adminLars Ronnås Correspondent
AS the World Day against the Death Penalty is marked by people around the globe, the good news is that the world is moving away from this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
At the end of last year, 140 countries — more than 2/3 of all countries — were abolitionist in law or practice.
During the past two decades, the number of countries that have abolished the death penalty grew considerably.
The bad news is a significant increase in the number of executions carried out in 2013, compared to the previous year.
Executions were known to have been carried out in 22 countries or territories.
Almost 2 000 people were sentenced to death in 57 countries. Worldwide more than 23 000 people were held on deathrow.
Zimbabwe retains the death penalty, though no prisoner has been executed for the past 10 years.
The Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Emmerson Mnangagwa, has publicly stated that he will uphold what amounts to a de facto moratorium.
This is a welcome statement.
While statistics indicate the scope of the use of the death penalty, the real issue lies with how we as a society value the inherent right to life for every human being.
There can be no doubt that among those sentenced to death are criminals found to have committed horrendous acts.
Nor can there be any differences of views that a society through its legal and competent bodies must protect itself against those individuals who pose a threat to others.
The question is whether a State can take it upon itself to kill an individual as part of its mandate to uphold a just and lawful society?
We are many who strongly believe that this cannot be the case.
That in fact when the State authorises and executes a death sentence it undermines the very values it is there to promote and protect.
Or put in more simple terms: You don’t kill to demonstrate that killing is wrong. The use of the death penalty tends to brutalise a society, not the opposite.
Sometimes the argument of deterrence is put forward in favour of retaining the death penalty.
Though there is no research which shows that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments.
International law does not explicitly prohibit the death penalty but it does clearly point towards the desirability to abolish this punishment.
An important element of human rights law is the inherent right to life and a number of restrictions are also imposed on the use of the death penalty.
In 2007, the UN General Assembly called in a landmark resolution for a universal moratorium on the death penalty.
This call was later repeated in 2010 and 2012.
The EU is the leading institutional actor in the fight against the death penalty worldwide.
During the past 18 months, the EU issued more than 50 statements and carried out over 30 demarches on general and individual death penalty cases.
These actions illustrate the key priority that the EU attaches to the issue as part of its external human rights policy.
In Africa, important steps have been taken towards the abolition of the death penalty.
In these efforts the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights plays an instrumental role.
Within SADC, six countries have abolished the death penalty, and in the region there are in total 11 de facto abolitionist countries.
It is sometimes argued that public opinion is not ready for abolishing the death penalty. History shows however that move towards abolition has required political leadership.
Except in a few cases, countries have abolished the death penalty despite views held by the general public.
The right to life is not a matter to be decided by public polls.
In Zimbabwe, there appears to be a window of opportunity.
The new Constitution has placed further constraints on the use of the death penalty and the Government as clearly shown its unwillingness to carry out any executions.
Key stakeholders speak in favor of moving towards abolishing the death penalty.
While a total abolition may not be within the short-term range, the Government may nonetheless wish to consider steps towards that end.
As my own Government has done, Zimbabwe may subscribe to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.
By acceding to this Protocol, the Government of Zimbabwe would introduce a de jure moratorium on executions until the death penalty can be abolished. Already 118 countries have done so, including six members of SADC.
Another important way to manifest its position, would be to vote in favor when UN General Assembly in December again is expected to take a resolution on a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.
By taking such steps, or others pointing in the same direction, Zimbabwe would make a valuable contribution to the worldwide move towards the abolition of the death penalty, and to the general enjoyment of human rights.
Lars Ronnås is the Swedish Ambassador to Zimbabwe.
Online Reporter