Could the death penalty return? What countries use the death penalty and why? What year did Canada abolish the death penalty?

Does it help the death penalty in the fight against corruption?
The most famous country where people were executed for bribery is China. Since 2000, 10,000 people have been shot in this country for economic crimes. Not so weak. As a result, in the year, China ranked 75th in the TI ranking of 182 countries.
But at the beginning of 2011 China has abolished the death penalty for non-violent economic crimes.
For the purity of the experiment, let's look at the rating for the year when China was still executed for the economy. The Celestial Empire has 78th place out of 178 possible. Not bad, of course. But Georgia, which does not have the death penalty, then occupied a position 10 lines higher - 68. And there was no need to kill people.
After the abolition of the death penalty in China for bribes, the position of this country in the ranking did not exactly decrease. It even increased a little. If you look at the balls, it became better after the abolition of the death penalty. The higher the score, the less corruption. So, in 2010, during the execution, China had 3.5 points, and in 2011, when the execution was banned, - 3.6 points. Not much, but better.
Let's look at the top 10 countries in the TI ranking, that is, countries with the lowest level of corruption. Do they have the death penalty for bribery?

These are the following countries: New Zealand; Denmark; Finland; Sweden; Singapore; Norway; Netherlands; Australia; Switzerland and Canada.

Officially, the death penalty New Zealand was abolished in 1961.

AT Finland the death penalty for all crimes was abolished in 1927.
death penalty in Sweden was completely abolished in 1972.
AT Singapore the death penalty exists. It is applied for drugs, high treason, murder (links , , ). Only in one place did I find information about the fact that in Singapore they are executed for theft, but it was a blog, it was written with a comma and no links. I have not seen a single reliable confirmation that people are killed for economic crimes in Singapore. But the fact that this beautiful country has very strict legislation is not disputed. They like to use sticks for many types of offenses. In my opinion, the cruelty of Singaporean legislation is a huge minus for an economically beautiful country.
AT Norway the death penalty was completely abolished in 1979.
About Canada not completely clear. First, the death penalty in peaceful time abolished since 1976. In fact, the last death sentence was carried out in 1962. Some sources claim that in Canada the death penalty fully canceled, others say that only in peaceful time. I'm more inclined towards the second opinion. Yes, and most sources still report that the state in Canada does not kill only in peacetime. But these are formalities. Since the last death sentence was given back in 1962.

So, of the 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, the death penalty for especially serious crimes is applied only in Singapore, and even then, not for economic crimes.
The most popular country in this sense - China - abolished the execution for bribery in 2011.

Pay attention, I gave the dates when the death penalty was abolished FULLY, on ALL points. In fact, for most types of crimes, the death penalty in these countries was banned even earlier. And even before it was banned, it was simply not used. It may not have been used for 100 years before its official abolition. Most of the crimes for which the death penalty was retained until the dates given above concerned Exclusively Wartime.
Additional Information:

In 13-15 countries (Ghana, Iran, Nigeria, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, etc.) the death penalty was introduced for economic crimes (corruption, embezzlement of public funds, attacks on customs officers, armed robbery). In 7 of these countries, exceptional punishment could be applied for grand larceny and bribery.
The only country on this list that deserves attention is South Korea- but she does not rank high, 43 , a place in the TI ranking (2011). Secondly, it is not a fact that Korea still applies the penalty for the economy. I did not find such data.
The rest of the countries kill for bribes, but this does not help them much. Somalia, Nigeria, Iran, Ghana - do you want to put Russia on such a list?

California has problems with the death penalty. She hasn't done it since 2006, when a federal court ruled that lethal injection was inappropriate because it could cause unnecessary suffering. The state spent five years looking for a better method, but last month a judge rejected that too. The dead end of the death penalty system in California is illustrated, for example, by the fact that the prisoner in connection with which the issue of lethal injection was raised has been waiting for the execution of his sentence for 24 years.

This is not the case only in this state. Last month, the Death Penalty Clearinghouse reported that the number of new death sentences fell sharply in 2011. For the first time in decades, fewer than 100 executions were carried out across the country. According to the center, the number of executions themselves is also falling - since 1999 it has decreased by 56%.

