HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE DEATH PENALTy

in the United States

WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its optional protocols together establish the basic human rights for everyone. Known collectively as the International Bill of Human Rights, these treaties address a broad array of human rights, including those relevant to the death penalty. All people are guaranteed protections from discrimination, torture, and cruel or unusual punishment, as well as rights to life, security of person, due process, and equality before the courts. In 1984, the United Nations (UN) adopted the Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, which limit the use of the death penalty and protect those facing it from extensive suffering.1 Five years later, the UN reinforced its stance that the death penalty is incompatible with human rights when it adopted the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Countries that ratify the protocol must end all executions and take steps to abolish the death penalty.2

All People Accused Have the Right to:

EQUAL PROTECTION: The right be treated equally and without discrimination or distinction of any kind before the law and with equal protection of the law. 57 DUE PROCESS: The right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law58 and within a reasonable amount of time. 59 RIGHT TO NOT BE ARBITRARILy DEPRIvED OF LIFE: The right to ensure that any deprivation of life is done in accordance with and in the spirit of the right to life60 and in accordance with requirements to a fair hearing, independent tribunal, presumption of innocence, minimum guarantees by the defense and the right to review by a higher tribunal.61 FREEDOM FROM TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT: Be free from subjection to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.62 LIBERTy AND SECURITy OF PERSON: The Right to liberty and security of person63 and in the cases where criminal charges are brought, the deprivation of liberty shall adhere to all provisions for the assurance of due process,64 freedom from torture65 and prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life.66 RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT: Has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law where by he/she has been afforded all of their due process rights.67 FREEDOM FROM DISCRIMINATION: Right to full protection of the law without any discrimination based on race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, without any derogation.68

DOES THE U.S. RECOGNIZE THESE HUMAN RIGHTS?

The U.S. Constitution guarantees certain rights for all people in the U.S., without distinction of any kind, including race. These rights include the rights to a fair and speedy trial, due process, trial by jury, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The 14th Amendment contains the Equal Protection Clause, which protects the rights of all people including minorities on an equal level. In a similar vein, the Declaration of Impendence reads that all men are created equal3 The U.S. is also bound by international treaties such as ICCPR and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The U.S. has not ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. Many other countries, however, have moved toward abolition. For example, the European Union mandates that all its members abolish the death penalty.

IS THE U.S. FULFILLING THESE HUMAN RIGHTS?

U.S. laws protect basic human rights, including those that the administration of the law and due process. Nevertheless, numerous problems with the use of the death penalty mean that these protections are not being guaranteed. Capital punishment in the U.S. remains arbitrary, racially-biased, and it poses the risks of cruel and unusual punishment and execution of innocent people. The Arbitrary Nature of Death Sentences The death penalty system in the U.S. is complex, because there are 36 different systems that use the death penalty. In the U.S., 35 states and the federal government use the death penalty and have their own laws regarding it. Criminals may be executed for committing a crime punished by these federal or state laws. Different states punish similar crimes in different ways. Thus, while two individuals may commit very similar crimes, the location of the murder can mean the difference between life imprisonment and death. A homicide in Minnesota may result in a prison sentence, but in Texas, it could amount to execution. The arbitrariness of the death penalty, depending on where the crime takes place and whether that state punishes it by death, becomes clear when looking at the pattern of executions in the U.S. Since capital punishment resumed in the U.S. in 1976, 80% of executions have occurred in the South.4 Arbitrariness occurs in other areas as well. In Ohio, 25% of death row inmates come from Hamilton County, despite the fact that only 9% of the states murders occur there. 5 Furthermore, it is largely the prosecutors decision to pursue the death penalty. The social pressures, beliefs and political motivations of that one person can decide the defendants fate.6 Arbitrary conditions also extend to juries, as in the case of localities with all-white or mostly white juries.7 Racial Bias in the Capital Punishment System Race plays a role in the death penalty. Statistics show that when the victim is white, the defendant is far more likely to be sentenced to death. A study in North Carolina, for instance, showed that a defendant was 3.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death if the victim was white, regardless of the defendants race. 8 In South Carolina, a black defendant is twice as likely as a white defendant to receive capital punishment when the victim is white.9 In Alabama, only 6% of murders involved an African American offender and a Caucasian victim. Yet these murders account for 28% of Alabamas death row population.10 In Muscogee County, AL, 65% of the victims of homicide were black, yet 78% of the cases where capital punishment was pursued, the victim was white.11 In Maryland, a defendant Last updated August 2009 is more likely to receive a death sentence if the murder victim is white.12

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948 Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. Article 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966

