5
With respect to the States Parties to the first Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted on 16 December 1966, the com-
petence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications
from individuals subject to its jurisdiction shall extend to the provisions of the present
Protocol, unless the State Party concerned has made a statement to the contrary at the
moment of ratification or accession.
T D P OSCE A
Article 6
1. e provisions of the present Protocol shall apply as additional provisions to the
Covenant.
2. Without prejudice to the possibility of a reservation under article 2 of the present
Protocol, the right guaranteed in article 1, paragraph 1, of the present Protocol shall
not be subject to any derogation under article 4 of the Covenant.
Article 7
1. e present Protocol is open for signature by any State that has signed the Cov-
enant.
2. e present Protocol is subject to ratification by any State that has ratified the
Covenant or acceded to it. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
3. e present Protocol shall be open to accession by any State that has ratified the
Covenant or acceded to it.
4. Accession shall be effected by the deposit of an instrument of accession with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
5. e Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States that have signed
the present Protocol or acceded to it of the deposit of each instrument of ratification
or accession.
Article 8
1. e present Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date of the de-
posit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the tenth instrument of
ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying the present Protocol or acceding to it after the deposit of
the tenth instrument of ratification or accession, the present Protocol shall enter into
force three months after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification
or accession.
Article 9
e provisions of the present Protocol shall extend to all parts of federal States with-
out any limitations or exceptions.
Article 10
e Secretary-General of the United Nations shall inform all States referred to in
article 48, paragraph 1, of the Covenant of the following particulars:
T D P OSCE A
(a) Reservations, communications and notifications under article 2 of the present
Protocol;
(b) Statements made under articles 4 or 5 of the present Protocol;
(c) Signatures, ratifications and accessions under article 7 of the present Protocol:
(d) e date of the entry into force of the present Protocol under article 8 thereof.
Article 11
1. e present Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and
Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the United
Nations.
2. e Secretary-General of the United Nations shall transmit certified copies of the
present Protocol to all States referred to in article 48 of the Covenant.
Extract from the Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 37
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treat-
ment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without pos-
sibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen
years of age.
Economic and Social Council: Safeguards guaranteeing protection
of the rights of those facing the death penalty
1. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, capital punishment may
be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being understood that their scope
should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave conse-
quences.
2. Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty
is prescribed by law at the time of its commission, it being understood that if, subse-
quent to the commission of the crime, provision is made by law for the imposition of
a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
3. Persons below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime shall
not be sentenced to death, nor shall the death sentence be carried out on pregnant
women, or on new mothers, or on persons who have become insane.
T D P OSCE A
4. Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is
based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explana-
tion of the facts.
5. Capital punishment may only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement ren-
dered by a competent court after legal process which gives all possible safeguards to
ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in article 14 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of anyone suspected of or
charged with a crime for which capital punishment may be imposed to adequate legal
assistance at all stages of the proceedings.
6. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to appeal to a court of higher juris-
diction, and steps should be taken to ensure that such appeals shall become manda-
tory.
7. Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon, or commutation of
sentence; pardon or commutation of sentence may be granted in all cases of capital
punishment.
8. Capital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or other recourse
procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence.
9. Where capital punishment occurs, it shall be carried out so as to inflict the mini-
mum possible suffering.
Moratorium on the use of the death penalty,
UN General Assembly Resolution 62/149, 18 December 2007
77
e General Assembly,
Guided by the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Na-
tions,
Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
Recalling also the resolutions on the question of the death penalty adopted over the
past decade by the Commission on Human Rights in all consecutive sessions, the last
being its resolution 2005/59, in which the Commission called upon States that still
77 . Another resolution was adopted by the UN General Assembly one year later, on 18 December 2008, on the im-
plementation of the 2007 General Assembly resolution 62/149, UN Doc. A/63/430/Add.2, draft res. I., 18 December
2008.