For a long time it seemed that the death penalty would disappear in the US when the Supreme Court made a fateful decision and found it unconstitutional in all cases. However, everything happens differently. It looks like it will be canceled from below, not from above. Now governors, legislatures, judges and juries are no longer supporting it.

The starting point of this social movement was Illinois. In 2000, its Republican governor imposed a moratorium on executions after several death row inmates were found not guilty. In early 2011, the Democratic Governor signed legislation passed by the Legislature to abolish the death penalty.

Illinois, however, is only part of a small boom in abolishing the death penalty at the state level. New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007. New Mexico - in 2009. In total, now there is no death penalty in 16 states - about one-third of the country's territory. However, even in states that have retained the death penalty, it is doing badly. Last year, Oregon's governor imposed a moratorium on all death sentences in his state, saying the current system "doesn't meet basic standards of justice." Other governors prefer a more selective approach. So in September, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a conservative Republican, at one time host of the program on Fox News, overturned the death sentence of a convicted murderer. The reason for the commutation, according to the governor, was that the convict was very young when he committed the crime and that he had a difficult childhood.

We are moving towards de facto abolition of the death penalty for several reasons. Firstly, this is due to the growing number of those sentenced to death who are eventually acquitted. Since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, there have been 139, and the number continues to rise. Even many of those who theoretically support the death penalty are beginning to waver when faced with clear evidence that the innocent are being sentenced to death.

Another factor is cost. Money is hard these days, so more and more attention is being paid to how expensive death penalty cases are. According to a 2008 study, California spent $137 million on these trials—a not bad amount, especially considering that no one was ever executed.

Then there is the disgust factor. In other times, executions were public spectacles attended by crowds of people. However, now we have become more sensitive. Ohio briefly put a moratorium on the death penalty in 2009, after a horrific episode of two technicians trying unsuccessfully for two hours to find a vein to administer a lethal injection.

Polls show that society has not yet turned against the death penalty, but support for it is declining. In 1994, 80% of respondents polled by Gallup said they were in favor of the death penalty for those convicted of murder. In 2001, only 61% thought so. In polls in which respondents were asked to choose between a death sentence or a life sentence without parole or parole, the majority chose the second option.

Many opponents of the death penalty still look forward to a pivotal Supreme Court decision, and it is undeniable that it would have unique force. Five judges could literally end the death penalty across the country with a stroke of the pen. However, gradual abolition from below has its advantages. What we are seeing now is not the result of the actions of a small group of judges who determine policy, it is the result of a gradual loss of willingness on the part of the American masses to send people to execution.

Adam Cohen is the author of Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America"), teaches at Yale Law School. The views expressed in the article reflect only his position.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

The parliamentary faction "Onuguu-Progress" submitted for public discussion a draft law on amending the current Constitution regarding the possibility of applying the death penalty to persons who have committed crimes against the sexual integrity of young children.

It is proposed to supplement Article 21 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic with the words - "The death penalty is prohibited, except for crimes committed against the sexual inviolability of young children."

The issue of introducing the death penalty has been raised in Kyrgyzstan more than once, but has never reached the parliament.

website I decided to find out in which countries of the world the death penalty exists.

Who administers the death penalty?

Depending on the legislation of each country, they can be divided into four groups:

• 58 countries retain the death penalty within the law.
• 98 abolished this type of punishment.
• 7 canceled only for ordinary crimes.
• 35 do not apply it in practice.

Thus, the only country in Europe where the death penalty is used in practice remains Belarus. In America - USA. The rest of the countries are located in Africa and Asia - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, North Korea, China, Malaysia, UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Japan, Palestine, Taiwan, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea.

According to Amnesty International, at least 1 634 people in 25 countries. This is a sharp increase in the number of executions, more than 50%, compared to 2014. In 2014, Amnesty International recorded 1,061 executions in 22 countries around the world.

Most executions were carried out in China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in order of decreasing number of executions.

China continued to carry out the most executions in the world last year, but the true extent of China's use of the death penalty is unknown because the information is a state secret.

The claimed 1,634 executions do not include the thousands believed to have taken place in China.

