On December 15 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights marked the 20th anniver­sary of an inter­na­tion­al death penal­ty treaty by call­ing for the uni­ver­sal abo­li­tion of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. Navi Pillay, the top UN human rights offi­cial, urged all states to adopt the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The pro­to­col, which bars the death penal­ty, was intro­duced in 1989. Abolishing the death penal­ty is a dif­fi­cult process for many soci­eties,” she said. “[A]nd rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Optional Protocol can often only come about after a peri­od of nation­al debate. Until they reach that point, I urge those States still employ­ing the death penal­ty to place a for­mal mora­to­ri­um on its use, with the aim of ulti­mate­ly rat­i­fy­ing the Optional Protocol and abol­ish­ing the pun­ish­ment alto­geth­er every­where.” In her state­ment, she enu­mer­at­ed a num­ber of issues with the death penal­ty, includ­ing the fun­da­men­tal nature of the right to life; the unac­cept­able risk of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple by mis­take; the absence of proof that the death penal­ty serves as a deter­rent; and what is, to my mind, the inap­pro­pri­ate­ly venge­ful char­ac­ter of the sen­tence.” To date, 140 coun­tries no longer car­ry out the death penal­ty, and 72 coun­tries have rat­i­fied the Optional Protocol on end­ing the death penal­ty. Read the full state­ment below.

UN human rights chief calls for uni­ver­sal abo­li­tion of the death penalty

15 December 2009 – The top United Nations human rights offi­cial today called for the uni­ver­sal abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty, cit­ing a host of rea­sons rang­ing from the fun­da­men­tal right to life to the pos­si­bil­i­ty of judicial errors.

I am opposed to the death penal­ty in all cas­es,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay said in a mes­sage mark­ing the on 20th anniver­sary of the Death Penalty Optional Protocol which was added to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1989 with the aim of abol­ish­ing the punishment.

I hold this posi­tion for a num­ber of rea­sons: these include the fun­da­men­tal nature of the right to life; the unac­cept­able risk of exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple by mis­take; the absence of proof that the death penal­ty serves as a deter­rent; and what is, to my mind, the inap­pro­pri­ate­ly venge­ful char­ac­ter of the sentence.”

Ms. Pillay not­ed that 140 States no longer car­ry out the penal­ty. The 72 States which have rat­i­fied the Protocol are duty-bound not to exe­cute any­body, to take all nec­es­sary steps to defin­i­tive­ly abol­ish the death penal­ty, and not to extra­dite indi­vid­u­als to a coun­try where they would face the death penalty.

Ratification of the option­al pro­to­col, as well as sim­i­lar region­al instru­ments in Europe and in the Americas, thus draws a firm line under the use of the death penal­ty,” she said, not­ing that the instru­ment is a key step for states mov­ing towards abolition.

Abolishing the death penal­ty is a dif­fi­cult process for many soci­eties, and rat­i­fi­ca­tion of the Optional Protocol can often only come about after a peri­od of nation­al debate. Until they reach that point, I urge those States still employ­ing the death penal­ty to place a for­mal mora­to­ri­um on its use, with the aim of ulti­mate­ly rat­i­fy­ing the Optional Protocol and abol­ish­ing the pun­ish­ment altogether everywhere.”

(“UN human rights chief calls for uni­ver­sal abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty,” UN News Centre, December 15, 2009). See also International.

Citation Guide