T D P OSCE A
maintain the death penalty to abolish it completely and, in the meantime, to establish
a moratorium on executions,
Recalling further the important results accomplished by the former Commission on
Human Rights on the question of the death penalty, and envisaging that the Human
Rights Council could continue to work on this issue,
Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity, and con-
vinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the en-
hancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive
evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent value and that any miscarriage or failure of
justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible and irreparable,
Welcoming the decisions taken by an increasing number of States to apply a morato-
rium on executions, followed in many cases by the abolition of the death penalty,
1. Expresses its deep concern about the continued application of the death penalty;
2. Calls upon all States that still maintain the death penalty to:
(a) Respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protec-
tion of the rights of those facing the death penalty, in particular the minimum
standards, as set out in the annex to Economic and Social Council resolution
1984/50 of 25 May 1984;
(b) Provide the Secretary-General with information relating to the use of capital pun-
ishment and the observance of the safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the
rights of those facing the death penalty;
(c) Progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of of-
fences for which it may be imposed;
(d) Establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death
penalty;
3. Calls upon States which have abolished the death penalty not to reintroduce it;
4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its sixty-third
session on the implementation of the present resolution;
5. Decides to continue consideration of the matter at its sixty-third session under the
same agenda item.
T D P OSCE A
COUNCIL OF EUROPE
Extract from the European Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 2
1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of
his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his
conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this
article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely
necessary:
a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
detained;
c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty
Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty
e death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or
executed.
Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war
A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts commit-
ted in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only
in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions. e State
shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the relevant
provisions of that law.
Article 3 – Prohibition of derogations
No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of
the Convention.
Article 4 – Prohibition of reservations
No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the
provisions of this Protocol.
Article 5 – Territorial application
1. Any State may at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratifi-
T D P OSCE A
cation, acceptance or approval, specify the territory or territories to which this Proto-
col shall apply.
2. Any State may at any later date, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe, extend the application of this Protocol to any other terri-
tory specified in the declaration. In respect of such territory the Protocol shall enter
into force on the first day of the month following the date of receipt of such declara-
tion by the Secretary General.
3. Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may, in respect of any
territory specified in such declaration, be withdrawn by a notification addressed to
the Secretary General. e withdrawal shall become effective on the first day of the
month following the date of receipt of such notification by the Secretary General.
Article 6 – Relationship to the Convention
As between the States Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol shall be
regarded as additional articles to the Convention and all the provisions of the Con-
vention shall apply accordingly.
Article 7 – Signature and ratification
e Protocol shall be open for signature by the member States of the Council of Eu-
rope, signatories to the Convention. It shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or
approval. A member State of the Council of Europe may not ratify, accept or approve
this Protocol unless it has, simultaneously or previously, ratified the Convention. In-
struments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary
General of the Council of Europe.
Article 8 – Entry into force
1. is Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the date
on which five member States of the Council of Europe have expressed their consent
to be bound by the Protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 7.
2. In respect of any member State which subsequently expresses its consent to be
bound by it, the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following
the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.
Article 9 – Depositary functions
e Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the
Council of:
a. any signature;
b. the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
T D P OSCE A
c. any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with Articles 5 and 8;
d. any other act, notification or communication relating to this Protocol.
Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms, Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty
in All Circumstances
Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty
e death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or
executed.
Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations
No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of
the Convention.
Article 3 – Prohibition of reservations
No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the
provisions of this Protocol.
Article 4 – Territorial application
1. Any State may, at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratifi-
cation, acceptance or approval, specify the territory or territories to which this Proto-
col shall apply.
2. Any State may at any later date, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe, extend the application of this Protocol to any other terri-
tory specified in the declaration. In respect of such territory the Protocol shall enter
into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three
months after the date of receipt of such declaration by the Secretary General.
3. Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may, in respect of any
territory specified in such declaration, be withdrawn or modified by a notification
addressed to the Secretary General. e withdrawal or modification shall become
effective on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three
months after the date of receipt of such notification by the Secretary General.
