The ultimate price: The death penalty for drug offences

Over the course of two weeks in November 2007, Vietnamese courts condemned 35 people to death for drug related offences [1]. It was such a flurry of death sentences that even the media became interested after having ignored the issue for so long.

According to Amnesty International, the death penalty has been abolished in law or practice in 133 states. Of the 64 states that continue to use capital punishment, nearly half have legislation applying the death penalty for drug related offences. Rick Lines illustrates how this ultimate breach of human rights is used by many countries as punishment for drug users and traffickers.

Over the past 20 years, there has been a remarkable trend towards the abolition of capital punishment worldwide. Yet, during this same period, the number of countries expanding the application of the death penalty to include drug offences has increased from 22 in 1985, to 26 in 1995, to at least 34 by the end of 2000 [2]. The majority of these countries are in the Middle East, North Africa and the Asia Pacific region, and in some, drug offences can carry a mandatory sentence of death.[3]

The number of countries actually carrying out executions, and the number of people put to death annually for drug convictions, is more difficult to calculate. While it is clear that not all countries are actually implementing the death sentences provided for in their legislation, it is equally clear that a significant number of executions for drug offences do happen each year. Amnesty International reports that 94 percent of all known executions in 2005 took place in just four countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA [4]. Each of these has legislation allowing the death penalty to be applied in drug cases.

A review of various reports from UN agencies, non-government organisations and media outlets shows that, in recent years, executions for drug offences have been carried out in countries including China [5], Egypt [6], Indonesia [7], Kuwait [8], Malaysia [9], Saudi Arabia [10], Singapore [11], Thailand [12] and Vietnam [13]. [14]

In some of these countries, the number of executions is small, but in others, drug offenders constitute a significant proportion of total executions. In Malaysia, for example, 36 of the 52 executions between July 2004 and July 2005 were for drug trafficking [15]. Amnesty International reported that 26 of the 50 executions carried out in Saudi Arabia during 2003 were for drug related offences [16]; the following year, Amnesty reported that at least 33 executions were carried out for drugs [17]. The Government of Vietnam admitted in a 2003 submission to the UN Human Rights Committee that, “Over the last [few] years, the death penalty has been mostly given to persons engaged in drug trafficking.” [18] According to a recent media report, “[a]round 100 people are executed by firing squad in Vietnam each year, mostly for drug related offences.” [19]

Amnesty International notes that Singapore has perhaps the highest per capita execution rate in the world. Since 1991, more than 400 people have been executed there, the majority for drug offences [20]. Reports say 76 percent of all Singaporean executions were drug related between 1994 and 1999 [22], and 22 people were executed for drug crimes in 2001 alone. [23]

In recent years, China has used the occasion of the UN’s International Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Drug Trafficking to stage public executions of drug offenders. In 2001, more than 50 people were publicly executed for drug crimes at mass rallies, at least one of which was broadcast on state television [24]. The following year, the event was marked by 64 public executions in rallies across the country. The largest public execution took place in the south-western city of Chongqing, where 24 people were shot. [25]

While the typical application of capital punishment is for drug trafficking, cultivation, manufacturing and importing/exporting, the definition of capital narcotics crimes is not limited to these offences. In fact, the types of drug crimes that carry a sentence of death are broad and diverse, and include mere possession in some countries [26]. States such as Jordan, Egypt and Syria impose a mandatory death sentence if the offender is a public official or government employee [27]. Egypt and Iran extend that sentence to anyone inducing others to take or become addicted to narcotics. [28, 29]

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the application of capital punishment, while not prohibited, is restricted in important ways. One key restriction is found in article 6(2), which states: “In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” Executions for crimes that do not meet this threshold are therefore considered to violate the Covenant.

As early as 1982, the UN Human Rights Committee – the expert body that monitors compliance with state obligations under the ICCPR and provides authoritative interpretations of its provisions – said the expression “most serious crimes” must be read restrictively to mean that the death penalty should be a quite exceptional measure [30]. In its report on Sri Lanka in 1995, the Committee specifically listed drug related offences among those that “do not appear to be the most serious offences under article 6 of the Covenant” [31]. In 2000, in its report on Kuwait, it expressed “serious concern over the large number of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed, including very vague categories of offences relating to internal and external security as well as drug related crimes” [32]. In its 2005 report on Thailand, the Committee noted with concern that the death penalty is not restricted to the “most serious crimes” within the meaning of article 6 and is applicable to drug trafficking [33]. This is the most definitive statement to date that drug offences do not satisfy the threshold for capital punishment under the ICCPR, and are therefore in violation of the protections in the treaty.

The Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has also strongly stated that drug offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”.

“[T]he death penalty should be eliminated for crimes such as economic crimes and drug related offences. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur wishes to express his concern that certain countries, namely China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the United States of America, maintain in their national legislation the option to impose the death penalty for economic and/or drug related offences.” [34; 35, 36]

From the perspective of the UN human rights system, drug offences are clearly not “most serious crimes”, and therefore these executions violate international human rights law. By carrying out death sentences in such dubious legal circumstances, countries that execute drug offenders do so in circumstances likened by a UN Special Rapporteur to summary or arbitrary executions. [37]

Despite this fact, and the significant number of executions occurring annually on drugs charges, there has been little public outcry. Indeed, the dearth of international attention paid to human rights abuses against people who use drugs suggests that some of the same moral blinders that drive repressive policy and legislation have also impeded the development of progressive human rights discourse in this area.

