The Bombay High Court has become tech-savvy.
After the hearings on the confirmation of the death sentence for Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab were conducted through video-conference — a first-of-its-kind arrangement made in the court to hear proceedings for security reasons, the HC will now conduct the death confirmation proceedings of the 2003 Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazaar blasts accused the same way.
A huge screen has been put up inside court room no 13, where Justice A M Khanwilkar and Justice P D Kode are presently hearing confirmation proceedings.
Officials involved in the setting up of the video link between the Arthur Road prison and the court said, “The link is being tested and will soon become operational. The court will conduct the proceedings through it.”
The reason for the shift is the huge cost being incurred and the heavy bandobast required to escort the three death row convicts to and from the court.
Two blasts at the Gateway of India and the Zaveri Bazaar had killed 52 people and injured more than 100 on August 25, 2003.
Five persons were arrested. Three — Fehmida, husband Hanif and Ashrat Ansari — were sentenced to death.
Source: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_bombay-high-court-to-conduct-2003-blasts-trial-via-video-conference_1598132
accessed on 14th October 2011
Published: Thursday, Oct 13, 2011, 8:00 IST
By DNA Correspondent | Place: Mumbai | Agency: DNA
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Dubai court awards death sentence to two Punjabis
Times of India
I P Singh, TNN Oct 11, 2011, 11.49AM IST
JALANDHAR: An appellate court of Dubai has not only confirmed the death sentence of an already convicted Punjabi man in the case of murder of two men from Kerala in 2009 but also awarded capital punishment to another Punjabi, who was earlier awarded life imprisonment by the trial court.
Ten other accused in the case - nine Punjabis and a Pakistani - have been sentenced to jail. The trial court had earlier awarded death sentence to Major Singh of Gurdaspur but the appellate court in its order on Monday also awarded capital punishment to Amarjit Singh of Batala.
Sentence of two convicts - Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh - has been reduced from life term to 15 years, while the rest would face life term.
Dubai-based hotelier S P Singh Oberoi said that they had already engaged a lawyer to contest the case in Supreme Court. He said that he had been trying to locate the families of the two deceased men from Kerala, to reach a compromise, but had succeeded in his efforts. He added that they had requested the court that they be allowed to deposit blood money till the time the victims' families were found.
Two men from Kerala were killed in Dubai on January 1, 2009. Out of the 12 Punjabis accused of their murder, nine were convicted and sentenced in January last in a separate case of murder of another man from Kerala. Oberoi said that family of this man from Kerala could also not be found. The charges against them included intentional murder, bootlegging, consuming liquor and hiding evidence by concealing the body.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-11/chandigarh/30266120_1_punjabis-death-sentence-life-term
accessed on 12th October 2011
I P Singh, TNN Oct 11, 2011, 11.49AM IST
JALANDHAR: An appellate court of Dubai has not only confirmed the death sentence of an already convicted Punjabi man in the case of murder of two men from Kerala in 2009 but also awarded capital punishment to another Punjabi, who was earlier awarded life imprisonment by the trial court.
Ten other accused in the case - nine Punjabis and a Pakistani - have been sentenced to jail. The trial court had earlier awarded death sentence to Major Singh of Gurdaspur but the appellate court in its order on Monday also awarded capital punishment to Amarjit Singh of Batala.
Sentence of two convicts - Surinder Singh and Balwinder Singh - has been reduced from life term to 15 years, while the rest would face life term.
Dubai-based hotelier S P Singh Oberoi said that they had already engaged a lawyer to contest the case in Supreme Court. He said that he had been trying to locate the families of the two deceased men from Kerala, to reach a compromise, but had succeeded in his efforts. He added that they had requested the court that they be allowed to deposit blood money till the time the victims' families were found.
Two men from Kerala were killed in Dubai on January 1, 2009. Out of the 12 Punjabis accused of their murder, nine were convicted and sentenced in January last in a separate case of murder of another man from Kerala. Oberoi said that family of this man from Kerala could also not be found. The charges against them included intentional murder, bootlegging, consuming liquor and hiding evidence by concealing the body.
