Opening remarks of Ms. Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to the High-Level Panel Discussion on the Question of the Death Penalty, Human Rights Council 25th Session

5th March 2014
15:00p.m.-18:00 p.m.
Salle XX, Palais des Nations

Mr. President,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me begin with this unequivocal statement: as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, I oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and I urge those States that still retain this punishment to move swiftly towards its abolition.

At the same time, I must acknowledge the accelerating progress made towards abolition since adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which asserts the human right to life.  Back then, 66 years ago, only 14 countries had abolished the death penalty, the majority in South America.

Eighteen years later, with adoption in 1966 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, there were still only 26 abolitionist countries. Indeed, in the face of such resistance, the drafters of the Covenant could do little more than restrict the scope of the death penalty and, in paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Covenant, and impose strict conditions for its use.

Nevertheless, this was not meant to justify the continuing use of the death penalty.  Paragraph 6 of Article 6 of the Covenant makes this clear, stating that ‘Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the …Covenant’.   

It was the 1989 adoption of the Covenant’s Second Optional Protocol – 33 years after the adoption of the Covenant itself – that gave abolition decisive new momentum.

Currently, around 160 countries in the world have either abolished the death penalty, introduced a moratorium or do not practice it. Most recently, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates and the State of Washington in the United States have decided to either establish a moratorium or to suspend all executions. While I warmly welcome these developments and urge other retentionist States to follow suit, I deeply deplore the fact that approximately 20 States still execute people, often in direct violation of international human rights standards.

Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Why should we aim for universal abolition? I see three main reasons:

Rights

One, the death penalty is not reconcilable with human rights, starting with the right to life. Many countries whose people have been the victims of the most heinous crimes and violations have abolished the death penalty or do not use it. They are pursuing justice but respect the right to life, a right that cannot be negated by the thirst for vengeance.

Another right at risk here is the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. States that have imposed a moratorium on capital punishment, or have abolished it, frequently have done so because they have realized that the death penalty is cruel, inhumane and degrading, either per se or as applied. Let us not argue over whether a State can ever carry out a death sentence humanely. Let us merely look to our experience: it shows that, in practice, scrupulous adherence to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment when carrying out death sentences is never guaranteed.  
                  
Applying the death penalty also often violates the right to equality and non-discrimination. The decision whether to sentence a convict to death or to lesser punishment is often arbitrary, disproportionate and devoid of predictable rational criteria. In this “judicial lottery”, the odds are often stacked against the poor, against minorities and other common targets of discrimination.

Finality

The second reason for abolition is the finality of the death penalty. Even the most developed, well-functioning and robust legal systems, those with multiple judicial safeguards, have put to death individuals who subsequently, and in many instances, were proven to be innocent.  Whenever the death penalty is used, there is a grave risk that individuals are executed for crimes they did not commit.

Myth of deterrence
                  
A third strong reason for abolition relates to lack of merit of the common assertion that the death penalty has a deterrent effect. There is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime any more than other forms of punishment. It is not the severity of punishment that deters wrongdoers, but its certainty. To curb crimes, the focus should therefore lie on reforming the justice system and rendering it more effective, while also ensuring that it is humane.

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Abolishing the death penalty is a long and often painful process. It rarely comes to closure before a period of difficult, even acrimonious, national debate.  To make sure that such debates are effective, transparent and fully reflective of the collective will, it is vitally important to provide the public with balanced information and accurate statistics that cover all aspects of the argument on criminality, and describe all the various effective ways to combat it, short of the death sentence. 

We often hear from Government leaders and politicians that abolishing the death penalty in their countries would go against the sentiments of the public. Human progress does not stand still.  Popular support for the death penalty today does not mean that it will still be there tomorrow. There are undisputed historical precedents where laws, policies and practices that were inconsistent with human rights standards had the support of a majority of the people, but were proven wrong and eventually abolished or banned.   Leaders must show the way how deeply incompatible the death penalty is with human dignity.

That is why I urge all States that still retain the death penalty as a first step to introduce a moratorium on it.  As they do so, they should also go beyond simply ceasing executions.  They should aim for a suspension of capital punishment for all who might be, or have been, sentenced to it. Prosecutors should no longer seek the death penalty, and judges should not impose it. This could be done, for example, through a directive from the highest judicial body.

In addition, let us not neglect the importance of the possibility of pardon or commutation. In this regard, I warmly welcome the recent presidential decision in Myanmar to commute all death sentences to a lesser punishment.  I am also very encouraged by the recent decisions by the Indian Supreme Court to commute to life imprisonment the death sentences of several individuals, and to introduce guidelines safeguarding the rights of people on death row. I hope that these initiatives will lead to the full of abolition of the death penalty in these countries.

Mr. President,

The Management Plan of my Office for the coming four years (2014-2017) includes a specific strategic focus on the abolition of the death penalty. We will continue to support the relevant programmes and activities of States, civil society and international initiatives such the International Commission against the Death Penalty. 

I fervently urge this Council to continue discussing and advancing the universal abolition of the death penalty, and engaging States and other stakeholders in dialogue on the relevant issues. In keeping with the current trend towards abolition, I also call upon this Council to consider commissioning a comprehensive legal study to help facilitate the emergence of an international customary norm prohibiting the use of the death penalty under all circumstances.

May this high-level meeting help quicken arrival of the day when the death penalty is forever abolished.  Abolition will undoubtedly enhance the rights of all humankind, starting with our most sacred right of all, the right to life.

Thank you for your attention.