Article 5 – Relationship to the Convention
As between the States Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 4 of this Protocol shall be
regarded as additional articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Con-
vention shall apply accordingly.
T D P OSCE A
Article 6 – Signature and ratification
is Protocol shall be open for signature by member States of the Council of Europe
which have signed the Convention. It is subject to ratification, acceptance or approv-
al. A member State of the Council of Europe may not ratify, accept or approve this
Protocol without previously or simultaneously ratifying the Convention. Instruments
of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary General
of the Council of Europe.
Article 7 – Entry into force
1. is Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the
expiration of a period of three months after the date on which ten member States of
the Council of Europe have expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocol in
accordance with the provisions of Article 6.
2. In respect of any member State which subsequently expresses its consent to be
bound by it, the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following
the expiration of a period of three months after the date of the deposit of the instru-
ment of ratification, acceptance or approval.
Article 8 – Depositary functions
e Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify all the member States of
the Council of Europe of:
a. any signature;
b. the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
c. any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with Articles 4 and 7;
d. any other act, notification or communication relating to this Protocol.
EUROPEAN UNION
Extract from the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Article 2
Right to Life
1. Everyone has the right to life.
2. No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.
T D P OSCE A
Extract from EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty:
revised and updated version, 2008
III. Minimum standards paper
Where states insist on maintaining the death penalty, the EU considers it important
that the following minimum standards should be met:
i) Capital punishment may be imposed only for the most serious crimes, it being
understood that their scope should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal
or other extremely grave consequences. e death penalty should not be imposed
for non-violent acts such as financial crimes, religious practice or expression of
conscience and sexual relations between consenting adults nor as a mandatory
sentence.
ii) Capital punishment may be imposed only for a crime for which the death penalty
was prescribed at the time of its commission, it being understood that if, subse-
quent to the commission of the crime, provision is made by law for the imposi-
tion of a lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
iii) Capital punishment may not be imposed on:
• personsbelow18yearsofageatthetimeofthecommissionoftheircrime;
• pregnantwomenornewmothers;
• personswhohavebecomeinsane.
iv) Capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged
is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for alternative ex-
planation of the facts.
v) Capital punishment must only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement ren-
dered by an independent and impartial competent court after legal proceedings,
including those before special tribunals or jurisdictions, which gives all possible
safeguards to ensure a fair trial, at least equal to those contained in Article 14 of
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right of
anyone suspected of or charged with a crime for which capital punishment may
be imposed to adequate legal assistance at all stages of the proceedings, and where
appropriate, the right to contact a consular representative.
vi) Anyone sentenced to death shall have an effective right to appeal to a court of
higher jurisdiction, and steps should be taken to ensure that such appeals become
mandatory.
T D P OSCE A
vii) Where applicable, anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to submit an
Individual complaint under International procedures; the death sentence will not
be carried out while the complaint remains under consideration under those pro-
cedures; the death penalty will not be carried out as long as any related legal or
formal procedure, at the international or at the national level, is pending.
viii) Anyone sentenced to death shall have the right to seek pardon or commutation
of the sentence. Amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence of death may
be granted in all cases of capital punishment. ix) Capital punishment may not be
carried out in contravention of a state’s international commitments.
x) e length of time spent after having been sentenced to death may also be a fac-
tor.
Extract from European Parliament resolution of 1 February 2007 on the initiative
in favour of a universal moratorium on the death penalty
e European Parliament ,
…
1. Reiterates its long-standing position against the death penalty in all cases and un-
der all circumstances and expresses once more its conviction that the abolition of the
death penalty contributes to the enhancement of human dignity and to the progres-
sive development of human rights;
2. Calls for a worldwide moratorium on executions to be established immediately and
unconditionally with a view to the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, through
a relevant resolution of the current UN General Assembly, whose actual implementa-
tion the UN Secretary-General should be able to monitor.