Source: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-11/chandigarh/30266120_1_punjabis-death-sentence-life-term
accessed on 12th October 2011
Kashmiri on Death Row Galvanises Opposition to Death Penalty
By Sana Altaf
SRINAGAR, India, Oct 10, 2011 (IPS) - "Is Afzal Guru really the person that so many Indians supposedly want dead? Or are they taking out their frustrations on an easy target?" asked Human Rights Watch, referring to the death sentence handed down to the Kashmiri man who was convicted of conspiracy in the 2001 suicide attack on the Indian Parliament.
"For many, Afzal bears the burden of representing all those who dare to oppose Indian rule in restive parts of the country, because the attack on Parliament was an attack on India," said the statement by Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia researcher for global rights watchdog HRW.
"Conversely, many Kashmiris would say that Afzal is a freedom fighter, planning an attempt at the symbol of Indian oppression," adds the statement, titled ‘Life, Not Death: Why Afzal Mustn’t Hang’. "Both views are flawed. For this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state to survive, Indians have to believe in equal justice for all. And in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there has been consistent failure to deliver on this promise."
A Kashmiri, supported by a wife who is a doctor and a lone teenage son, Mohammad Afzal, commonly called Afzal Guru, was found guilty of conspiracy in the attack on parliament which killed more than a dozen people. He was given the death penalty, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004.
The sentence was to be carried out in 2006, but the execution was stayed following a mercy plea filed by Afzal Guru.
Although most nations across the globe – a total of 139 – have abolished the death penalty, India continues the practice, as the World Day Against the Death Penalty once again rolled around on Oct. 10.
India joined 53 other countries to vote against the December 2007 United Nations General Assembly moratorium on executions, passed with 104 votes in favour and 29 abstentions. However, Indian judges generally follow the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty may be resorted to only in the "rarest of rare cases".
Afzal’s death penalty has not gone down well amongst various quarters in Kashmir. The separatist leaders view it as an unjust step, which would endanger the political situation in Kashmir
"I am completely against execution of Afzal Guru. He didn’t get a fair trial. Hanging him would be pure human rights violation," said Shabir Ahmad Shah, the chairman of the Democratic Freedom Party, a separatist organisation.
He says that Afzal’s hanging could have a negative impact on the situation in Kashmir. "When Maqbool Bhat was hanged in India’s Tihar jail in 1984, it was followed by insurgency. And if Afzal is also hanged, it will as well result in dangerous consequences," Shabir told IPS. "People would surely come on streets and protest against it as no Kashmiri wants his hanging."
The unrest in Kashmir has its roots back in 1947, when Britain granted India independence and the Muslim-dominated areas became part of Pakistan. A U.N. resolution, meantime, gave Kashmiris the option to join either Hindu-dominated India or Pakistan or to become independent. But Kashmiris had no chance to make a choice as their homeland is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
Roughly a third of modern-day Kashmir is administered by Pakistan while the rest is under India. But many Kashmiris challenge this, and protesters living on the Indian side rose up in arms in 1989 in an insurgency that simmers to this day.
Saying Afzal did not get a fair trial, Sajjad Lone, another separatist leader, said intellectuals, NGOs and civil society in general needs to stand up against Afzal’s execution, which he said "will not suit the people of Kashmir."
Hardline separatist leader of Kashmir Syed Ali Shah Geelani warned of "dire consequences" if Afzal Guru is hanged, saying in a statement in August that "it will unleash a storm."
Human rights activists and organisations have also criticised Afzal's death sentence, which they see as a human rights abuse.
"Afzal Guru's case is being adjudicated upon in terms of its politics, not in relation to the violations of process and hearing that have taken place. The death penalty has no place in a democracy," said Angana Chatterji, a professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco, and the co-convener of the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir.
Chatterji says despite the international movement to abolish capital punishment and the 2007 U.N. moratorium on executions, "India continues to impose the (death) penalty. The allocation of capital punishment continues to be influenced by racism, ethnocentrism, and class prejudice, authorising the state to act against a person's right to life."
Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez, a co-founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), says the sentence handed down to Afzal was not based on a fair trial.
"If anyone reads that judgment, one would come to know that he was pronounced guilty on secondary evidence. No direct evidence was produced in the court against Afzal Guru," Parvez told IPS.
