Can the death penalty return? In which countries and for what purpose is the death penalty applied? In what year did Canada abolish the death penalty?

Does the death penalty help 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, China was ranked 75th out of 182 countries in TI's ranking that year.
But early 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 the 78th place out of 178 possible. Not bad, of course. But Georgia, in which there is no 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 has definitely not decreased. 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 take a look at the top 10 countries in the TI ranking, that is, countries with the lowest level of corruption. Do they include 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 in New Zealand was canceled in 1961.

IN Finlandthe death penalty for all crimes was abolished in 1927.
Death penalty in Swedenwas completely canceled in 1972.
IN Singaporethe death penalty exists. It applies for drugs, high treason, murder (links,,). Only in one place I found information about the fact that in Singapore they are executed for theft, but it was a blog, it was written separated by commas 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 contested. They like to use sticks for many types of offenses. In my opinion, the cruelty of Singaporean legislation is a huge disadvantage for an economically excellent country.
IN Norwaythe death penalty was completely abolished in 1979.
About Of Canadanot completely clear. First, the death penalty in peacefultime canceled since 1976. In fact, the last death sentence was carried out in 1962. Some sources claim that in Canada the death penalty completelycanceled, others say that only in peacefultime. I am more inclined to the second opinion. 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, out of 10 countries with the lowest level of corruption, the death penalty for especially grave crimes is applied only in Singapore, and even then, not for economic crimes.
The most popular, in this sense, country - China - abolished executions for bribery in 2011.

Please note, I gave the dates when the death penalty was abolished FULLY, for ALL items. Actually, 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 could not have been applied for 100 years before its official cancellation. Most of the crimes for which the death penalty persisted until the dates given above were exclusively for 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 have been imposed for large-scale theft and bribe-taking.
The only country on this list that deserves attention is South Korea - but she does not rank high, 43 , a place in the TI rating (2011). Secondly, it is not a fact that Korea does use executions 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 this list?

California is having problems with the death penalty. She has never done it since 2006, when a federal court ruled that lethal injection was unsuitable 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 shown, for example, by the fact that the prisoner in connection with which the lethal injection issue was raised has been awaiting execution for 24 years.

This is not the case only in this state. The Death Penalty Information Center reported last month that the number of new death sentences had dropped sharply in 2011. For the first time in decades, less than 100 of them were carried out in 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 United States when the Supreme Court made a fateful decision and declared it unconstitutional in all cases. However, everything happens differently. It looks like it will be canceled from the bottom, not the top. Now governors, legislatures, judges and juries are no longer supporting her.

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 to be innocent. In early 2011, the Democratic governor signed a law passed by the legislature abolishing the death penalty.

Illinois, however, is only part of a small boom in state abolition of the death penalty. 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. At the same time, even in states that have retained the death penalty, its affairs are bad. Last year, the governor of Oregon imposed a moratorium on all death sentences in his state, saying the current system "does not meet basic justice standards." Other governors prefer a more selective approach. For example, in September, Ohio Governor John Kasich, a conservative Republican who once hosted a program on Fox News, overturned the convicted murderer's death sentence. The reason for the commutation of the sentence, 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 a 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, there have been 139 of them, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, and the number continues to grow. Even many of those who theoretically support the death penalty are beginning to hesitate when faced with clear evidence that innocent people are sentenced to death.

Another factor is cost. Money is difficult these days, which is why more and more attention is paid to how expensive death penalty cases are. According to a 2008 study, California spent $ 137 million on these processes — not a bad amount, especially when you consider that no one was ever executed.

Then there is the factor of disgust. In other times, executions were public shows attended by crowds of people. However, we are now more sensitive. Ohio briefly imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2009, after a disgusting episode of two technicians who tried unsuccessfully for two hours to find a vein to deliver the lethal injection.

According to polls, society has not yet turned against the death penalty, but support for it is declining. In 1994, 80% of Gallup polled respondents said they advocate the death penalty for those found guilty of murder. In 2001, only 61% thought so. In the course of polls in which respondents were asked to choose between a death sentence and life imprisonment without parole or pardon, the majority chose the second option.

Many opponents of the death penalty still hope for a cardinal decision by the Supreme Court, and it cannot be denied that it would have unique strength. Five judges could literally end the death penalty nationwide with a stroke of the pen. However, phasing out from below has its advantages. What we are seeing now is not the result of the actions of a small group of judges making policy, it is the result of the gradual loss of willingness by the masses of Americans to send people to execution.

Adam Cohen, 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 exclusively his position.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively by foreign media and do not reflect the position of the Inosmi editorial board.

The parliamentary faction "Onuguu-Progress" has submitted for public discussion a bill on amendments to the current Constitution regarding the possibility of using the death penalty in relation to persons who have committed crimes against the sexual inviolability 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 parliament.