Excluding China, almost 90% of executions were carried out in three countries - Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In 2015, according to available data, executions were carried out in 25 countries, that is, in every 10th country in the world, in 2014 there were only 22 such countries. But this is significantly less than two decades ago (in 1996, executions were carried out in 39 countries ).

In 140 countries, which is more than two-thirds of the countries of the world, the death penalty has been abolished in law or in practice.

In 2015, four countries - Fiji, Madagascar, Republic of the Congo and Suriname - abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In total, they did so 120 countries- most countries of the world. In 2015, Mongolia approved a new criminal code abolishing the death penalty, which will come into force at the end of 2016.

And further. In general statistics, there is no information about the executions of the "Islamic State", which are now often reported in the media.

The following common methods of execution were used in the world:

• decapitation;
• hanging;
• lethal injection;
• shooting.

Why can criminals be executed?

In the United States, the death penalty is legal in several states. Depending on the state, the sentenced may be executed through shooting, lethal injection, hanging, electric chair or gas chamber. They can be sentenced to death for murder, treason and terrorist activities.

Israel can execute for organizing genocide, massacre and treason. Nevertheless, in the entire history of the existence of the state, only two death sentences were passed, one of them was against the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann.

In Japan, those sentenced to death are hanged. Some prominent figures of the terrorist sect "Aum Shinrikyo" were sentenced to hanging.

In China, the death penalty not only exists on paper, but is widely used. As a rule, those sentenced to death are shot. You can lose your life for bribery, prostitution, murder, possession and distribution of drugs and much more.

Quite exotic types of execution are common in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Arab countries. So, men guilty of theft and murder are beheaded with a sword. And women who are guilty of treason are stoned to death. In the latter case, if the victim survives, then re-execution is prohibited. The laws of Saudi Arabia consider homosexuality and religious apostasy. The perpetrators of these acts face the death penalty.

COMMUNICATION No. 469/1991, CHARLES CHITAT NG v. CANADA

Report of the Human Rights Committee, Volume II, GAOR, Forty-ninth Session,

Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40), ss. 189-220. Notes and footnotes omitted.

Considerations under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol

1. The author of the communication is a British national, Charles Chitat Ng, born on 24 December 1960 in Hong Kong and resident in the United States of America, who at the time of submission of the communication was in a penitentiary in Alberta, Canada and was extradited to the United States on 26 September 1991. He claims that by extraditing him, Canada violated his human rights. He is represented by a lawyer.

2.1 The author was arrested, tried and convicted in 1985 in Calgary, Alberta for attempting to rob a store and use a firearm against a security guard. In February 1987, the United States sent a formal extradition request for the author to stand trial in California on a 19-count indictment, including counts of kidnapping and 12 murders committed in 1984 and 1985. If the author is convicted, he could face the death penalty.

2.2 In November 1988, a Judge of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench issued an extradition order for the author. In February 1989, the author's application under habeas corpus was denied, and on 31 August 1989 the Supreme Court of Canada denied the author leave to appeal.

2.3 Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States provides as follows: “If the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State, and the laws of the requested State do not provide for such punishment for is a crime, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides sufficient assurances, in the opinion of the requesting State, that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if it is imposed, will not be carried out.” The death penalty was abolished in Canada in 1976, with the exception of the death penalty for certain war crimes.

2.4 The power to request assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed is discretionary and vested in the Minister of Justice under section 25 of the Extradition Act. In October 1989, the Attorney General decided not to ask for such guarantees.

2.5 Subsequently, the author filed a motion for review of the Minister's decision in a federal court. On June 8, 1990, the case was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled on September 26, 1991. The Court concluded that the extradition of the author without a request for guarantees of the death penalty was not contrary to the constitutional protection of human rights in Canada and the norms accepted in the international community. On the same day, the author of the message was extradited.

The essence of the complaint

3. The author claims that the decision to extradite him violates articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. He contends that the death penalty by asphyxiation under California law per se constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment, and that conditions on death row are cruel, inhuman and degrading. He further contends that California's judicial procedures, to the extent that they specifically refer to the death penalty, do not meet the basic requirements of justice. In this context, the author argues that in the United States racial prejudice influences the imposition of the death penalty.

