Death penalty in Canada. In which countries and for what is the death penalty applied? Who applies the death penalty

In just a few days, July 14 will mark the 39th anniversary of the abolition of the death penalty in Canada.
The death penalty officially existed here at the legislative level from 1859 to 1976, during which time 710 people were executed, of which 13 were women. The only method used to execute a sentence in Canada was hanging.
In our province of Alberta, the very first death penalty took place in 1879.
I’ll tell you what happened!
The name of the first person executed was Swift Runner or Ka-Ki-Si-Kutchin, Swift Runner - that is, as you can see from the name, he was an Indian. Hunter.
There was a Runner from the Cree tribe, which is widespread in our area today, and lived in Fort Saskatchewan, a town less than an hour’s drive from Edmonton. He was tall, over two meters, healthy and, as can be read in the notes of one policeman of that time, with the ugliest and most evil face he had ever seen.
Once upon a time, the Runner had quite a decent reputation and was known as a reliable guide. But then he became addicted to whiskey and became a real curse in those parts - people were more afraid of meeting him drunk than any other misfortune. And at the same time, the Runner began to smuggle whiskey, passing it off as medicine, and this caused a lot of headaches for the police.
When the locals simply howled at him, the authorities sent the Runner back to his native Cree tribe.
Soon his native Crees howled at him and expelled him from the tribe along with his mother, wife and their six children. And the Runner and his family left to live in the forests, in the wild.
And then the rumors started. Terrible rumors...
The hunters said that the Runner's entire family was killed, and he himself became a cannibal.
When they tried to find the Runner and his family, nothing came of it. But in the spring, Begun himself came to the police and stated that his wife had committed suicide and the others had died of hunger. The Runner himself, as the police noticed, did not look hungry or emaciated at all.
When the police finally found his family’s site in the forests, they found gnawed and sucked bones. Based on the signs of damage on the remains, it was established that he shot someone, hacked someone to death with a tomahawk, and strangled someone.
A jury sentenced Runner to death for killing and eating eight members of his family.
They erected a scaffold - the first in the province; before that there was no need for it, they erected a gallows, and paid a retired military man 50 bucks to perform the function of executioner.
On December 20, 1879, a whole crowd of people gathered at the scaffold.
When the procession with the condemned man arrived, it turned out that the crowd, awaiting execution, froze and lit a fire, and used the crossbar from the gallows for kindling... Let’s omit comments here :)
And the executioner, moreover, forgot the rope with which the dodzhen was supposed to tie the condemned man’s hands.
While they were looking for a rope and a new crossbar, the Runner sat by the fire, with an untied noose around his neck, eating pemmican ( such a meat concentrate that was eaten by the Indians of North America) and joked that he could hack himself to death with a tomahawk and save them all these problems with the execution.
The rope and crossbar were found, the Runner was hanged, he died instantly, without a struggle. Once! - and it's done. Some of the spectators ( Well, people had experience in those days, huh?) also said that it was the most beautiful hanging he had ever seen...
So Begun “opened an account” of those executed in Alberta. After him, 61 more people were executed in the province, including one woman. By the way, about this woman too interesting story, I'll tell you later.
In the meantime, here is a photo from the archive with the Runner before his execution.

Crime and punishment - these two words were relevant at the dawn of human history, because there were always those who grossly violated generally accepted norms of behavior. This caused considerable inconvenience to the surrounding people, as a result of which it was decided to introduce certain penalties. And the more serious the offense, the harsher the responsibility for it. In the pages of the Bible, history tells of a similar system of order. Take, for example, the Mosaic Law: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an ear for an ear and a life for a life. Which countries have the death penalty today and what is it?

The origin and abolition of capital punishment in some latitudes

In ancient times, this was a fairly effective deterrent for those who tried to infringe on individual human integrity. However, with the beginning of our era and the coming of Jesus Christ, the Mosaic Law was abolished and replaced with just a few basic commandments. Despite this, many eastern and other cultures continue to use it. Moreover, it is legal for them. What kind of countries are these and how do they do this process? This will be discussed below.

Countries that have not abolished capital punishment

Europe has a rather progressive, so to speak, view on this issue, because in almost all its countries the death penalty has been abolished and is considered a relic of the past. However, there is still a state that sees the benefit of this harsh punishment - this is the Republic of Belarus. Besides it, there are still quite a lot of countries in the world that believe that the death penalty is an excellent deterrent against serious crimes.

