INDEX

Tunisia carried out its last execution in 1991, over 30 years ago. Despite this de facto moratorium on executions, Tunisian courts continue to sentence people to death. Courts sentence people to death every year for a variety of crimes, especially terrorism. The current administration is undoing many of the positive changes to the Tunisian judicial system brought about by the 2011 revolution, and public opinion is divided over whether to move forward with abolition, maintain the status quo, or even resume executions, a course of action that some politicians and officials within the government support. Tunisia continues to support the UN resolutions aiming to establish a global moratorium on executions but has refused to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This report recommends that Tunisia maintain its commitment to the UN moratorium and move to ratify the Second Optional Protocol, while also working to restore the independence of its judiciary and reducing the total number of crimes punishable by death in the short term. In the long-term Tunisia should completely and unconditionally abolish the death penalty.

• Document type NGO report / World Coalition
• Countries list Tunisia
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment

This report addresses the Maldives’ compliance with its human rights obligations with respect to the death penalty. Despite its long-standing, de facto moratorium on executions, the Maldives sentenced two people to death in 2019, after sentencing no one to death in 2018.[1] At the end of 2019, there were 19 people on death row in the Maldives – three of whom had exhausted their appeals and five of whom were juveniles when the crime was committed.[2] The Maldives sentenced another individual to death in 2022, which represented the first time the country sentenced a foreign national to death.[3] The continued use of the death penalty in sentencing is particularly concerning given evidence of due process violations, including the use of torture to obtain confessions, the lack of effective and accessible complaint mechanisms for detained individuals, the lack of an independent judiciary, and the use of the death penalty as a sentence for crimes committed by juveniles.

• Document type NGO report / World Coalition
• Countries list Maldives
• Themes list Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment

This report addresses Ethiopia’s compliance with its human rights obligations with regard to the death penalty. Although there are currently at least 147 people on death row in Ethiopia, the country has not carried out any executions during the reporting period and has also pardoned and released 41 additional death row inmates since that time.[1] The Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia has also issued sentencing guidelines that purport to further reduce the likelihood of persons being sentenced to death as a punishment for their crimes.[2] Nonetheless, Ethiopia has not taken concrete steps to reduce the number of crimes eligible for the death penalty, and the use of torture and other due process violations related to judicial proceedings render all death sentences arbitrary.

• Document type NGO report / World Coalition
• Countries list Ethiopia

The State of Palestine on 1 April 2014 ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On 28 December 2017, the State of Palestine signed the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. On 18 March 2019, the State of Palestine also ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which aims to abolish the death penalty. The State of Palestine has not yet abolished the death penalty. Indeed-as described herein-the 14 June 2007 split in power between the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in the West Bank under President Abbas, and the Hamas movement in Gaza, has been followed by many documented executions in Gaza without the requisite signature of President Abbas, and Gazan military courts conduct trials of civilians, where they can be sentenced to death.

This report considers the prevalence of torture and other issues ancillary to the death penalty itself: confessions under torture or degrading treatment, due process, access to legal counsel, death-row conditions, and methods of execution.

• Document type NGO report / World Coalition
• Countries list State of Palestine

On June 29, 1972, the United States Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia, striking down all existing death penalty laws in the United States and ushering in the modern era of the U.S. death penalty. In the decades that followed—as jurisdictions revised their death-sentencing procedures in response to the Supreme Court’s rulings on capital punishment—thousands of people were sentenced to death.

The Death Penalty Census is DPIC’s effort to identify and document every death sentence imposed in the U.S. since Furman. The census captures more than 9,700 death sentences imposed between the Supreme Court’s issuance of the Furman ruling and January 1, 2021. These sentences were imposed in 1,280 counties across 40 states, as well as by the federal government and the U.S. Military.

• Document type NGO report
• Countries list United States

A Death Penalty Information Center Analysis of 185 Death-Row Exonerations Shows Most Wrongful Convictions Are Not Merely Accidental.

• Document type NGO report
• Countries list United States
• Themes list Innocence

This is a report about the role of official misconduct in the conviction of innocent people. We
discuss cases that are listed in the National Registry of Exonerations, an ongoing online archive
that includes all known exonerations in the United States since 1989, 2,663 as of this writing.
This Report describes official misconduct in the first 2,400 exonerations in the Registry, those
posted by February 27, 2019

• Document type Academic report
• Themes list Innocence

Supreme Court rhetoric, scholarly discussion, blackletter law, and ethical rules have perpetuated a myth that individual rights protect the autonomy of defendants within the criminal legal system. To expose this myth, I examine six rights that the Court has enshrined as essential decision points for criminal defendants due to the rights’ purported expressive and consequential functions: (1) the right to self-representation; (2) the right to plead guilty; (3) the right to waive a jury; (4) the right to testify; (5) the right to waive appeals; and (6) the right to maintain innocence at a capital trial. I conclude that each of these rights fails to protect defendant autonomy.

I then argue that genuine displays of autonomy under the criminal legal system take the form of resistance to the law, legal advocates, and the legal system. Thus, the autonomy of criminal defendants occurs not because of law but in spite of it. As such, scholarly discussions of the personal autonomy of criminal defendants should focus not on rights and rules but on acts of resistance. The current autonomy rights discourse is harmful because it obscures the system’s defects by framing discussions around individual rights instead of structural limitations. This lends itself to solutions involving procedural tinkering to better actualize individual rights instead of radical structural reform or abolition. By obscuring these structural defects and stressing the system’s protective qualities, the autonomy rights discourse presents the system not only as legitimate, but as functional, and potentially even successful. As such, a new scholarly frame is warranted: autonomy as resistance to law and the legal system. By illuminating the ways in which autonomy in the criminal legal system resembles autonomy under the American institution of slavery, the autonomy as resistance frame exposes the need for radical structural change and facilitates a reimagining of the criminal legal system.

• Document type Article
• Countries list United States

This Ratification Kit is designed for government decision-makers. It gives the procedure to ratify or accede to the Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and arguments to convince target countries to endorse it. Governments are not likely to have an expert understanding of the Second Optional Protocol. This document may contain answers to government concerns that will be addressed to you during your lobbying action.

• Document type Lobbying
• Countries list Marshall Islands
• Available languages Kit de Ratificación - Islas MarshallKit de ratification - Îles Marshall

This Ratification Kit is designed for government decision-makers. It gives the procedure to ratify or accede to the Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and arguments to convince target countries to endorse it. Governments are not likely to have an expert understanding of the Second Optional Protocol. This document may contain answers to government concerns that will be addressed to you during your lobbying action.

• Document type Lobbying
• Countries list Fiji
• Available languages Kit de Ratificación - FiyiKit de ratification - Fidji