Specials

... would mean the suspension of all executions scheduled until the present, but not the complete abolition of the death penalty in countries that still are providing it as a possible punishment.

The Italian Campaign for the Moratorium started in 1994, when Italy presented for the first time the Resolution on Moratorium at the UN, unfortunately without success. In 2004 the Resolution No. 67, which concerned the issue of the death penalty, was adopted by the Commission on Human Rights. According to the Resolution’s text, countries were required to implement several limitations for those kinds of executions. In 2006, the Italian Draft Resolution against the Death Penalty became a Declaration on the Death Penalty that was presented by the EU on December 19th 2006. It was completed by the signature of 85 countries.
At this time, the number of countries retaining the death penalty in law is counting 64. Nevertheless, many of them have not carried out this punishment for the last 10 years or longer. The number of countries that abolished it, with the exception of wartime crimes, is very low. The Italian Government has just abolished the death penalty even for wartime crimes.
The death penalty is a very relevant issue regarding the matter of the violation of Human Rights. According to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, the abolition of this measure contributes primarily to enhancement of human dignity. The issues raised by the application of this punishment are mainly two. Firstly, the death penalty deeply undermines and prevents the right to life of every human being. Secondly, the methods of execution such as lethal injection or stoning can be called acts of torture or cruelty, both inhuman and degrading. This is in connection with the definition of torture, which was provided and adopted in 1984 by the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Although the death penalty is claimed as a huge violation of Human Rights, the issue is not often discussed in Geneva, the Headquarter of all UN Agencies engaged in the field of Human Rights, not even during the sessions of the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council was established in 2006 by the General Assembly Resolution 60/251 and its sessions take place several times per year at UN Headquarters in Geneva.
During the 4th session of the Human Rights Council on March, the issue of the death penalty and its implication was discussed and raised by several countries but again to no avail.
Why isn’t the Death Penalty one of the most important items in the HRC Agenda? Although the Council plays a fundamental role in the Human Rights field, this issue was not mentioned often enough in the last months in Geneva. What are the reasons for such an approach?
Several facts explain why this issue is mainly discussed in New York, says one of the delegates of the Italian Mission in Geneva. The General Assembly is an organ where all States have UN member status. Therefore, according to the Italian delegate, the Resolution calling for a Moratorium has more possibilities to be adopted there, rather than in the Human Rights Council, where Member States represent only 47 countries.
Moreover, it should be considered that the HRC Agenda is not flexible enough and for this reason it is almost impossible to discuss items that have not been scheduled for a long time. Furthermore, regarding the Italian role, the Italian representatives mentioned the decision of the Italian Government on focusing the efforts and sharing the assignments between the two Missions in New York and Geneva.
Equally, it seems that the decision to avoid discussions about this item in the Human Rights Council comes also from a choice of the European Union that aims to discuss the issue in the General Assembly, where all the States are called to vote about this issue.
However, it is very interesting to analyse how the US Mission defends the position of the US Government in the HRC, and to see the US reactions about the Italian campaign.
During the 4th Session of the Human Rights Council, in defence of the US states that provide the death penalty for specific crimes, the delegate mentioned article n. 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This recognizes the right of countries to impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes, carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with appropriate safeguards and observance of due process.
Regarding the issue concerning the reaction of the US to the Italian Campaign against the death penalty, the US delegate states that the death penalty has to be applied in conformity of the international Human Rights obligations and not in an extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary manner. Therefore, the USA does not agree with the proposal of a Global Moratorium.
Certainly the Italian or the European idea and the US idea are based on two completely different cultures and positions. Europe claims the importance of the punishment aimed to change and correction of the people. In this culture, the “Pardon” or the “Reconciliation” plays a fundamental role in order to reintegrate every person, guilty or not. Indeed, the cultures of countries like China, Iran and the USA, where the Death Penalty is applied, seem opposed to any possibility introducing an “idea of Pardon”.
Reflecting on the reason of Pardon, claimed as well in the African ideology of Ubuntu, and hoping in the successful adoption of the Resolution, here are the words of Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Nobel Peace Prize 1984: “A person with ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that others are able and good, for he or she has a proper self-assurance that comes from knowing that he or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished, when others are tortured or oppressed”.