Which countries use the death penalty?

To the surprise of many, there are quite a few countries that have not abolished this penalty. Compared to the Middle Ages, the list has shrunk, but still remains significant. So which countries have the death penalty? This list still continues to include: the United States of America, Israel, Libya, Guatemala, Lesotho, Yemen, Mongolia, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, India, Botswana, Japan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Ghana, Angola, Uganda, Iran, Cuba, Syria , Belize, Chad, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Jamaica, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Belarus, Tajikistan, Guinea, Jordan, Gabon, Singapore, Indonesia, Democratic Malaysia, Somalia, Thailand, Ethiopia, North Korea, Sudan, as well as some oceanic islands .

As can be seen from the above list, the African continent is the leader in the number of countries where the death penalty is allowed. It is noteworthy that the norms international law do not prohibit the maximum penalty, they simply define the minimum standards for carrying out this operation. For example, execution by guillotine was widespread during the French Revolution, but was abolished in 1977.

We already know in which countries the death penalty is allowed, but in each of them this kind of sentence must be absolutely legal and passed by a competent court.

Where are criminals most often executed?

But even today in some developed countries this highest penalty is allowed. Which countries have the death penalty? China will be first on this list, since it is there that these cases occur with enviable regularity. The main methods acceptable in this area are lethal injection or firing squad. The law provides for about 70 types of offenses that result in such punishment.

Should it influence the world which countries use the death penalty? Time will give the answer.

Unlike the above-mentioned country, the number of executions and their types are clearly hidden under a veil of secrecy and misinformation in Iran. However, it is reliably known that stoning, hanging and shooting are still used here today. Be that as it may, today Iran has the highest rate of executions. Some skeptics argue that executions are often carried out away from the public eye, that is, in confidence.

The reader now knows which countries have the death penalty. This may seem inhumane, but it is reality.

The Islamic world is the leader in the number of executions

In which countries is the death penalty particularly active? This is the East. In Iraq, the situation with the death penalty is somewhat different. Hanging and shooting are also applicable here. The country is heavily influenced by Islamic traditions and, together with Iran, carries out more than 80 percent of the world's executions.

As an Islamic country, Saudi Arabia also punishes serious offenses with death. There is little difference here from Iran and Iraq, with the exception of beheadings. Often the death penalty in these latitudes is applied to foreigners, so you should be extremely careful when visiting these lands so as not to violate local traditions and not get into such a very unpleasant situation.

In which countries does the death penalty exist? We know only official statistics. Everything else is a mystery.

The Onuguu-Progress parliamentary faction submitted for public discussion a bill to amend the current Constitution regarding the possibility of applying the death penalty in relation to persons who have committed crimes against the sexual integrity of young children.

It is proposed to supplement Article 21 of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic with the words - “The death penalty is prohibited, with the exception of crimes committed against the sexual integrity of young children.”

The issue of introducing the death penalty has been raised in Kyrgyzstan more than once, but has never reached parliament.

website I decided to find out which countries in the world have the death penalty.

Who applies the death penalty?

Depending on the legislation of each country, they can be divided into four groups:

• 58 countries retain the death penalty within the law.
• 98 this type of punishment was abolished.
• 7 canceled only for ordinary crimes.
• 35 do not apply it in practice.

Thus, the only country in Europe where the death penalty is applied in practice remains Belarus. In the countries of America - USA. The remaining countries are located in Africa and Asia - Afghanistan, Vietnam, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, North Korea, China, Malaysia, UAE, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Japan, Palestine, Taiwan, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Equatorial Guinea.

According to Amnesty International, at least 1 634 people in 25 countries. This is a sharp increase in the number of executions, by more than 50%, compared to 2014. In 2014, Amnesty International recorded 1,061 executions in 22 countries.

The most executions were carried out in China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States, in decreasing order of number of executions.

China continued to carry out the most executions in the world last year, but the true extent of the death penalty in China is unknown because the information is a state secret.

The reported 1,634 executions do not include thousands of executions believed to have taken place in China.