Addressing this situation through established international mechanisms is complicated by the inherent contradictions faced by the UN as the body tasked by the international community with both promoting human rights worldwide, and promoting the international narcotics control regime that either drives, or provides ideological justification for, these abuses.

It is often stated that the progress towards the abolition of capital punishment over the past 20 years is a dramatic example of the success of the human rights movement worldwide. If this is so, then the expansion of capital punishment for drug charges during this same period illustrates a dramatic failure. This situation demands attention and highlights the need for abolitionists and others in the human rights movement to speak out on state abuses against people who use drugs.

Rick Lines leads HR2, the International Harm Reduction Association’s Harm Reduction and Human Rights Monitoring and Policy Analysis Programme – www.ihra.net/HR2.

References

1. Vietnam sentences eight heroin traffickers to death' Radio Australia/Australian Broadcasting Corporation http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s2118529.htm.
2. In 2001, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice identified the Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, China, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, the United States (federal law) Uzbekistan and Viet Nam as those countries with capital punishment for drug crimes. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice ‘Capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty' (29 March 2001) E/CN.15/2001/10 para 90.
3. R Hood The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (3rd edn OUP 2002) 81.
4. Amnesty International ‘The Death Penalty' (15 December 2006) AI Index ACT 50/010/2006.
5. Amnesty International ‘China' in Amnesty International Report 2005 (2005) http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/chn-summary-eng (1 May 2005) (AI 2005 Report).; Amnesty International The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2001 (2002) AI Index ACT 50/001/2002.
6. UN Human Rights Committee ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Egypt' (28 November 2002) UN Doc CCPR/CO/76/EGY para 9.
7. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (n 1) para 64.
8. Amnesty International Death Penalty News (January 2006) AI Index ACT 53/001/2006.
9. Amnesty International Death Penalty News (December 2000) AI Index ACT 53/001/2001.
10. AI 2005 Report ‘Saudi Arabia' (n 4) http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng (1 May 2005).
11. Amnesty International (n 7).; Amnesty International Death Penalty News (June 1998) AI Index ACT 53/03/98.
12. Amnesty International Southeast Asia: Execution of drug traffickers does not control the trade Press release AI Index ASA 03/001/2001 - News Service Nr. 79 (9 May 2001).; Amnesty International The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2001 (n 4).
13. Amnesty International Death Penalty News (March 2003) AI Index ACT 53/002/2003.
14. See Amnesty International Amnesty International Report 2004 (Report) (2004) AI Index POL 10/004/2004.
15. CS Ling ‘Debate over the death penalty heating up' New Straits Times (26 March 2006).
16. Amnesty International Amnesty International Report 2004 (Report) (2004) AI Index POL 10/004/2004 301.
17. AI 2005 Report (n 9).
18. UN Human Rights Committee ‘Comments by the Government of Viet Nam on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee' (21 July 2003) UN Doc CCPR/CO/75/VNM/Add.2 para 1.
19. ‘Vietnam law commission wants death penalty for fewer crimes' Thanh Nien News (3 November 2006).
20. Amnesty International Singapore - The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions (Report) (15 January 2004) AI Index ASA 36/001/2004.
21. The figures come from a written reply dated 12 January 2001 from the Minister for Home Affairs (Ninth Parliament of Singapore, Second Session). Cited in Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (n 1) para 69.
22. A Tan ‘Singapore death penalty shrouded in silence' Reuters (12 April 12 2002).
23. Amnesty International Singapore - The death penalty: A hidden toll of executions (Report) (15 January 2004) AI Index ASA 36/001/2004.
24. Amnesty International The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2001 (n 4) 33.
25. ‘China executes 64 to mark UN anti-drug day' Associated Press (27 June 2002).
26. eg The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act 1988 (Act No 2 of 1989) (India) s 9.; The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 RA No 9165 (Philippines) s 11.; Anti-Narcotic Drug Law of 25 October 1988 as amended on 1st July 1989 (Iran) arts 8(6) 4(4).
27. Law No 11 of 1988 Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Jordan) art 8(b)(2).; Law No 122 of 1989 amending certain provisions of Decree-Law No 182 of 1960 concerning the Control of Narcotic Drugs and Regulation of their Utilization and Trade in Them (Egypt) arts 34(c)(ii).; UN Human Rights Committee ‘Second periodic report of States parties due in 1984: Syrian Arab Republic' (25 August 2000) UN Doc CCPR/C/SYR/2000/2 para 62(b).
28. Law No 11 (n 26) art 8(b).; Law No 122 (n 26) arts 34bis.
29. Anti-Narcotic Drug Law of 25 October 1988 as amended on 1st July 1989 (Iran) art 18.
30. Human Right Committee ‘General Comment No. 6: The right to life (art. 6)' (30 April 1982) Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies UN Doc HRI/GEN/1/Rev para 7.
31. UN Human Rights Committee (n 41) s 4.
32. UN Human Rights Committee (n 39) para 13.
33. UN Human Rights Committee ‘Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee: Thailand' (8 July 2005) UN Doc No CCPR/CO/84/THA para 14
34. Commission on Human Rights ‘Report by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Bacre Waly Ndiaye, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/74' (24 December 1996) UN Doc E/CN.4/1997/60 para 91.
35. UN Human Rights Council ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston' (29 January 2007) UN Doc No A/HRC/4/20 paras 51-53.
36. UN Commission on Human Rights ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitray executions' (22 December 2003) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/7 para 48.
37. UN Commission on Human Rights ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitray executions' (22 December 2003) UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/7 para 48.