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

Who applies the death penalty?

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

• 58 countries keep the death penalty within the law.
• 98 abolished this type of punishment.
• 7 canceled only for common 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 the countries of America - the 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, in 2015, 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.

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

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

The reported 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 world's countries, 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 this 120 countries - most of the countries in the world. In 2015, Mongolia approved a new criminal code abolishing the death penalty, which will enter 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 around the world:

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

Why can criminals be executed?

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

Israel can be executed for organizing genocide, mass murder 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 Aum Shinrikyo terrorist sect were sentenced to be hanged.

In China, the death penalty not only exists on paper but is also 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.

In Saudi Arabia, Iran and Arab countries, quite exotic types of execution are common. So, men guilty of theft and murder are cut off their heads with a sword. And women who are guilty of treason are stoned. In the latter case, if the victim survives, then a second execution is prohibited. Saudi Arabian laws consider a crime of homosexuality and religious apostasy... Those guilty of these acts face the death penalty.

MESSAGE # 469/1991 CHARLES READ NG AGAINST CANADA

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

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

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

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

2.1 The author was arrested, prosecuted and convicted in 1985 in Calgary, Alberta, for attempted store robbery and the use of firearms against a security guard. In February 1987, the United States sent a formal request to extradite the author for trial in California on a 19-count indictment, including abduction and 12 murders in 1984 and 1985. If the author is convicted, he could face the death penalty.

2.2 In November 1988, a judge at the Alberta Queen's Bench ordered the author's extradition. In February 1989, the author's habeas corpus motion was rejected, and on 31 August 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the author permission to appeal.

2.3 Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States provides that: “If the offense for which extradition is requested is punishable by death in accordance with the laws of the requesting State, and the laws of the requested State do not provide for such punishment for this offense may be refused extradition unless the requesting State provides sufficient assurance, in the requesting State's opinion, that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out. ” The death penalty was abolished in Canada in 1976, with the exception of the death penalty for certain military crimes.

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

2.5 Subsequently, the author applied for a review of the minister's decision to 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 regarding the death penalty did not contravene the constitutional protection of human rights in Canada and the norms accepted in the international community. On the same day, the author 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 argues that the death penalty by asphyxiation under California law is itself cruel and inhuman treatment and punishment and that conditions on death row are cruel, inhuman and degrading. He further argues that legal procedures in California, in so far as they specifically relate 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 submits that this communication is an unacceptable ratio between persopae, loci and tateriae.

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

4.3 The State party points out that the author's allegations relate to the criminal law and judicial system of a country other than Canada. […] The State party considers that the Covenant does not impose responsibility on the State for events beyond its jurisdiction.

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

4.5 The State Party further refers to the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, which clearly provides for the possibility of unconditional extradition, providing discretionary powers regarding the guarantee of the death penalty, similar to that provided for in article 6 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States. ... In conclusion, the State party notes that interfering with the extradition of a fugitive in accordance with the legitimate demands of a treaty partner would undermine the principles and objectives of extradition treaties and would entail undesirable consequences for States refusing these legitimate requests. In this context, the State party points out that, with its long unguarded border with the United States, it can become an attractive refuge for those fleeing from the 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 have been displaced at all, they would have remained unpunished in the country, threatening the safety and peace of the population.

4.6 Finally, the State party notes that the author has not substantiated his claims 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 death penalty is not in itself illegal under the Covenant. With regard to the period between the imposition of the death sentence and its execution, the State party submits that it does not understand how the period of detention, during which the convicted prisoner uses all the avenues of appeal, could be considered a violation of the Covenant.

5.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, counsel for the author argues that the author was in fact personally injured and continues to suffer from the State party's decision to extradite him and that the communication is therefore an acceptable ratio perso. […]

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

Views 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 while extradition as such is not within the scope of the Covenant, it is nevertheless possible for a State party to have certain obligations in relation to this issue, which is not within the scope of the Covenant, in a kind of mediated form based on other provisions of the Covenant. The Committee noted that the author does not claim that the extradition as such violates the Covenant, but rather claims that specific circumstances relevant to the consequences of his extradition would raise issues that would fall within the specific provisions of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concluded that the communication could not be excluded on the basis of the ratiope materiae principle.

6.2 The Committee has considered the State party's claim that the communication is inadmissible ratio by 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 will generally not be held liable under the Covenant for any violations of that person's rights that may have subsequently occurred in another State. In this sense, a State party is clearly not required to guarantee the rights of persons under the jurisdiction of another State. However, if a State party makes a decision concerning a person under its jurisdiction, and the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of that decision is that the person’s rights will be violated in another State, then the State party itself may in this case violate the provisions of the Covenant. This follows from the fact that the obligation of a State party under article 2 of the Covenant would be contrary to the extradition of a person to another State (whether it is a State party to the Covenant or not), in which the treatment of that person contrary to the Covenant is obvious or is the very purpose of its issuance. For example, a State party would itself violate the Covenant if it extradited a person to another State in circumstances where it could well be foreseen that he would be tortured. The predictability of such an effect would mean that the State party commits a violation, even if the effect occurs later.