If China is excluded, almost 90% of executions were carried out in three countries - Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

In 2015, according to available data, executions were carried out in 25 countries, that is, in every 10th country in the world, in 2014 there were only 22 such countries. But this is significantly less than two decades ago (in 1996 there were executions in 39 countries ).

In 140 countries, more than two-thirds of the world, the death penalty has been abolished in law or practice.

In 2015, four countries - Fiji, Madagascar, the Republic of Congo and Suriname - abolished the death penalty for all crimes. In total they acted this way 120 countries- most countries of the world. In 2015, Mongolia approved a new criminal code abolishing the death penalty, which will come into force at the end of 2016.

And further. General statistics do not contain information about the executions of the Islamic State, which are now often reported in the media.

The following common methods of execution were used in the world:

• decapitation;
• hanging;
• lethal injection;
• execution.

Why can criminals be executed?

In the United States, the death penalty is legal in several states. Depending on the state, the condemned person may be executed by shooting, lethal injection, hanging, electric chair or gas chamber. They can be sentenced to death for murder, high treason and terrorist activities.

Can be executed in Israel for organizing genocide, mass murder and high treason. However, in the entire history of the state, only two death sentences were imposed, one of them on the Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann.

In Japan, people sentenced to death are hanged. Some prominent figures of the terrorist sect "Aum Shinrikyo" were sentenced to hanging.

In China, the death penalty not only exists on paper, but is also widely used. As a rule, those sentenced to death are shot. You can lose your life for bribery, prostitution, murder, possession and distribution of drugs and much more.

Quite exotic types of execution are common in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Arab countries. Thus, men guilty of theft and murder are cut off with a sword. And women who are guilty of adultery are stoned to death. In the latter case, if the victim survives, then a second execution is prohibited. The laws of Saudi Arabia consider crimes of homosexuality and religious apostasy. Those guilty of these acts face the death penalty.

COMMUNICATION NO. 469/1991, CHARLES CHITAT NG v. CANADA

Report of the Human Rights Committee, Volume II, GAOR, Forty-ninth Session,

Supplement No. 40 (A/49/40), ss. 189-220. Notes and footnotes have been omitted.

Views under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol

1. The author of the communication is a British national, Charles Chitat Ng, born on 24 December 1960 in Hong Kong and residing in the United States of America, who at the time of the communication was incarcerated in Alberta, Canada, and was extradited to the United States on 26 September 1991. He claims Canada violated his human rights by extraditing him. He is represented by a lawyer.

2.1 The author was arrested, tried and convicted in 1985 in Calgary, Alberta, for attempting to rob a store and using a firearm against a security guard. In February 1987, the United States formally requested the author's extradition to stand trial in California on a 19-count indictment, including counts of kidnapping and 12 murders committed in 1984 and 1985. If the author is convicted, he could face the death penalty.

2.2 In November 1988, a judge of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the author's extradition. In February 1989, the author's petition for habeas corpus was denied, and on 31 August 1989 Supreme Court Canada denied the author leave to appeal.

2.3 Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty between Canada and the United States provides as follows: “If the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws of the requesting State, and the laws of the State requested do not provide for such punishment, is a crime, extradition may be refused unless the requesting State provides sufficient assurance, in the opinion of the requesting State, that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.” The death penalty was abolished in Canada in 1976, with the exception of the death penalty for certain military crimes.

2.4 The power to seek assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed is discretionary and vested in the Minister of Justice under section 25 of the Extradition Act. In October 1989, the Minister of Justice decided not to request such guarantees.

2.5 The author subsequently filed an application for review of the Minister's decision in the federal court. On June 8, 1990, the case came before the Supreme Court of Canada, which issued a decision on September 26, 1991. The Court found that extraditing the author without seeking assurances regarding the death penalty was consistent with Canadian constitutional protection of human rights and international standards. On the same day, the author of the message was extradited.

Substance of the complaint

3. The author claims that the decision to extradite him violates articles 6, 7, 9, 10, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. He argues that California's asphyxiation penalty itself constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment and punishment and that conditions on death row are cruel, inhumane and degrading. He further contends that California's judicial procedures, as they specifically relate to the death penalty, fail to meet the basic requirements of justice. In this context, the author argues that in the United States, racial prejudice influences the death penalty.

4.1 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible ratione persopae, loci and tereriae.