Human Rights and the Death Penalty in the United States

Inadequate Trial Representation for the Defense The more money a defendant has, the more likely he/she is to succeed in avoiding a death sentence. In federal cases, defendants whose representation costs were less than $320,000 were about twice as likely to receive capital punishment as those whose costs exceeded $320,000.13 Only 5% of inmates on death row can afford an attorney. When courts appoint an attorney for an indigent defendant, that attorney may be inexperienced, have massive caseloads, or may not give the case enough attention and time.14 In the past twenty years, 20% of convicts who faced the possibility of the death penalty in Washington had attorneys who were or had been disbarred, suspended, or arrested.15 A 1990 study in the National Law Journal likened capital trials in the South to a random flip of the coin because of the courts appointment of low-quality defense attorneys.16 Unjustifiable Costs Death penalty cases are costly. Federal capital cases are almost eight times more expensive than similar non-capital cases.17 In Maryland, the average cost of a death sentence is $1.9 $3 million more than a life parole.18 There are hidden costs in cases where the death penalty is pursued but not ultimately received: the 106 cases in Maryland where capital punishment was sought but not received cost the state an additional $71 million.19 In Washington, each death penalty case costs the state well over half a million more than a non-death penalty homicide case. 20 Capital cases that result in a death sentence in Kansas are about 70% more expensive than non-death penalty cases;21 in Tennessee, they are 48% more expensive.22 It is difficult to put an exact estimate on how much more expensive a death penalty trial is versus a trial for life without parole. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around $500,000, while estimates for death penalty cases range from $1-$7 million.23 The costs on the state and national level are striking. In California, the cost per year of a criminal justice system with the death penalty is roughly $137 million. 24 If California were to abolish the death penalty and use life imprisonment as its maximum possible sentence, the annual cost would be roughly $11.5 million.25 In other words, a system without the death penalty would save $100 million per year that could be redirected toward education, infrastructure, and crime prevention. In a recent calculation, California could save $1 billion over five years if it abolished the death penalty. 26 One study estimates that the death penalty cost at least $1.6 billion from 1982-1997, 27 roughly equivalent to $2.14 billion today.28 Cruel and Unusual Punishment Earlier methods of execution in the U.S. included the use of the gas chamber, firing squad, electric chair, and hanging. Today, retentionist states primarily use lethal injection. Lethal injection may give the illusion of being a more humane method of punishment, but it may cause unnecessary pain and suffering. Execution by lethal injection uses three drugs in a specific order. The first drug is a large dose of sodium thiopental, which puts the patient to sleep. The second drug is pancuronium bromide. It is designed to immobilize the inmate, as well as stop breathing. The last drug is potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. Lethal injection can cause cruel and unusual punishment to the inmate.29 Because doctors have an ethical obligation not to participate in executions,30 the executions are conducted by unskilled technicians. As a result, lethal injection procedures are often fraught with difficulties. For example, finding an inmates veins and properly inserting the needles is a common problem. In 2006, technicians poked a needle straight through the vein of Angel Nieves Diaz. Instead of sending the drugs into his circulatory system, the drugs went into his muscles, causing a prolonged and painful execution. 31 The mechanics of the execution may also not go as planned. Drugs may be mistakenly given in wrong dosages or at incorrect time intervals. The use of the a paralyzing drug means that even if the inmate is experiencing severe pain, he or she would not be able to tell anyone or show it. Even veterinarians do not use pancuronium bromide to put animals to sleep, because the American Veterinary Medical Association has concerns that the drug hides signs of pain. 32 Capital Punishment Does Not Act as a Deterrent Many studies claiming that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime have statistical faults. Critiques of several recent articles claiming to show a deterrent effect were able to manipulate the same data to show the opposite result; that capital punishment increases the murder rate. 33 Other critiques point to omissions of important data and variables. 34 There is no unrefuted proof that the death penalty prevents homicides. In fact, data suggests abolitionist states actually have lower murder rates. In 2007, states allowing capital punishment had a 42% higher homicide rate than abolitionist states. 35 Given the fact that such studies often have inherent flaws and have even shown opposite findings, the only safe conclusion to draw is that there is no correlation between the death penalty and deterrence.