4.1 The State party contends that the communication is inadmissible ratione persopae, loci and materiae.

4.2 It is submitted that the author cannot be considered a victim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol, since his claims are based on assumptions about possible future events that may not occur and that depend on the law and the actions of the United States authorities. […]

4.3 The State party submits that the author's allegations concern the criminal law and judiciary of a country other than Canada. […] The State party considers that the Covenant does not hold a State responsible for events over which it does not have jurisdiction.

4.4 Furthermore, it is argued that the communication should be declared inadmissible as contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, since the Covenant does not provide for a right not to be extradited. […] It further contends that even if it could be shown that, in exceptional circumstances, extradition falls within the protection of the Covenant, those circumstances do not exist in the present case.

4.5 The State party further refers to the United Nations Model Extradition Treaty, which explicitly provides for the possibility of unconditional extradition, providing for discretionary powers regarding the guarantee of the death penalty, in a manner similar to that provided for in article 6 of the Canada-United States Extradition Treaty . In conclusion, the State party notes that interfering with the extradition process of a fugitive in accordance with the legitimate demands of a treaty partner would undermine the principles and objectives of extradition treaties and would have undesirable consequences for States that refuse these legitimate requests. In this context, the State party points out that, with its long, unguarded border with the United States, it could provide an attractive haven for fugitives from United States authorities. If these fugitives could not be extradited because of the theoretical possibility of applying the death penalty to them, then they would not be able to be moved at all, they would remain unpunished in the country, threatening the security and peace of the population.

4.6 Finally, the State party notes that the author has not substantiated his allegations that the treatment he might be subjected to in the United States would violate his rights under the Covenant. In this regard, the State party points out that the imposition of the death penalty is not in itself illegal under the Covenant. With regard to the period between the imposition of a death sentence and the execution, the State party submits that it is not clear to it how a period of detention during which the convicted prisoner uses all avenues of appeal can be considered a violation of the Covenant.

5.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the author's counsel contends that the author has in fact suffered and continues to suffer personally from the State party's decision to extradite him and that the communication is therefore admissible ratione persopae. […]

5.3 In conclusion, counsel stresses that the author does not claim the right not to be extradited, he only claims that he should not be extradited in the absence of guarantees that he will not be sentenced to death. He therefore considers that his communication is in conformity with the provisions of the Covenant. […]

Considerations and decision of the Committee on admissibility

6.1 At its forty-sixth session in October 1992, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. He noted that, although extradition as such did not fall within the scope of the Covenant, nevertheless, a State party could be under certain obligations in relation to this issue, which did not fall within the scope of the Covenant, in a kind of indirect form on the basis of other provisions of the Covenant. The Committee noted that the author does not claim that the extradition as such violates the Covenant, but rather that the specific circumstances relevant to the consequences of his extradition will raise issues that would fall within the specific provisions of the Covenant. Thus, the Committee concluded that the communication could not be excluded on the basis of the principle of ratio ne materiae.

6.2 The Committee has considered the State party's contention that the communication is inadmissible ratiope loci. Article 2 of the Covenant requires States parties to guarantee the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. If a person is lawfully expelled or extradited, the State party concerned is generally not liable under the Covenant for any violation of that person's rights that may have occurred subsequently in another State. In this sense, a State party is certainly not required to guarantee the rights of persons under the jurisdiction of another State. However, if a State party takes a decision concerning a person under its jurisdiction and the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of that decision is that that person's rights will be violated in another State, then the State party itself may then be in breach of the Covenant. This follows from the fact that the obligations of a State party under article 2 of the Covenant would be inconsistent with the extradition of a person to another State (whether it is a State party to the Covenant or not) in which treatment of that person contrary to the Covenant is obvious or represents the very purpose of its issuance. For example, a State party would itself be in breach of the Covenant if it extradited a person to another State in circumstances where it could be reasonably foreseen that he would be subjected to torture. The foreseeability of such a consequence would mean that the State party is committing a violation, even if that consequence occurs later.

6.3 Accordingly, the Committee considered that it was in principle competent to consider whether the State party was in breach of the Covenant by virtue of its decision to extradite the author under the 1976 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Canada, and Extradition Act 1985.