4.2 It is submitted that the author cannot be considered a victim within the meaning of the Optional Protocol because his allegations are based on assumptions about possible future events that may not occur and which depend on the law and the actions of the United States authorities. […]

4.3 The State party points out that the author's allegations relate to the criminal law and judicial system of a country other than Canada. […] The State party considers that the Covenant does not impose responsibility on the State for events over which it does not have jurisdiction.

4.4 It is further submitted that this communication should be declared inadmissible as contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, since the Covenant does not provide for a right not to be extradited. […] It further submits that even if it could be shown that in exceptional circumstances extradition falls within the scope of the protection of the Covenant, these circumstances do not exist in the present case.

4.5 The State party further refers to the United Nations Model Treaty on Extradition, which clearly provides for the possibility of unconditional extradition, providing for discretionary powers relating to the guarantee of the death penalty, similar to that provided for in article 6 of the Canada-United States Extradition Treaty . Finally, the State party notes that interfering with the extradition of a fugitive in accordance with the legitimate requests of a treaty partner would undermine the principles and purposes of extradition treaties and would have undesirable consequences for States that refuse those legitimate requests. In this context, the State party points out that, with its long unguarded border with the United States, it may provide an attractive refuge for persons fleeing United States authorities. If these fugitives from justice could not be extradited due to the theoretical possibility of applying the death penalty to them, then they would not be transferable at all and would remain unpunished in the country, threatening the safety and tranquility of the population.

4.6 Finally, the State party notes that the author has not substantiated his claims that the treatment he may suffer in the United States would violate his rights under the Covenant. In this regard, the State party points out that the imposition of the death penalty is not in itself unlawful under the Covenant. With regard to the period between the imposition of a death sentence and its execution, the State party submits that it does not understand how a period of detention during which a convicted prisoner exercises all appeal proceedings can be considered a violation of the Covenant.

5.1 In his comments on the State party's submission, the author's counsel argues that the author has indeed suffered and continues to suffer personally from the State party's decision to extradite him and that the communication is therefore admissible ratione persopae. […]

5.3 In conclusion, counsel emphasizes that the author is not claiming a right not to be extradited, but only that he should not be extradited unless there is a guarantee that he will not be sentenced to death. He therefore considers that his communication is in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant. […]

Views and decision of the Committee on admissibility

6.1 At its forty-sixth session in October 1992, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. He noted that, although extradition as such does not fall within the scope of the Covenant, a State party may nevertheless be subject to certain obligations in relation to this matter, which is not within the scope of the Covenant, in a kind of indirect form on the basis of other provisions of the Covenant. The Committee noted that the author is not alleging that extradition per se violates the Covenant, but rather that the particular circumstances relevant to the consequences of his extradition will raise issues that will fall within specific provisions of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concluded that the communication could not be excluded on the basis of the principle ratione taterae.

6.2 The Committee has considered the State party's contention that the communication is inadmissible ratione loci. Article 2 of the Covenant requires States parties to guarantee the rights of persons under their jurisdiction. If a person is lawfully expelled or extradited, the State Party concerned will generally not be liable under the Covenant for any violations of that person's rights that may subsequently have occurred in another State. In this sense, a State party is certainly not required to guarantee the rights of persons under the jurisdiction of another State. However, if a State Party makes a decision concerning a person within its jurisdiction and the inevitable and foreseeable consequence of that decision is that the person's rights will be violated in another State, the State Party itself may then be in breach of the Covenant. This follows from the fact that the obligations of a State party under article 2 of the Covenant would be inconsistent with the extradition of a person to another State (whether it is a State party to the Covenant or not) in which treatment of that person would be contrary to the Covenant. obvious or represents the very purpose of its issuance. For example, a State party would itself be in breach of the Covenant if it extradited a person to another State in circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable that he would be subjected to torture. The foreseeability of such a consequence would mean that the State party was committing a violation even if that consequence arose later.

6.3 The Committee therefore considers that it is competent in principle to consider whether the State party has violated the provisions of the Covenant in connection with its decision to extradite the author pursuant to the Extradition Treaty concluded between the United States and Canada in 1976, and Extradition Act 1985.

