Joint Statement at the Biennial High-Level Panel on the Question of the Death Penalty on 4 March 2015 during the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council

Mr President,

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of a group of 25 countries.

Any constructive dialogue must be based on mutual respect and an acknowledgement of different viewpoints.  Yet, we find ourselves here again today engaging not in dialogue, but speaking across each other. 

For many countries, the death penalty remains an important component of their criminal justice system and an important deterrent against what they rightly regard as the most serious crimes for their respective societies, be it terrorism, drug offences, or violent crimes.   

The rights of the offender must always be weighed against the rights of the victims, their families and the broader rights of their community to live in peace and security. The State has a responsibility to protect the lives of its innocent citizens while ensuring that justice is rendered to the victims and their families. The death penalty is only applied after adhering to the full due process of law, pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court, and with the right to seek pardon or appeal for commutation.

There is no international consensus for or against the death penalty imposed according to the due process of the law.  This has repeatedly been affirmed by the votes on past UNGA resolutions on the death penalty, most recently in the 69^th session.  Key international instruments that apply to countries with wide divergence in cultures and values also do not proscribe and/or prohibit the use of death penalty.

The UN Charter clearly stipulates that nothing in its Charter shall authorise the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State. In this regard, in line with the UN Charter, no State shall intervene in such matters of other States.  

Every State thus has the inalienable sovereign right to choose its legal and criminal justice systems, without interference by other States.  Accordingly, the question of whether to retain or abolish the death penalty and the types of crimes for which the death penalty is applied should be determined by each State and the public they protect, taking into account their unique circumstances and threats to their societies.  

Thank you, Mr President.

.    .    .    .    .

List of co-sponsors

1.    Kingdom of Bahrain

2.    People’s Republic of Bangladesh

3.    Barbados

4.    Brunei Darussalam

5.    People’s Republic of China

6.    Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

7.    Arab Republic of Egypt

8.    India

9.    Republic of Indonesia

10.  Islamic Republic of Iran

11.  State of Kuwait

12.  Lao People’s Democratic Republic

13.  Malaysia

14.  Republic of the Union of Myanmar

15.  Sultanate of Oman

16.  Islamic Republic of Pakistan

17.  State of Qatar

18.  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

19.  Republic of Singapore

20.  Republic of the Sudan

21.  Syrian Arab Republic

22.  Republic of Uganda

23.  United Arab Emirates

24.  Socialist Republic of Viet Nam

25.  Republic of Yemen