6.4 The Committee noted that, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol, it can only receive and consider communications from individuals who are under the jurisdiction of a State party to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol and “who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant”. The Committee was of the opinion that in this case only by examining the substance of the circumstances in which the extradition procedure was invoked and all their implications will the Committee be able to determine whether the author is a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate to consider the admissibility and the merits of the communication at the same time.

7. In this connection, on 28 October 1992, the Human Rights Committee decided to consider whether the author was a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and the merits of the case at the same time. The Committee expressed its regret that the State party had not complied with the Committee's request under rule 86 to delay the extradition of the author.

Subsequent submission by the State party on the admissibility and merits of the communication

8.5 With regard to the extradition of offenders facing the death penalty, the Attorney General, on the basis of an examination of the specific circumstances of each case, decides whether it is appropriate to seek guarantees of non-application or non-execution of the death penalty. The extradition treaty between Canada and the United States does not provide for a regular procedure for requesting a guarantee, rather, guarantees are requested only in cases where the particular circumstances of the case require a special exercise of discretion.

8.6 With regard to the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, the State party notes that:

“… a significant number of member states of the international community, including the United States, continue to use the death penalty. The Government of Canada does not use the extradition of criminals as a means of imposing its principles of criminal law policy on other states. By requesting guarantees on a regular basis, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, Canada would thus indicate to the requesting State, in this case the United States, how it should punish criminal offenders. The Government of Canada considers this unjustified interference in the internal affairs of another state. The Government of Canada reserves the right to ... refuse to extradite a criminal without obtaining guarantees. It is ready to use this right only in exceptional circumstances. In the view of the Government of Canada, one of the exceptional circumstances under which the guarantees provided for in article 6 may be specifically requested is evidence that the fugitive is the victim of imminent or foreseeable violations of the Covenant. However, in Canada's consideration of Mr Ng's executor […] no evidence was presented […] to support claims that the use of the death penalty in the United States in general, or in the State of California in particular, violates the provisions of the Covenant.”

9.1 With regard to the case of Mr. Ng, the State party recalls that he appealed against the decision to place him in detention under the extradition procedure described above and that his lawyer made written and oral submissions to the Minister in order to obtain guarantees against the death penalty. […] The Supreme Court heard the case of Mr. Ng […] and ruled that […] extradition without guarantee would not violate Canada's human rights obligations.

9.3 The State party further submits that Mr. Ng has not provided any evidence to substantiate that he was the victim of any violation of Covenant rights in Canada. In this regard, the State party notes that the author only claims that his extradition to the United States of America is a violation of the Covenant, since he faces charges in the United States that, if found guilty, could lead to a death sentence. The State party submits that it has satisfied itself that Mr. Ng's alleged treatment in the United States of America will not violate his rights under the Covenant.

10.1 On the merits, the State party emphasizes that Mr. Ng made full use of his right to speak on all matters relating to his extradition to a country where he faces the death penalty. […]

[…] [T]he fact that Mr. Ng's trial has not yet begun, there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that he will actually be executed or held in conditions of detention that would violate the rights set forth in the Covenant. The State party submits that, if convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Ng is entitled to numerous means of appeal in the United States and that he can apply for a commutation of his sentence; in addition, he has the right to challenge the conditions of his detention in the courts of the United States while his appeal against the death penalty is pending.

10.2 With regard to the use of the death penalty in the United States, the State party recalls that article 6 of the Covenant does not prohibit the death penalty under international law:

“[…] Canada might be in breach of the Covenant if it were to expel a person facing the death penalty when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the requesting State would be sentenced to death in circumstances violating Article 6. Thus, the State would be in violation provisions of the Covenant by extraditing a fugitive to a State that imposes the death penalty for other than the most serious crimes or for acts not contrary to the law in force at the time the acts are committed, or which applies the penalty in the absence of, or contrary to, a final decision by a competent court decision. In the present case, however, the case is different… Mr. Ng has not presented any evidence in the Canadian courts, the Attorney General or the Committee to justify the assertion that the United States is violating the strict criteria set out in Article 6 when it seeks his extradition. from Canada… The Government of Canada, represented by the Minister of Justice, was convinced at the time of the extradition decision that if Mr. Ng were convicted and executed in the State of California, it would be done in accordance with the provisions expressly provided for in article 6 of the Covenant.