6.3 The Committee therefore considered that it was in principle competent to examine whether a State party was in breach of the Covenant by its decision to extradite the author under the 1976 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Canada, and The 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 persons 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 view that, in the present case, only by considering the merits of the circumstances in which the extradition procedure was used and all their consequences would 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 would be useful to consider the admissibility and merits of the communication at the same time.

7. In this regard, on 28 October 1992, the Human Rights Committee decided to consider whether the author is 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 postpone 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 Minister of Justice, on the basis of an examination of the specific circumstances of each case, decides whether it is advisable to request guarantees of non-execution 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 application of discretionary powers.

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 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 be directing the requesting state, in this case the United States, how they should punish criminal offenders. The Government of Canada considers this to be 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 opinion of the Government of Canada, one of the exceptional circumstances under which the guarantees provided for in article 6 can be specifically requested is evidence that the fugitive will be the victim of an unavoidable or foreseeable violation of the Covenant. However, when considering Mr Ng's case in Canada […], there was no […] evidence to support the claims that the use of the death penalty in the United States in general, or in the State of California in particular, violates the Covenant. ”

9.1 In relation to Mr. Ng's case, the State party recalls that he appealed against the detention order under the extradition procedure described above and that his lawyer made written and oral representations to the Minister in order to secure the safeguards against the death penalty. […] The Supreme Court considered Mr. Ng's case […] and ruled that […] extradition without guarantees would not violate Canada's human rights obligations.

9.3 The State party further submits that Mr. Ng has not provided any evidence to demonstrate 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 in violation of the Covenant, as charges are brought against him in the United States that, if convicted, could lead to his death sentence. The State party submits that it is satisfied that the alleged treatment of Mr. Ng 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 has fully exercised his right to speak out on all issues related to his extradition to a country where he faces the death penalty. […]

[…] [O] Since the trial of Mr. Ng has not yet begun, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that he will in fact be executed or held in conditions of detention that would violate the rights provided for in the Covenant. The State party points out that, if convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Ng is entitled to numerous remedies in the United States and that he can ask for a commutation; in addition, he has the right to challenge the conditions of his detention before the United States courts while his appeal against the death sentence 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 would possibly be in breach of the Covenant if it expelled a person facing the death penalty when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the requesting State would impose the death penalty in circumstances that violate Article 6. Thus, the State would violate provisions of the Covenant, extraditing a fugitive from justice to a state that applies the death penalty not for the most serious crimes or for actions that do not contradict the legislation in force at the time of the commission of these actions, or that applies this punishment in the absence of a final decision of a competent court or in spite of such decision. In this case, the situation is different ... Mr. Ng did not present any evidence in the courts of Canada, the Minister of Justice or the Committee, which would suggest that the United States was violating the strict criteria set out in Article 6 when it requires his extradition. from Canada ... The Government of Canada, represented by the Attorney General, was confident at the time of the extradition decision that if Mr. Ng was convicted and executed in the State of California, this would be done in accordance with the provisions expressly provided for in article 6 of the Covenant.

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

“[…] The provisions of the Covenant should be understood in their totality, and the articles of the Covenant are inextricably linked ... It may be that some forms of execution are contrary to article 7. The use of torture, resulting in death, seems to fall into this category, as torture is in violation of article 7. Other forms of execution may violate the provisions of the Covenant, as 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 sentence 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 provisions of the Covenant and international law. It further states that there are no special circumstances in the case of Mr. Ng that could lead to a different conclusion regarding the application of this method to him […].

10.6 With regard to “death row syndrome”, the State party argues that the specific circumstances of each case should be examined, including the conditions of detention on death row, the age, mental and physical condition of the prisoner in these conditions, the reasonably foreseeable duration of the prisoner in these conditions, the reasons of such duration and the possibility, if any, of changing 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 prison conditions of those sentenced to death in California:

“The Attorney General ... is not convinced by the argument that the conditions of incarceration in the state of California, when considered in the light of Mr. Ng's particular circumstances, the deferral factor and continued access to California courts and the United States Supreme Court, would be 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 the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “[Over] the past 50 years, the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty has been gradually increasing. 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 Regarding the method of execution used in California - asphyxiation with cyanide gas, counsel states that this method constitutes an inhuman and degrading punishment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. He notes that strangulation can take up to 12 minutes, during which convicts remain unconscious, experience terrible pain and agony, delirium, convulse and often defecate under themselves [...]. Counsel further argues that given the cruel nature of this method of execution, Canada's decision not to extradite without guarantees would not constitute a breach of its treaty obligations vis-à-vis the United States of America or an unacceptable interference with the application of US domestic law. […]