Citing the Supreme Court sentence, he said it states that "the incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."
"When there is no evidence against Afzal, why should he be hanged? To satisfy the collective conscience of society, it appears India needs a sacrifice," Parvez added.
Advocate Faisal Qadri said the death penalty should be abolished in India. "I am completely against the death penalty. It is the worst kind of human rights violation. Humans have no right to kill anyone, even if it is a criminal."
And Qadri argued that in Afzal Guru’s case, capital punishment is completely unjustified: "Even India’s own leading lawyers admit that Afzal was not given a fair trial."
For ordinary people, the sentence handed to Afzal is a manifestation of India’s bias against Kashmiris.
"The Indian system is biased against Kashmiri people…there are scores of innocent Kashmiri youth who are arrested on the basis of mere suspicion and put behind bars for years with no evidence. How can we expect India to be just to Afzal?" said Iqbal (who provided only one name).
"Whenever any Kashmiri is found involved in any wrong act, India has to act in an unjust manner. That has been India's policy towards Kashmir," says Amina Maqbool, a political science student from the University of Kashmir
The HRW statement says the group "unequivocally opposes the death penalty. Guilty or not, we believe that neither Mohammad Afzal Guru, nor (law student) Priyadarshini Mattoo’s killer, Santosh Kumar Singh, nor (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein, nor anyone else, should be executed.
"Taking the life of a human being is inherently cruel, and as a form of punishment is unique in its irreversibility. The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when there is a fair judicial process, innocent persons will still be executed. On a practical level, there is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent," it adds. (END)
Source: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105411
Accessed on 12th October 2011
SRINAGAR, India, Oct 10, 2011 (IPS) - "Is Afzal Guru really the person that so many Indians supposedly want dead? Or are they taking out their frustrations on an easy target?" asked Human Rights Watch, referring to the death sentence handed down to the Kashmiri man who was convicted of conspiracy in the 2001 suicide attack on the Indian Parliament.
"For many, Afzal bears the burden of representing all those who dare to oppose Indian rule in restive parts of the country, because the attack on Parliament was an attack on India," said the statement by Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia researcher for global rights watchdog HRW.
"Conversely, many Kashmiris would say that Afzal is a freedom fighter, planning an attempt at the symbol of Indian oppression," adds the statement, titled ‘Life, Not Death: Why Afzal Mustn’t Hang’. "Both views are flawed. For this multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state to survive, Indians have to believe in equal justice for all. And in the case of Jammu and Kashmir, there has been consistent failure to deliver on this promise."
A Kashmiri, supported by a wife who is a doctor and a lone teenage son, Mohammad Afzal, commonly called Afzal Guru, was found guilty of conspiracy in the attack on parliament which killed more than a dozen people. He was given the death penalty, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2004.
The sentence was to be carried out in 2006, but the execution was stayed following a mercy plea filed by Afzal Guru.
Although most nations across the globe – a total of 139 – have abolished the death penalty, India continues the practice, as the World Day Against the Death Penalty once again rolled around on Oct. 10.
India joined 53 other countries to vote against the December 2007 United Nations General Assembly moratorium on executions, passed with 104 votes in favour and 29 abstentions. However, Indian judges generally follow the 1983 Supreme Court ruling that the death penalty may be resorted to only in the "rarest of rare cases".
Afzal’s death penalty has not gone down well amongst various quarters in Kashmir. The separatist leaders view it as an unjust step, which would endanger the political situation in Kashmir
"I am completely against execution of Afzal Guru. He didn’t get a fair trial. Hanging him would be pure human rights violation," said Shabir Ahmad Shah, the chairman of the Democratic Freedom Party, a separatist organisation.
He says that Afzal’s hanging could have a negative impact on the situation in Kashmir. "When Maqbool Bhat was hanged in India’s Tihar jail in 1984, it was followed by insurgency. And if Afzal is also hanged, it will as well result in dangerous consequences," Shabir told IPS. "People would surely come on streets and protest against it as no Kashmiri wants his hanging."