6.4 The Committee noted that, in accordance with article 1 of the Optional Protocol, it can only receive and consider communications from persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Covenant and the Optional Protocol and “who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant.” The Committee expressed the view that, in the present case, only by considering the merits of the circumstances in which the extradition procedure was resorted to and all its consequences would the Committee be able to determine whether the author is a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that it was appropriate to examine the admissibility and merits of the communication simultaneously.

7. In this regard, on 28 October 1992, the Human Rights Committee decided to examine the question of whether the author is a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol and the merits of the case at the same time. The Committee expressed its regret that the State party did not comply with the Committee's request under rule 86 to postpone the extradition of the author.

Subsequent submission by the State party on the admissibility and merits of the communication

8.5 With regard to the extradition of criminals facing the death penalty, the Minister of Justice, based on an examination of the specific circumstances of each case, decides on the advisability of requesting guarantees that the death penalty will not be applied or carried out. The extradition treaty between Canada and the United States does not provide for a regular procedure for requesting guarantees; rather, guarantees are requested only in cases where the particular circumstances of the case require a special exercise of discretion.

8.6 With regard to the abolition of the death penalty in Canada, the State party notes that:

“... a significant number of States members of the international community, including the United States, continue to use the death penalty. The Government of Canada does not use extradition as a means of imposing its criminal law policies on other States. By asking for assurances on a regular basis, absent exceptional circumstances, Canada would thus be indicating to the requesting state, in this case the United States, how it should punish criminal offenders. The Government of Canada considers this unjustified interference in the internal affairs of another state. The Government of Canada reserves the right...to refuse to extradite a criminal without obtaining guarantees. It is ready to use this right only in exceptional circumstances. According to the Government of Canada, one of the exceptional circumstances in which the guarantees provided for in article 6 may be specifically sought would be evidence that the fugitive will be the victim of imminent or foreseeable violations of the Covenant. However, in the Canadian proceedings against Mr. Ng […] no evidence was presented […] to support the contention that the use of the death penalty in the United States generally, or in the State of California in particular, violates the provisions of the Covenant.”

9.1 In relation to Mr. Ng's case, the State party recalls that he appealed his detention under the extradition procedure described above and that his lawyer made written and oral representations to the Minister to seek assurances that the death penalty would not be applied. […] The Supreme Court heard Mr. Ng's case […] and ruled that […] extradition without guarantees would not be a violation of Canada's human rights obligations.

9.3 The State party further submits that Mr. Ng has not provided any evidence to show that he was the victim of any violation of Covenant rights in Canada. In this regard, the State party notes that the author merely argues that his extradition to the United States of America is a violation of the Covenant because he faces charges in the United States that, if found guilty, could subject him to the death penalty. The State party states that it has satisfied itself that Mr. Ng's proposed treatment in the United States will not violate his rights under the Covenant.

10.1 On the merits, the State party emphasizes that Mr. Ng made full use of his right to speak on all matters relating to his extradition to a country where he faces the death penalty. […]

[...] Since Mr. Ng's trial has not yet begun, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that he will actually be executed or be held in conditions of detention that would violate Covenant rights. The State party points out that, if convicted and sentenced to death, Mr. Ng has multiple avenues of appeal in the United States and that he can seek commutation; In addition, he has the right to appeal to the courts of the United States the conditions of his detention while his appeal against the death sentence is pending.

10.2 With regard to the use of the death penalty in the United States, the State party recalls that article 6 of the Covenant does not prohibit the death penalty under international law:

“[...] Canada would likely be in breach of the Covenant if it were to remove a person facing the death penalty when there were reasonable grounds to believe that the death penalty would be imposed in the requesting State in circumstances violating article 6. Thus, the State would be in breach provisions of the Covenant, handing over a fugitive to a State which imposes the death penalty for crimes other than the most serious ones or for acts not contrary to the law in force at the time the acts were committed, or which imposes this penalty in the absence of or contrary to a final decision of a competent court decision. That is not the case here... Mr. Ng has not presented any evidence before the Canadian courts, the Minister of Justice, or the Committee to suggest that the United States violated the strict criteria set out in Article 6 when it sought his extradition for Canada... The Government of Canada, through the Minister of Justice, was confident at the time the extradition decision was made that if Mr. Ng were convicted and executed in the State of California, it would be done in accordance with the provisions expressly provided for in Article 6 of the Covenant.