T D P OSCE A
Annex 3
RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS MADE AT THE OSCE HUMAN
DIMENSION IMPLEMENTATION MEETING IN 2008
During the 2008 OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, held in War-
saw from 29 September to 10 October 2008, views were also exchanged on the ques-
tion of the abolition of the death penalty.
78
Working Session 4: Rule of law II addressed
the issues of capital punishment, prevention of torture and the protection of human
rights in fighting terrorism. e majority of interventions focused on the death pen-
alty and the prevention of torture.
Regarding capital punishment, it was acknowledged that the death penalty was con-
sidered unacceptable by the large majority of participating States, given the various
problems it implies, such as the risk of judicial error, a lack of sufficient legal assistance
for suspects in many cases and false confessions. Generally, there was a trend towards
abolition of the death penalty in the OSCE area. However, it was still in force in a
larger number of states worldwide, including two OSCE participating States. Some
states that have not yet abolished the death penalty do not, consequently, support the
call for a moratorium.
e following oral and written recommendations were made on the abolition of capi-
tal punishment:
• edeathpenaltyshouldbeabolished;
• oseOSCEparticipatingStatesthathavenotyetabolishedcapitalpunishment
should introduce a complete and unlimited moratorium on executions;
• OSCEinstitutionsshouldcontinuetomonitorthesituationinthoseparticipating
States that have not yet fully abolished the death penalty and to elaborate recommen-
dations for measures/programmes leading to complete abolition;
• epublication“eDeathPenaltyintheOSCEArea”shallcontinuetobedis-
tributed, including in Russian translation.
78 “Human Dimension Implementation Meeting Consolidated Summary”, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights, 29 September-10 October 2008.
T D P OSCE A
Annex 4
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE DEATH PENALTY
SENT OUT BY ODIHR IN JUNE 2009
1. Please inform us of any developments with regard to the death penalty in your
country since 1 July 2008.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
2. e attached paper is a copy of the entry related to your country in the publica-
tion of 2008. It should list all crimes that carry the death penalty. Please check
this list and inform us if any corrections or changes are required.
3. Has the number of crimes that carry the death penalty increased or decreased
since the last publication?
4. Do any crimes under your country’s Code of Military Law carry the death pen-
alty? Have there been any changes since the last publication?
5. Have any steps been taken to introduce, retain, or remove a moratorium on ex-
ecutions? If yes, please provide details and the legal basis for those changes and
please attach copies of relevant legislation or presidential decrees.
6. If a moratorium is in place, have there been any changes since last year’s publi-
cation in the specific procedure regulating the treatment and rights of persons
subjected to the moratorium? If yes, please attach copies of relevant legislation or
presidential decrees.
7. If a moratorium is in place, please list the name and place of detention of all
persons currently subjected to the moratorium.
STATISTICS
8. Please provide us with statistics on the number of persons who have been sen-
tenced to death in the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
9. Please provide us with the full name and age of persons who have been sentenced
to death in the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
T D P OSCE A
10. Please indicate the specific crime for which each of these persons was sentenced.
11. Please list which of these sentences has entered into force (i.e., all appeal stages
have been exhausted).
12. Please list which court passed each of the sentences.
13. Please indicate if any of the persons sentenced to death in the period from 1 July
2008 to 30 June 2009 were:
Under the age of 18 at the time the crime was committed;•
Pregnant women or women with dependent infants;•
Diagnosed as having any form of mental disorder; •
Non-nationals. Please indicate whether or not each of these persons received •
consular assistance.
14. If there have been changes since the last year’s publication, please detail the regu-
lations in place regarding the treatment of persons on death row and attach copies
of the relevant legislation and regulations.
15. Please provide us with the full name and age of persons who have been executed
in the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009. Please also indicate the specific
crime for which each of these persons was executed.