The unrest in Kashmir has its roots back in 1947, when Britain granted India independence and the Muslim-dominated areas became part of Pakistan. A U.N. resolution, meantime, gave Kashmiris the option to join either Hindu-dominated India or Pakistan or to become independent. But Kashmiris had no chance to make a choice as their homeland is claimed by both India and Pakistan.
Roughly a third of modern-day Kashmir is administered by Pakistan while the rest is under India. But many Kashmiris challenge this, and protesters living on the Indian side rose up in arms in 1989 in an insurgency that simmers to this day.
Saying Afzal did not get a fair trial, Sajjad Lone, another separatist leader, said intellectuals, NGOs and civil society in general needs to stand up against Afzal’s execution, which he said "will not suit the people of Kashmir."
Hardline separatist leader of Kashmir Syed Ali Shah Geelani warned of "dire consequences" if Afzal Guru is hanged, saying in a statement in August that "it will unleash a storm."
Human rights activists and organisations have also criticised Afzal's death sentence, which they see as a human rights abuse.
"Afzal Guru's case is being adjudicated upon in terms of its politics, not in relation to the violations of process and hearing that have taken place. The death penalty has no place in a democracy," said Angana Chatterji, a professor of social and cultural anthropology at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco, and the co-convener of the International People's Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir.
Chatterji says despite the international movement to abolish capital punishment and the 2007 U.N. moratorium on executions, "India continues to impose the (death) penalty. The allocation of capital punishment continues to be influenced by racism, ethnocentrism, and class prejudice, authorising the state to act against a person's right to life."
Kashmir-based human rights activist Khurram Parvez, a co-founder of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), says the sentence handed down to Afzal was not based on a fair trial.
"If anyone reads that judgment, one would come to know that he was pronounced guilty on secondary evidence. No direct evidence was produced in the court against Afzal Guru," Parvez told IPS.
Citing the Supreme Court sentence, he said it states that "the incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."
"When there is no evidence against Afzal, why should he be hanged? To satisfy the collective conscience of society, it appears India needs a sacrifice," Parvez added.
Advocate Faisal Qadri said the death penalty should be abolished in India. "I am completely against the death penalty. It is the worst kind of human rights violation. Humans have no right to kill anyone, even if it is a criminal."
And Qadri argued that in Afzal Guru’s case, capital punishment is completely unjustified: "Even India’s own leading lawyers admit that Afzal was not given a fair trial."
For ordinary people, the sentence handed to Afzal is a manifestation of India’s bias against Kashmiris.
"The Indian system is biased against Kashmiri people…there are scores of innocent Kashmiri youth who are arrested on the basis of mere suspicion and put behind bars for years with no evidence. How can we expect India to be just to Afzal?" said Iqbal (who provided only one name).
"Whenever any Kashmiri is found involved in any wrong act, India has to act in an unjust manner. That has been India's policy towards Kashmir," says Amina Maqbool, a political science student from the University of Kashmir
The HRW statement says the group "unequivocally opposes the death penalty. Guilty or not, we believe that neither Mohammad Afzal Guru, nor (law student) Priyadarshini Mattoo’s killer, Santosh Kumar Singh, nor (former Iraqi president) Saddam Hussein, nor anyone else, should be executed.
"Taking the life of a human being is inherently cruel, and as a form of punishment is unique in its irreversibility. The intrinsic fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when there is a fair judicial process, innocent persons will still be executed. On a practical level, there is no evidence that it is an effective deterrent," it adds. (END)
Source: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105411
Accessed on 12th October 2011
A matter of life and death
By Kuldip Nayar
Published: October 10, 2011
The Express Tribune: With the International Herald Tribune
I have no personal differences with people who want to abolish capital punishment. It is their principled stand, as they claim, and it holds good in all cases where death sentences have been awarded. The risk of hanging an innocent person is too great, they say. Not even the state has the right to end a life which is given by God. The rationale of nearly 150 countries is more or less the same and they have taken away from their courts the power to award death sentences, however heinous the crime maybe.
India and the US are also under pressure from human rights organisations to change their archaic laws and ban the death sentence. My own belief is that the death sentence is barbaric and it needs to be abolished. It reminds me of the days when the dictum of tooth for tooth prevailed. Our government is still stuck on the idea that death sentence acts as a deterrent or that it assuages the grief of those who lose their dear ones.