10.4 Regarding the question of whether the death penalty violates article 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits:

“[…] The provisions of the Covenant are to be understood in their totality, and the articles of the Covenant are to be understood in their inseparable connection ... It is possible that some forms of execution are contrary to article 7. The torture of a person, resulting in his death, seems to fall under this category, because torture is a violation of article 7. Other forms of execution may violate the provisions of the Covenant because they are cruel, inhuman or degrading. However, since the use of the death penalty is permitted within the narrow criteria set out in article 6, there must be certain methods of execution that do not violate the provisions of article 7.

10.5 With regard to the manner in which the death penalty is carried out, the State party argues that there is no reason to believe that the method used in California, cyanide asphyxiation, is contrary to the Covenant and international law. It further submits that there are no special circumstances in Mr. Ng's case that could lead to a different conclusion regarding the application of this method to him […].

10.6 With regard to the “death row syndrome”, the State party argues that the specific circumstances of each case should be examined, including the conditions under which the prisoner is held on death row, the age, mental and physical condition of the prisoner under those conditions, the reasonably foreseeable length of such duration and the possibility, if any, of a change in such unacceptable conditions. It is reported that the Minister of Justice and the courts of Canada have reviewed and analyzed all the information provided by Mr. Ng regarding the conditions imprisonment persons sentenced to death in California:

“The Attorney General … was not persuaded by the argument that the conditions of imprisonment in the State of California, when considered in the specific circumstances of Mr. Ng’s case, the factor of delay and continued access to the courts in the State of California and to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, would violate Mr. Ng's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Covenant. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the minister's decision, stating unequivocally that the decision would not violate Mr. Ng's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

11.9 Counsel refers to several resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in which the abolition of the death penalty is considered desirable. He further refers to Protocol 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “[In] the last 50 years, the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty has gradually increased. As a result of this evolution, almost all Western democracies have abolished the death penalty.” He argues that this factor should be taken into account when interpreting the provisions of the Covenant.

11.10 With regard to California's method of execution, cyanide asphyxiation, counsel contends that this method constitutes inhuman and degrading punishment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. He notes that suffocation can take up to 12 minutes, during which time convicted persons remain conscious, experience terrible pain and agony, delirious, convulse, and often defecate on their own […]. Counsel further argues that, given the brutal nature of this method of execution, Canada's decision not to extradite without security would not constitute a breach of its treaty obligations to the United States of America or an unacceptable interference with the application of US domestic law. […]

14.1 Before examining the merits of this communication, the Committee notes that the issue is not whether Mr. Ng's rights have been or could be violated by the United States of America, which is not a party to the Optional Protocol, but whether Canada is subjecting Mr. Ng, by extraditing him to the United States, runs the real risk of violating his rights under the Covenant. States parties to the Covenant are often also parties to various bilateral agreements, including extradition treaties. A State party to the Covenant must ensure that all of its other legal obligations are met in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant. The starting point for this consideration should be the State party's obligation, as set out in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, to ensure to all within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant. The most important of these rights is the right to life.

14.2 If a State party extradites a person under its jurisdiction in circumstances that result in a real risk of violation of his rights under the Covenant in another State, the State party itself may be considered in violation of the Covenant.

16.1 In determining whether the imposition of the death penalty in any particular case constitutes a violation of article 7, the Committee must take into account relevant personal factors relating to the author, the specific conditions of detention on death row, and whether the intended method of execution is extremely cruel. In the present case, it is argued that gassing is contrary to internationally accepted standards of humane treatment and that this method of execution amounts to treatment in breach of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee first notes that, while article 6, paragraph 2, does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in certain limited cases, any method of execution prescribed by law must be administered in such a way as to avoid a violation of article 7.

16.2 The Committee is aware that any execution of a death sentence can, by definition, be considered cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant; on the other hand, article 6, paragraph 2, allows the death penalty for the most serious crimes. However, the Committee confirms that, as it already noted in its Comment general order 20 (44) under article 7 of the Covenant, where the death penalty is carried out, the procedure “shall be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering”.