14.1 Before examining the merits of the communication, the Committee notes that the issue is not whether Mr. Ng's rights have been or may be violated by the United States of America, which are not a party to the Optional Protocol, but whether Canada is subjecting Mr. Ng, by handing him over to the United States, was in real danger 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 fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant. The starting point in addressing this issue should be the obligation of the State party, provided for in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant to ensure to all persons within its territory and under 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 extradits a person under its jurisdiction in circumstances that give rise to a real risk of violation of his rights under the Covenant in another State, then the State party itself may be considered in violation of the provisions 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 the relevant personal factors concerning the author, the particular conditions of his detention on death row, and whether the alleged method of execution is extremely cruel. In this case, it is argued that gas strangulation is contrary to internationally accepted standards of humane treatment and that this method of execution amounts to treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes first of all that while article 6, paragraph 2, does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in some 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 may by definition constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant; on the other hand, article 6, paragraph 2, allows for the imposition of death sentences for the most serious crimes. However, the Committee reaffirms that, as it has already noted in its general comment 20 (44) on article 7 of the Covenant, if the death penalty is carried out, the procedure “should be carried out in such a way as to cause as little physical and mental damage as possible. suffering ”.

16.3 In this case, the author provided detailed information that gas asphyxiation can cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not provide the fastest possible killing, as cyanide asphyxiation can take more than 10 minutes. The State party had the opportunity to documentary refute these allegations, but it did not. On the contrary, the State party limited itself to stating that, in the absence of any rule of international law explicitly prohibiting cyanide asphyxiation, “it would unlawfully interfere with the practice of applying the domestic law of the United States of America if it refused to extradite the person in hiding. from justice, and the possible punishment of which will be the death penalty by suffocation with cyanide gas. "

16.4 In the present case, the Committee, based on the information provided to it, concludes that the death penalty by gas strangulation, if the author is 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. Consequently, Canada, which could reasonably assume that Mr. Ng, if sentenced to death, would be executed in a manner that would violate article 7, has failed to fulfill its obligations under the Covenant by extraditing Mr. Ng without requesting or having received guarantees that he will not be executed.

16.5 The Committee is, in principle, not obliged to express its 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 in accordance with article 5, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, considers that the facts established by the Committee indicate a violation by Canada of article 7 of the Covenant.

18. The Human Rights Committee requests the State party to make such representations that can still be made to avoid the death penalty, and calls on the State party to ensure that similar 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 Committee members presented their diverging dissenting views. 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 abolished the death penalty, is subject to legal the obligation not to reintroduce it, either directly or indirectly, by extraditing a person to another state where he (or she) may be subjected to the death penalty. At a minimum, Canada should have requested assurances that Mr. Ng would not be executed. Mr Pocar and Mr Lallah also concluded that a violation of Article 6 in the present case constituted a violation of Article 7, regardless of the method used to carry out the execution. In the opinion of Ms. Chanet, the Committee should not regard the duration of suffering as a criterion in assessing whether a particular method of execution constitutes a cruel or inhuman form of punishment. Mr. Aguilar Urbina also found a violation of articles 5, paragraph 2 and 26.

Four members (Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. Sadi, Mr. Ando and Mr. Herndl) were of the view that there was no violation of the Covenant. Mr. Ando considered that the execution of the death sentence by gas strangulation was not aimed at prolonging the suffering of the person who was thus executed and that it was therefore not in violation of article 7. In his unified opinion, which was at variance with the Committee's views, Mr. and Mr. Sadi concluded that the method of execution, such as stoning to death, which is used deliberately and does lead to prolonged anguish and suffering, is contrary to article 7, while no such conclusion can be drawn in the present case. Mr. Herndl noted that there is no agreed-upon rule for determining which methods of execution are more cruel and inhuman than others. It also did not consider the author a “victim” within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

in which countries it has survived and how are criminals executed today

On January 17, 1920, execution was officially abolished in Soviet Russia. Today this type of punishment is applied 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 where the death penalty is preserved?

In 2015, the number of countries that abolished executions at the legislative level reached 98. Together with the countries that maintain a moratorium on capital punishment, the number of states where they are not executed for grave crimes amounted to 140 out of 192 in 2015. It turns out that today only 52 countries carry out capital punishment. There are already whole 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. In North America, only the United States is executed, and even then, in 18 states out of 50, the death penalty has already been abolished.

This is what the camera looks like where Japanese criminals are hanged. The sentenced person is put on a noose and the hatch underneath is abruptly opened.