I am bewildered at the attitude of the leaders and activists who ask for clemency on behalf of the culprits, who should have been hanged long ago.
This faulty thinking first made the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, ask for clemency of three convicts of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Now, Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal has asked mercy for DP Singh Bhuller who triggered a bomb blast in September 1993, which killed nine people.
And the latest in line is the chief minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Omar Abdullah, who had raised the question of whether the resolution for clemency of Afzal Guru by his state assembly would go unnoticed, as was the Tamil Nadu assembly’s resolution. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death for having attacked the parliament, which is the symbol of India’s democratic polity. All three chief ministers have politicised criminal acts. They have never demanded the abolition of the death penalty. The cases they espouse and believe, give them electoral advantage. Since politicians weigh everything on the scales of vote, they do not mind preaching something against the constitution.
Or, is it possible that they are afraid to take a stand on the basic issue and prefer to go along wherever the wind blows at a particular time? The raucous created in the Tamil Nadu assembly has been copied by the AJK assembly, beating all records. In both the cases, the ruling parties have been in the forefront in fomenting trouble.
The Supreme Court’s remark holds well in all the three cases. Taking up the mercy petition filed by Bhullar, the court has asked the government to explain the delay. After a lapse of eight years, the president who disposes mercy petitions rejected the plea on May 25 this year. All countries in South Asia have jumped into the arena. Sarabjeet Singh must languish in a Pakistani jail because he is the prize which Islamabad wants to cash in on some day to extract concession from New Delhi. Likewise, India must have a hostage in the shape of one prisoner or another from Pakistan.
There is no other way except to go back to what the law demands. Yet, I believe that there should be no hanging of Afzal Guru, D P Singh Bhuller, Sarabjeet Singh and the Rajiv Gandhi assassins. Their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. And life sentence should mean sentence for life, till the culprit breathes his last in jail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2011.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271019/a-matter-of-life-and-death/
accessed on 12th October 2011
Published: October 10, 2011
The Express Tribune: With the International Herald Tribune
I have no personal differences with people who want to abolish capital punishment. It is their principled stand, as they claim, and it holds good in all cases where death sentences have been awarded. The risk of hanging an innocent person is too great, they say. Not even the state has the right to end a life which is given by God. The rationale of nearly 150 countries is more or less the same and they have taken away from their courts the power to award death sentences, however heinous the crime maybe.
India and the US are also under pressure from human rights organisations to change their archaic laws and ban the death sentence. My own belief is that the death sentence is barbaric and it needs to be abolished. It reminds me of the days when the dictum of tooth for tooth prevailed. Our government is still stuck on the idea that death sentence acts as a deterrent or that it assuages the grief of those who lose their dear ones.
I am bewildered at the attitude of the leaders and activists who ask for clemency on behalf of the culprits, who should have been hanged long ago.
This faulty thinking first made the chief minister of Tamil Nadu, J Jayalalithaa, ask for clemency of three convicts of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination. Now, Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal has asked mercy for DP Singh Bhuller who triggered a bomb blast in September 1993, which killed nine people.
And the latest in line is the chief minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), Omar Abdullah, who had raised the question of whether the resolution for clemency of Afzal Guru by his state assembly would go unnoticed, as was the Tamil Nadu assembly’s resolution. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death for having attacked the parliament, which is the symbol of India’s democratic polity. All three chief ministers have politicised criminal acts. They have never demanded the abolition of the death penalty. The cases they espouse and believe, give them electoral advantage. Since politicians weigh everything on the scales of vote, they do not mind preaching something against the constitution.
Or, is it possible that they are afraid to take a stand on the basic issue and prefer to go along wherever the wind blows at a particular time? The raucous created in the Tamil Nadu assembly has been copied by the AJK assembly, beating all records. In both the cases, the ruling parties have been in the forefront in fomenting trouble.
The Supreme Court’s remark holds well in all the three cases. Taking up the mercy petition filed by Bhullar, the court has asked the government to explain the delay. After a lapse of eight years, the president who disposes mercy petitions rejected the plea on May 25 this year. All countries in South Asia have jumped into the arena. Sarabjeet Singh must languish in a Pakistani jail because he is the prize which Islamabad wants to cash in on some day to extract concession from New Delhi. Likewise, India must have a hostage in the shape of one prisoner or another from Pakistan.
