|
|
|
Madam Chairperson 1 Since this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing this Committee, please allow me to congratulate you on your election as Chairman. 2 I would like to limit my comments today to the interim report submitted by Ms Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in document A/55/288 of 11 August 2000, whom I thank for her presentation today. 3 At the outset, let me stress that Singapore condemns, unreservedly and in the strongest terms, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. These are a grave breach of human rights. We therefore express our full support for the Special Rapporteur in her important work on this issue. 4 Unfortunately, her potentially excellent report has been badly, and perhaps irretrievably, damaged by some of its elements. We refer to the Special Rapporteur's remarks on capital punishment. The agreed terms of the Special Rapporteur's mandate allow her to "continue monitoring the implementation of existing international standards on safeguards and restrictions relating to the imposition of capital punishment". This is understandable. The seriousness of capital punishment as a penalty demands the most stringent precautions in its application. Singapore fully supports any effort to strengthen safeguards and improving standards. However, the Special Rapporteur does not have the authority to express any view on whether or not capital punishment should be abolished. 5 Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur has undermined the objectivity of her report by including her personal views on capital punishment. In paragraph 32, the Special Rapporteur states that her "action in response to allegations of the rights of life in connection with capital punishment is strongly guided by the principle of desirability of the abolition of the death penalty". Whose "principle of desirability" is this? Subsequently, in paragraph 63, the Special Rapporteur states that "all countries that retain the death penalty are urged to consider imposing a moratorium on executions, with a view to completely abolishing the death penalty. Pending the imposition of a moratorium, States should take immediate measures to bring their domestic legislation into line with international standards pertaining to capital punishment". The Special Rapporteur has even gone so far, in paragraph 36 as to implicitly criticise Armenia, Barbados, Malaysia, Myanmar, Rwanda, Trinidad and Tobago and Ukraine simply for having mandatory capital punishment in their criminal law. 6 Unfortunately, this is not the first time that the mandate has been exceeded. In 1996, the then Special Rapporteur did the same thing by suggesting that the General Assembly adopt a resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty. 7 As it appears to have become a traditional practice for such Special Rapporteurs to insert their personal views into their reports, we would like to respectfully and firmly explain why this is wrong and why it may indeed damage and undermine the work of the Special Rapporteur. 8 Firstly, the Special Rapporteur is making a major error in equating capital punishment, which is judicial execution carried out after due process and according to law, with extrajudicial, arbitrary and summary executions. In implying that they are morally equivalent, she is effectively accusing law-abiding public servants, such as judges, members of juries, prosecutors, prison officers and police, of committing serious breaches of human rights amounting to murder. It is morally and legally unjustified, philosophically untenable and slanderous to suggest that capital punishment and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions are morally or legally equivalent. 9 Secondly, the issue of capital punishment is highly charged and has caused deep division in the international community, as shown by the events at the 54th session of the General Assembly. The prolonged and bitter debate on that occasion made it clear that there is no international consensus that capital punishment should be abolished. The General Assembly has therefore wisely chosen not to address the issue again this year, to avoid another disruptive debate. Given this atmosphere, we deeply regret, therefore, that the Special Rapporteur has chosen to reopen this divisive and controversial issue. 10 Thirdly, Special Rapporteurs play a significant role in implementing universally agreed standards of human rights. They can best do this when they are perceived to be objective and unbiased. Every Special Rapporteur should also be acutely aware that the prestige and standing of the UN would be adversely affected if its officials are perceived to be biased, with consequent damage to its political and financial sustainability. Any Special Rapporteur who uses her office to propagate her personal views is not only undermining her own credibility but also that of the institution she represents. 11 Finally, as we have spoken very strongly on this subject, there may be a perception in this room that we have overreacted to a few stray comments in an otherwise objective report. A simple analogy may explain the danger of these paragraphs on capital punishment. A good well can provide water to an entire village. But an entire village will be without water if a few drops of poison are dropped into this well. The Special Rapporteur should not undermine her own work by injecting poison into her own well. 12 Thank you. |