16.3 In the present case, the author submitted detailed information that gassing can cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not provide the fastest possible kill, as cyanide asphyxiation can take more than 10 minutes. The State party had the opportunity to document these allegations, but did not do so. On the contrary, the State party limited itself to stating that, in the absence of any international law expressly prohibiting cyanide asphyxiation, “it would unlawfully interfere with the practice of domestic law of the United States of America if it refused to extradite a person who is in hiding from justice, and a possible penalty for which would be the death penalty by asphyxiation with cyanide gas.”

16.4 In the present case, the Committee concludes, based on the information before it, that the death penalty by gassing, if the author were sentenced to death, would violate the requirement to inflict “as little physical and mental suffering as possible” and is cruel and inhuman punishment, which constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, Canada, which could reasonably have expected that Mr. Ng, if sentenced to death, would be executed in a manner that is in violation of article 7, failed to fulfill its obligations under the Covenant by extraditing Mr. Ng without requesting and receiving guarantees that he would not be executed.

16.5 The Committee is not, in principle, bound to give an opinion on the compatibility of article 7 with methods of execution other than those under consideration in the present case.

17. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, considers that the facts found by the Committee reveal a violation by Canada of article 7 of the Covenant.

18. The Human Rights Committee requests the State party to make such representations as can still be made in order to avoid the death penalty and calls on the State party to ensure that such situations do not arise in the future.

Editor's Note: This edition does not reproduce paragraphs 15.1-15.7 of the Committee's Views, which concluded that Canada did not violate the right to life by extraditing Mr. Ng to the United States of America. This is due to the fact that after 1993 the Committee changed its position on this issue, as described in the introduction to the section on the right to life. In the Ng case, a total of nine members of the Committee presented their divergent opinions. Five of them (Mr Pocar, Mr Lallah, Mr Wennergren, Mr Aguilar Urbina and Ms Chanet) concluded that there had been a violation of article 6. Canada, which has abolished the death penalty, has legal an obligation not to reintroduce it either directly or indirectly by extraditing the person to another state where he (or she) could be subjected to the death penalty. Canada should have, at a minimum, requested guarantees that Mr. Ng would not be executed. Mr Pokar and Mr Lallah also concluded that a violation of Article 6 in the present case entailed a violation of Article 7, regardless of the method of execution. In Ms. Chanet's view, the Committee should not consider the duration of suffering as a criterion in assessing whether a particular method of execution constituted cruel or inhuman punishment. Mr. Aguilar Urbina also found a violation of article 5, paragraph 2, and article 26.

Four members (Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. Sadi, Mr. Ando and Mr. Herndl) were of the view that there had been no violation of the Covenant. Mr. Ando considered that the execution of the death penalty by gassing was not intended to prolong the suffering of the person so executed, and that it therefore did not violate Article 7. and Mr Sadi concluded that the method of execution, stoning to death, which was used deliberately and did in fact result in prolonged anguish and suffering, was contrary to Article 7, whereas no such conclusions could be drawn in the present case. Mr. Herndl noted that there are no agreed standards for determining which methods of execution are more cruel and inhumane than others. It also did not consider the author to be a “victim” within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

in which countries it has been preserved and how criminals are executed today

On January 17, 1920, execution was officially abolished in Soviet Russia. Today, this type of punishment is used less and less, but nevertheless there are a large number of countries in the world where execution is practiced. And Belarus is also one of them.

1. How many countries in the world have retained the death penalty?

In 2015, the number of countries that have abolished executions at the legislative level reached 98. Together with countries where a moratorium on capital punishment is maintained, the number of states where they do not execute for serious deaths was 140 out of 192 in 2015. It turns out that today only in 52 countries capital punishment is carried out. There are already entire continents in the world that are free from. For example, South America and Australia. In Europe and Central Asia, execution is practiced only in Belarus. AT North America executed only in the United States, and even then in 18 states out of 50 capital punishment has already been abolished.

This is how the cell where Japanese criminals are hanged looks like. The sentenced person is put on a noose and a hatch is abruptly opened under him.