There is no other way except to go back to what the law demands. Yet, I believe that there should be no hanging of Afzal Guru, D P Singh Bhuller, Sarabjeet Singh and the Rajiv Gandhi assassins. Their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment. And life sentence should mean sentence for life, till the culprit breathes his last in jail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 11th, 2011.
Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/271019/a-matter-of-life-and-death/
accessed on 12th October 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rajiv assassins' plea should not be moved out of Tamil Nadu: Govt
New Delhi: The Tamil Nadu government today opposed in the Supreme Court a plea to shift out of the Madras High Court the appeals of three Rajiv Gandhi assassins, challenging their death penalty on account of an 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petition by the President.
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.
Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.
Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.
After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.
The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.
"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.
The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.
On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.
The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.
Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.
Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.
Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995
Tamil Nadu's Additional Advocate General Gurukrishna Kumar opposed the plea for transfer of the three convicts' appeals out of the state High Court, denying allegations made before the apex court that the atmosphere in the state was too "vitiated and surcharged" to hold a free and fair hearing in the case.
Kumar also questioned the locus standi of petitioner L K Venkat, seeking the apex court's direction for transfer of the case out of Madras High Court to the Supreme Court.
Senior counsel Ram Jethmalani, appearing for the three convicts on death row, also opposed the transfer plea on the ground that Article 139A (relating to transfer of certain cases) gives power only to the Attorney General of India or the aggrieved parties to file a petition for transfer.
Venkat's counsel L Nandkumar, however, submitted that a free and fair hearing of the proceedings cannot be held in the Madras High Court owing to the "surcharged, hostile and vitiated" atmosphere prevailing there.
After hearing the arguments by various parties, a bench of justices G S Signhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya asked the state to file a counter affidavit within a week and posted the matter for further hearing to October 19.
The bench asked Tamil Nadu government to file a counter affidavit on the plea for shifting appeals of the three condemned prisoners in the assassination case out of the state high court.
"Though the request made by the state additional advocate general is unreasonable, we are granting time for filing the counter affidavit," the bench said.
The judges were irked at Tamil Nadu government's request as it had failed to reply till date to its September 15 notice on plea.
On a petition by the three death row convicts, the Madras High Court had earlier stayed their hanging and had issued notices to the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government.
The three convicts - Santhan, Murugan and Perarivalan alias Arivu - had challenged the sentence despite the same having been upheld earlier by the apex court and the President having rejected their mercy pleas subsequently.
Venkat subsequently had moved the apex court seeking transfer of their appeals out of the state high court and the apex court had issued notices on the petition to the state.
Venkat had alleged in his plea that the convicts' appeals challenging their death sentences cannot be heard in a free and fair atmosphere in the state as several supporters of the banned LLTE were interfering with the functioning of the judiciary by raising slogans in support of the convicts.
Source : http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/rajiv-assassins-plea-should-not-be-moved-out-of-tamil-nadu-govt-139995
EU outlines death penalty policy
In a statement on the occasion of World and European Day against the Death Penalty, which is being observed today, the European Union has expressed the hope that Trinidad and Tobago will “soon choose to leave the minority group of countries that still retain the death penalty”. The EU stated: “After three decades of steady progress, more than two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. The EU is leading the efforts to achieve universal abolition of the death penalty. “We welcome the UN’s recent resolutions on the global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition, supported by a wide coalition of States from all regions of the world.
“The growing support granted to UN resolutions on this matter in 2007, 2008 and 2010 confirms an increasing international trend against the death penalty. “At the same time, while we acknowledge the growing number of countries which have done away with the death penalty (the figure grew from 55 to 97, between 1993 and 2009), we cannot ignore the fact that 58 countries in the world still retain the death penalty. “The EU considers the death penalty to be a cruel and inhuman punishment, which represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. It only serves to aggravate a culture of violence and retribution.
“In its efforts against the death penalty, the EU is actively supported by states from all regions of the world. The EU encourages public debate, strengthening public opposition and putting pressure on retentionist countries to abolish the death penalty, or at least introduce a moratorium as a first step. “The EU also acts against the death penalty in multilateral fora such as the United Nations; a culmination of this effort was the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 2007.” The UN General Assembly adopted in 2008, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.