10.4 Regarding the question of whether the death penalty violates article 7 of the Covenant, the State party submits:

“[...] The provisions of the Covenant must be understood in their entirety, and the articles of the Covenant in an inextricable connection... It is possible that some forms of execution are contrary to article 7. The infliction of torture on a person resulting in his death would appear to fall within this category, since torture is a violation of article 7. Other forms of execution may violate the Covenant because they are cruel, inhuman or degrading. However, since the use of the death penalty is permitted within the narrow criteria set out in Article 6, there must be certain methods of execution that do not violate the provisions of Article 7.

10.5 With regard to the method of carrying out the death penalty, the State party submits that there is no reason to believe that the method used in California - cyanide gas asphyxiation - is contrary to the provisions of the Covenant and international law. It further submits that there are no special circumstances in Mr Ng's case that would lead to a different conclusion regarding the application of this method to him […].

10.6 With respect to “death row syndrome,” the State party argues that the specific circumstances of each case should be examined, including the conditions of the death row inmate, the age, mental and physical condition of the inmate under those conditions, the reasonably foreseeable duration of the inmate's confinement in those conditions, the reasons such duration and the possibility, if any, of changing such unacceptable conditions. It is reported that the Minister of Justice and the Canadian courts have reviewed and analyzed all the information provided by Mr. Ng regarding the prison conditions of persons sentenced to death in California:

“The Secretary of Justice ... was not persuaded by the argument that the conditions of imprisonment in the State of California, when considered in light of the particular circumstances of Mr. Ng's case, the delay factor and continued access to the courts of the State of California and the Supreme Court of the United States of America, would violate Mr. Ng's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Covenant. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Minister's decision, stating unequivocally that the decision would not violate Mr. Ng's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

11.9 Counsel refers to several resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in which the abolition of the death penalty is considered desirable. He further refers to Protocol 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “[D]uring the last 50 years, the trend towards the abolition of the death penalty has gradually increased. As a result of this evolution, almost all Western democracies have abolished the death penalty.” He submits that this factor should be taken into account when interpreting the provisions of the Covenant.

11.10 With regard to California's method of execution, asphyxiation by cyanide gas, counsel submits that this method constitutes inhuman and degrading punishment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. He notes that strangulation can take up to 12 minutes, during which the condemned persons remain conscious, experience terrible pain and agony, become delirious, convulse and often defecate on themselves […]. Counsel further argues that, given the brutal nature of this method of execution, Canada's decision not to extradite without guarantees would not constitute a violation of its treaty obligations to the United States or an unacceptable interference with the application of US domestic law. […]

14.1 Before examining the merits of this communication, the Committee notes that the issue is not whether Mr. Ng’s rights have been or may be violated by the United States of America, which is not a party to the Optional Protocol, but whether Canada is subjecting Mr. Ng, by handing him over to the United States, faces a real risk of violation of his Covenant rights. States parties to the Covenant are often also parties to various bilateral agreements, including extradition treaties. A State party to the Covenant must ensure that all its other legal obligations are fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant. The starting point in considering this issue must be the State party's obligation under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant to ensure to all persons within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant. The most important of these rights is the right to life.

14.2 If a State Party extradites a person within its jurisdiction in circumstances that give rise to a real risk of a violation of his Covenant rights in another State, the State Party itself may be considered to be in breach of the Covenant.

16.1 In determining whether the imposition of the death penalty in a particular case constitutes a violation of article 7, the Committee must take into account relevant personal factors relating to the author, the particular conditions of detention on death row, and whether the proposed method of execution is extremely cruel. In this case, it is argued that asphyxiation by gas is contrary to internationally accepted standards of humane treatment and that such a method of execution amounts to treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee first notes that, although article 6, paragraph 2, does not prohibit the imposition of the death penalty in certain limited cases, any method of execution provided for by law must be imposed in such a way as to avoid a violation of article 7.

16.2 The Committee is aware that any execution of the death penalty may by definition constitute cruel and inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant; on the other hand, article 6, paragraph 2, allows for the death penalty to be imposed for the most serious crimes. However, the Committee reiterates that, as it has already noted in its General Comment 20 (44) on article 7 of the Covenant, when the death penalty is carried out, the procedure “shall be carried out in such a way as to cause as little physical or mental harm as possible.” suffering."