16. Please indicate if any of the persons executed in the period from 1 July 2008 to
30 June 2009 were:
Under the age of 18 at the time the crime was committed.•
Pregnant women or women with dependent infants.•
Diagnosed as having any form of mental disorder.•
Non-nationals. Please indicate whether or not each of these persons received •
consular assistance.
17. Which state body is responsible for keeping statistics on sentences, executions
and commutations?
18. Please provide us with the full name and age of any persons sentenced to death
who have been granted clemency or had their sentence commuted since 1 July
2008.
SAFEGUARDS
19. Please describe if there have been any changes in the procedure for informing all
non-nationals who have been accused of committing a crime, for which the death
penalty is a potential sentence, of their right to receive consular assistance. Is this
procedure mandatory?
20. Please list all cases regarding the use of the death penalty that have been decided
since the last publication, or are currently ongoing, before international bodies
(e.g., UN Human Rights Committee, International Court of Justice, European
Court of Human Rights).
21. What system is in place to ensure that interim stays by the UN Human Rights
Committee are complied with and transmitted to all the relevant actors at the
national level? Have there been any changes in this system since last year’s publi-
cation?
22. Please list the names of any persons who have been executed while a procedure
regarding their case was ongoing before an international body.
23. If there have been changes since last year’s publication, please describe the proce-
dural process of considering a request for clemency, including the factors that are
taken into account when considering such a request.
24. If there have been changes since last year’s publication, please indicate the proce-
dure for informing relatives of the date of execution and the date that the execu-
tion has been carried out, as well as of the place of burial of executed persons.
MISCELLANEOUS
25. Please indicate ways in which you have co-operated with other intergovernmental
organizations on this issue in the period from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2009.
T D P OSCE A
Annex 5
Status of Ratifications of Relevant Treaties
Status of Ratifications as of: 11 August 2009
Participating State Status ICCPR
2nd
Optional
Protocol ECHR
Protocol
No. 6
Protocol
No. 13
Albania A r r r r r
Andorra A r r r r r
Armenia A r r r s
Austria A r r r r r
Azerbaijan A r r r r
Belarus R r n/a n/a n/a
Belgium A r r r r r
Bosnia and Herzegovina A r r r r r
Bulgaria A r r r r r
Canada A r r n/a n/a n/a
Croatia A r r r r r
Cyprus A r r r r r
Czech Republic A r r r r r
Denmark A r r r r r
Estonia A r r r r r
Finland A r r r r r
France A r r r r r
Georgia A r r r r r
Germany A r r r r r
Greece A r r r r r
Holy See A n/a n/a n/a
Hungary A r r r r r
Iceland A r r r r r
Ireland A r r r r r
Italy A r r r r
r
Kazakhstan PA r n/a n/a n/a
Kyrgyzstan A r n/a n/a n/a
Latvia PA r r r s
T D P OSCE A
Participating State Status ICCPR
2nd
Optional
Protocol ECHR
Protocol
No. 6
Protocol
No. 13
Liechtenstein A r r r r r
Lithuania A r r r r r
Luxembourg A r r r r r
Malta A r r r r r
Moldova A r r r r r
Monaco A r r r r r
Montenegro A r r r r r
Netherlands A r r r r r
Norway A r r r r r
Poland A r s r r s
Portugal A r r r r r
Romania A r r r r r
Russian Federation DA r r s
San Marino A r r r r r
Serbia A r r r r r
Slovak Republic A r r r r r
Slovenia A r r r r r
Spain A r r r r s
Sweden A r r r r r
Switzerland A r r r r r
Tajikistan DA r n/a n/a n/a
Turkey A r r r r r
Turkmenistan A r r n/a n/a n/a
Ukraine A r r r r r
United Kingdom A r r r r r
United States of America R r n/a n/a n/a
Uzbekistan A r
r n/a n/a n/a
Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia A r r r r r
Notes:
r = ratification or accession
s = signature only
n/a = non-applicable
A = abolitionist
DA = de facto abolitionist
PA = partly abolitionist
R = retentionist
in bold = developments since last reporting