The vote on the non-binding resolution was 54 against, 29 abstentions and 104 in favour. “At present there is a worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Around 139 countries have abolished the death penalty by law or practice.” Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, Wikipedia estimates that more than 60 per cent of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place. Among the countries that retain capital punishment are the United States of America, China, India and Indonesia—the four most populous nations in the world. Capital punishment is also legal in Israel, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia. The execution of prisoners found guilty of capital crimes in T&T is still the law of the land, despite efforts by anti-capital punishment campaigners to lobby the Government to change the law.
source: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/10/10/eu-outlines-death-penalty-policy
accessed on 10th October 2011
“The growing support granted to UN resolutions on this matter in 2007, 2008 and 2010 confirms an increasing international trend against the death penalty. “At the same time, while we acknowledge the growing number of countries which have done away with the death penalty (the figure grew from 55 to 97, between 1993 and 2009), we cannot ignore the fact that 58 countries in the world still retain the death penalty. “The EU considers the death penalty to be a cruel and inhuman punishment, which represents an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. It only serves to aggravate a culture of violence and retribution.
“In its efforts against the death penalty, the EU is actively supported by states from all regions of the world. The EU encourages public debate, strengthening public opposition and putting pressure on retentionist countries to abolish the death penalty, or at least introduce a moratorium as a first step. “The EU also acts against the death penalty in multilateral fora such as the United Nations; a culmination of this effort was the resolution on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 18, 2007.” The UN General Assembly adopted in 2008, non-binding resolutions calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition.
The vote on the non-binding resolution was 54 against, 29 abstentions and 104 in favour. “At present there is a worldwide trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Around 139 countries have abolished the death penalty by law or practice.” Although many nations have abolished capital punishment, Wikipedia estimates that more than 60 per cent of the world’s population live in countries where executions take place. Among the countries that retain capital punishment are the United States of America, China, India and Indonesia—the four most populous nations in the world. Capital punishment is also legal in Israel, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia. The execution of prisoners found guilty of capital crimes in T&T is still the law of the land, despite efforts by anti-capital punishment campaigners to lobby the Government to change the law.
source: http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2011/10/10/eu-outlines-death-penalty-policy
accessed on 10th October 2011
Abolish death penalty, EU tells India
Death sentences for many Indian fugitives hang in balance as EU supports abolition of death penalty
Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi
The issues of the execution of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and charging Abu Salem, a close associate of international fugitive Dawood Ibrahim, under clauses demanding death sentence are set to create a diplomatic row between India and Europe. The European Union, on Monday, declared abolition of the death penalty the world over as one of their human rights and foreign policy objectives to mark 10 October as the World and European Day against the Death Penalty.
In a joint declaration by Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, reaffirmed united opposition to the death penalty, and committed to work for its worldwide abolition.
“We consider capital punishment to be inhumane, and a violation of human dignity. Experience in Europe has taught us that the death penalty does not prevent an increase in violent crime, and nor does it bring justice to the victims of such crimes. Any capital punishment resulting from a miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system can be immune, represents irreversible loss of human life,” said the declaration.
Earlier, in a letter to the Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, Ashton had made it clear that the grouping opposes death sentence pronounced to Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a Khalistani militant. Bhullar is facing the gallows after President Pratibha Patil rejected his petition of mercy.
Bhullar was deported from Germany on 18 January, 1995, after his application seeking political asylum was rejected by German authorities. The decision to deport him was declared illegal by a Frankfurt court two years later. Bhullar was then arrested by Delhi Police at the airport on charges of falsification of documents. However, he was later handed over to the Punjab Police, who booked him under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for engineering bomb blasts at the Youth Congress office in Delhi and elsewhere in Punjab.
Outgoing German ambassador to India Thomas Matussek believed that Germany wouldn’t have deported him, knowing the fate of his case. He said Bhullar’s deportation came as he had not disclosed full fact before German authorities and the court there. “Unfortunately for him and for us, he presented a forged passport and gave totally wrong story. When that was put to court it was clear there was no basis for his asylum and court ruled he could be deported,” he said. “Later on, a real story came out. He hadn’t told us,” the ambassador added. Matussek made it clear that in a similar case in future, the person would not be deported. If this case comes up in Germany now and he tells the full story, we will not deport him,” he maintained.
