To Abolish the Death Penalty, the Human Rights Council Looks at the Role of the Judiciary
The Human Rights Council of the United Nations dedicates a panel, every two years during the High-level Segment of the Council’s session when ministers and high-level officials are present, to the question of the death penalty. Your Center for Global Nonkilling is active during these discussions. The full session can be seen at United Nations Web TV.
Taking stock of progress made in the last two years, this year’s theme was on the role of the judiciary in the process; mostly on how they can prevent the penalty being imposed, or persons being executed. Panelists, State delegations and NGO’s take the floor: during the plenary, at side events and during private meetings to advance the cause of life.
Your delegate to the UN in Geneva, Christophe Barbey, explained at the plenary (see written version of the statement below) the importance of giving more attention and means to soft justice, to prevention and peaceful settlements of disputes as this conversely means less hard justice, with at its bitter end death penalty. He called on the Conscience of the Judiciary, judges and others, to do their utmost to support soft justice and to refuse inflicting such a fatal sanction, overall speaking for a nonkilling judiciary.
CGNK was also present at a side event, in which a forthcoming report was presented on countries which are “abolitionist de facto”, that is the ones which carried no executions in the last ten years. This situation can be a transition towards abolition, but for some it is also a long “stand-by” position. Our representative at the UN recalled that many of these countries have a “constitutional killing clause” that goes further than the death penalty, giving the bad example of a lower protection and promotion for life and lesser judicial control over killings by officials or in some situations, somewhat permitting killings in cases of self-defense, escape or riots, protection of goods and the like. As an advocate of responsible citizenry, he called for constitutional changes, changes apt at valuing life, constitutional clauses ensuring the full blossom of life for all. For further insights check out the Oxford University Death Penalty Research Unit and its “abolitionist de facto” project and also visit the Death Penalty Project and their statement to the Council.
Our representative in Geneva regularly demands, through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism to States that have not yet abolished the death penalty to urgently do so, and at all valid occasions to enhance the quality and safety of life for all. This work, with your support, will continue. We appreciate tips for our United Nations and related activities. You can donate whatever you want, once or regularly, 1, 10 or more in usual units on our tipeee page or contribute to CGNK’s general operations through Paypal.
Our statement to the plenary: A NONKILLING JUDICIAIRY
Human Rights Council, 58th session. Biennial panel on the death penalty
Delivered by Christophe Barbey, Geneva, 25th of February 2025
Dear Living Human Beings,
Monsieur le Président,
Dear Populations of the Earth,
Dear authorities, including the highest,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Greetings of Justice in Peace,
Justice – to do things right and always better! – is at the heart of our human values.
In Civil and Political rights, they are two major exceptions to our fundamental freedoms: imprisonment and the death penalty. The judicial system and its actors are or should be the guarantors, forebearers of our freedoms.
Justice starts with education, value enhancement. Goes on with win-win solutions, prevention. If prevention fails, it goes on through reconciliation, constructive and restorative justice, peaceful settlement of disputes. This is soft justice, it empowers the people to handle their lives, their relations with peace and justice.
Then comes a harder justice: power decisions, use of force, and at its bitter end death penalty.
To avoid killings by States, the judiciary, judges and others can do two things:
1) Advocate for soft justice, evermore. More soft justice is less hard justice. (Nonkilling justice).
2) Take to their conscience the full measure of life, its worth and value, its resilience and use their right of conscience to object to the death penalty.
Merci Cher Président.