16.3 In the present case, the author provided detailed information that asphyxiation by gas can cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not provide the fastest possible killing since asphyxiation by cyanide gas can take more than 10 minutes. The State party had the opportunity to document these allegations, but did not do so. On the contrary, the State party limited itself to stating that, in the absence of any rule of international law expressly prohibiting cyanide asphyxiation, “it would be unlawfully interfering with the domestic law of the United States of America if it were to refuse to surrender a fugitive.” from justice, and the possible punishment for which will be death by asphyxiation by cyanide gas.”

16.4 In the present case, the Committee, based on the information before it, concludes that the death penalty by gassing, if the author were sentenced to death, would violate the requirement to inflict “the minimum possible physical and mental suffering” and would be cruel and inhumane punishment, which constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Therefore, Canada, which could reasonably have expected that Mr. Ng, if sentenced to death, would be executed in a manner that constituted a violation of article 7, failed to comply with its obligations under the Covenant by extraditing Mr. Ng without requesting or having received guarantees that he would not be executed.

16.5 The Committee is not, in principle, required to express an opinion on the compatibility of article 7 with methods of carrying out the death penalty other than those considered in the present case.

17. The Human Rights Committee, acting pursuant to article 5, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, finds that the facts found by the Committee indicate a violation by Canada of article 7 of the Covenant.

18. The Human Rights Committee requests the State party to make such representations as can still be made with a view to preventing the death penalty and calls on the State party to ensure that similar situations do not arise in the future.

Editor's Note: This publication does not reproduce paragraphs 15.1 to 15.7 of the Committee's Views, which concluded that Canada did not violate the right to life by extraditing Mr. Ng to the United States. This is because the Committee has changed its position on this issue since 1993, as described in the introduction to the section on the right to life. In the Ng case, a total of nine Committee members presented their dissenting opinions. dissenting opinions. Five of them (Mr. Pocar, Mr. Lallah, Mr. Wennergren, Mr. Aguilar Urbina and Ms. Chanet) concluded that there had been a violation of article 6. Canada, which has abolished the death penalty, is legally liable the obligation not to reintroduce it, either directly or indirectly, by extraditing a person to another State where he (or she) may be subject to the death penalty. At a minimum, Canada should have sought assurances that Mr. Ng would not be executed. Mr. Pocar and Mr. Lallah also concluded that a violation of Article 6 in the present case would entail a violation of Article 7, regardless of the method of execution. In Ms. Chanet's view, the Committee should not consider duration of suffering as a criterion in assessing whether a particular method of execution constitutes cruel or inhumane punishment. Mr. Aguilar Urbina also found a violation of Article 5, paragraph 2, and Article 26.

Four members (Mr. Mavrommatis, Mr. Sadi, Mr. Ando and Mr. Herndl) were of the view that there had been no violation of the Covenant. Mr Ando considered that the execution of the death penalty by gassing was not intended to prolong the suffering of the person so executed and that it therefore did not violate Article 7. In his combined dissenting view, Mr Mavrommatis and Mr. Sadi concluded that a method of execution such as stoning to death, which is used deliberately and actually results in prolonged torture and suffering, is contrary to Article 7, whereas no such conclusion can be drawn in relation to the present case. Mr. Herndl noted that there are no agreed standards for determining which methods of execution are more cruel and inhumane than others. It also did not consider the author to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 1 of the Optional Protocol.

in which countries it is preserved and how criminals are executed today

On January 17, 1920, execution was officially abolished in Soviet Russia. Today this type of punishment is used less and less, but nevertheless exists in the world a large number of countries where execution is practiced. And Belarus is also among them.

1. How many countries are there in the world where the death penalty remains?

In 2015, the number of countries that abolished execution at the legislative level reached 98. Together with countries where a moratorium on capital punishment remains, the number of states where they do not execute for serious crimes amounted to 140 out of 192 in 2015. It turns out that today only 52 countries carry out capital punishment. There are already entire continents in the world free from... For example, South America and Australia. In Europe and Central Asia, execution is practiced only in Belarus. IN North America executions are carried out only in the USA, and even then in 18 states out of 50 capital punishment has already been abolished.

This is what the cell looks like where Japanese criminals are hanged. A noose is put on the condemned man and the hatch underneath him is abruptly opened.