In the case of Abu Salem, the Portugal High Court has cancelled the extradition order of 2005 under which the gangster was handed to Indian authorities and was brought to India. The High Court had cancelled the extradition order on grounds that the terms and conditions of extradition were violated by Indian authorities.
As per the extradition order, he shall not be given the death sentence and not be put to trial for the offences other than mentioned in the extradition order and not be given a sentence of 25 years. The CBI has already filed an appeal at the Supreme Court in Lisbon, contending that India has strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of the extradition order.
The declaration also called for full implementation of a recent UN resolution, which called for global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition. The EU is also the first regional body to have adopted rules prohibiting the trade in goods used for capital punishment (and torture and ill-treatment), as well as the supply of technical assistance related to such goods. The EU’s political commitment has been matched by substantial financial support for concrete projects.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws101011World.asp
accessed on 10th October 2011
Iftikhar Gilani
New Delhi
The issues of the execution of Devender Pal Singh Bhullar and charging Abu Salem, a close associate of international fugitive Dawood Ibrahim, under clauses demanding death sentence are set to create a diplomatic row between India and Europe. The European Union, on Monday, declared abolition of the death penalty the world over as one of their human rights and foreign policy objectives to mark 10 October as the World and European Day against the Death Penalty.
In a joint declaration by Catherine Ashton, European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, reaffirmed united opposition to the death penalty, and committed to work for its worldwide abolition.
“We consider capital punishment to be inhumane, and a violation of human dignity. Experience in Europe has taught us that the death penalty does not prevent an increase in violent crime, and nor does it bring justice to the victims of such crimes. Any capital punishment resulting from a miscarriage of justice, from which no legal system can be immune, represents irreversible loss of human life,” said the declaration.
Earlier, in a letter to the Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, Ashton had made it clear that the grouping opposes death sentence pronounced to Prof. Devender Pal Singh Bhullar, a Khalistani militant. Bhullar is facing the gallows after President Pratibha Patil rejected his petition of mercy.
Bhullar was deported from Germany on 18 January, 1995, after his application seeking political asylum was rejected by German authorities. The decision to deport him was declared illegal by a Frankfurt court two years later. Bhullar was then arrested by Delhi Police at the airport on charges of falsification of documents. However, he was later handed over to the Punjab Police, who booked him under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, for engineering bomb blasts at the Youth Congress office in Delhi and elsewhere in Punjab.
Outgoing German ambassador to India Thomas Matussek believed that Germany wouldn’t have deported him, knowing the fate of his case. He said Bhullar’s deportation came as he had not disclosed full fact before German authorities and the court there. “Unfortunately for him and for us, he presented a forged passport and gave totally wrong story. When that was put to court it was clear there was no basis for his asylum and court ruled he could be deported,” he said. “Later on, a real story came out. He hadn’t told us,” the ambassador added. Matussek made it clear that in a similar case in future, the person would not be deported. If this case comes up in Germany now and he tells the full story, we will not deport him,” he maintained.
In the case of Abu Salem, the Portugal High Court has cancelled the extradition order of 2005 under which the gangster was handed to Indian authorities and was brought to India. The High Court had cancelled the extradition order on grounds that the terms and conditions of extradition were violated by Indian authorities.
As per the extradition order, he shall not be given the death sentence and not be put to trial for the offences other than mentioned in the extradition order and not be given a sentence of 25 years. The CBI has already filed an appeal at the Supreme Court in Lisbon, contending that India has strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of the extradition order.
The declaration also called for full implementation of a recent UN resolution, which called for global moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete abolition. The EU is also the first regional body to have adopted rules prohibiting the trade in goods used for capital punishment (and torture and ill-treatment), as well as the supply of technical assistance related to such goods. The EU’s political commitment has been matched by substantial financial support for concrete projects.
Iftikhar Gilani is Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com
Source: http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ws101011World.asp
accessed on 10th October 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)