U.S. Government Obligations69

To ensure the rights of those who have been accused the US has the following obligations: RESPECT: The US Government must not deprive individuals accused and/ or sentenced to crimes of their fundamental human rights. PROTECT: The US Government is required to take positive steps to ensure the protection of the human rights of those individuals accused and/or sentenced for crimes. FULFILL: The US Government must adopt national legislation necessary to achieve the full realization of the rights of individuals accused and/or sentenced to crimes. MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS: The US Government must ensure the rights of those accused and/ or sentenced for crimes based on the minimum standards set forth in the US Bill of Rights and those international instruments which the US is party and immediately address issues regarding arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, and discrimination int he criminal justice system. NON-DISCRIMINATION: The US Government must take positive measures so that individuals are not subject to discrimination of any kind when accused and/or sentenced to crimes but instead are held as equals before the law. PROTECT THE MOST vULNERABLE: The US Government must actively ensure protections are in place for vulnerable individuals accused and/ or sentenced of crimes including children, the mentally ill and the mentally retarded. MONITOR AND REPORT: The US Government must monitor and report on the realization of the rights of those who stand accused or are sentenced to crimes in relation to both conduct and results, so that the government is held accountable for its action and inaction.

For citations and further info: www.discoverhumanrights.org

The Advocates for Human Rights 650 Third Avenue South, #1240, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-341-3302

Human Rights and the Death Penalty in the United States

Questions Regarding the Mentally Ill Mental illness is defined as any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individuals normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors, such as infection or head trauma. Also called emotional illness, mental disease, mental disorder.36 These disorders can include, but are not limited to, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. The Supreme Court ruled in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986), that the insane cannot be executed and that defendants are entitled to a competency evaluation once they make a substantial threshold showing of insanity.37 There have been numerous defendants who have received stays of execution pending competency reviews. Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007), tightened the standards that states must use when determining competency. 38 Under Panetti, the Court defined Fords procedural standards, requiring an adequate opportunity to submit expert evidence in response to the report filed by the court-appointed experts.39 The Court also tightened restrictions on competency, finding that comprehension of the link between the punishment and the crime committed may not satisfy competency because gross delusions stemming from a severe mental disorder may put that awareness in a context so far removed from reality that the punishment can serve no proper purpose.40 Nevertheless, persons suffering from severe mental illnesses may still be executed if they do not satisfy the definition of incompetence set forth under Ford and Panetti. As a result, many mentally ill prisoners have been executed over the years, including some who suffered from psychotic delusions. Questions Regarding the Mentally Retarded In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing the mentally retarded was cruel and unusual punishment and prohibited the practice. Each state uses its own test to determine mental retardation, but the test generally requires: substantial intellectual impairment the impairment affects the individuals everyday life the disability appears before the age of 18 years41 Despite this prohibition, there is still a risk that a mentally retarded person could be executed. If a lawyer fails to realize or prove that a defendant is mentally retarded, the defendant could still be sentenced to death. Thus, protecting the rights of the mentally retarded intertwines closely with the quality of the accuseds defense lawyer. Risks of Executing an Innocent To date, at least 138 people on death row have been exonerated, or released because they were innocent. Florida leads the nation in exonerations with 23.42 There is increasing awareness of the great risk of executing innocents. Governor George Ryan of Illinois, which has had a total of 20 exonerations, issued a moratorium on the death penalty in 2000, citing the problem of innocence.43 Factors that lead to wrongful convictions include poor defense, misconduct by police, prosecutors and forensic experts, false testimony, false confessions, racial bias, eyewitness misidentification, mishandling of evidence, and external pressures.44 Trends Away from the Death Penalty and the U.S. on the International Stage Today, there are more abolitionist countries than countries that use the death penalty. Seventy-one countries have ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. The U.S. is not one of these.45 Although the U.S. still uses the death penalty, many of our European counterparts have already abolished it. And since 1990, more than fifty countries have eliminated capital punishment, most recently Argentina (2008), Uzbekistan (also 2008), and Burundi (2009).46 47 In accordance with this trend, the U.N. General Assembly passed a 2007 resolution that urges countries to issue a moratorium on executions, with the ultimate goal to abandon the death penalty.48 At the end of May 2009, 139 countries did not have the death penalty on the books, or did not actively use it.49 Furthermore, while a number of countries retain the death penalty in law, their actual practices are straying away from capital punishment. Amnesty International found that of the 59 countries with the death penalty, only 25 actually executed an inmate in 2008. 50 The number of death sentences in the U.S. is also declining, down from 225 in 2000 to 115 in 2006. 51 Most recently, New York, New Jersey (both in 2007), and New Mexico (2009) have abolished capital punishment. 52 Connecticut has faced pressure to do the same throughout 2009. 53 In Indiana, with only two death sentences since 2004, a county prosecutor said that the state is running out of death row inmates.54 China easily led the world in executions in 2008 with over 1600. 55 In combination with Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the U.S., these five countries accounted for about 93% of global executions. 56 It is of concern that the U.S. has placed itself in the same category as these countries with egregious human rights records.

Considering that the use of the death penalty undermines human dignity and convinced that a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights, that there is no conclusive evidence of the deterrent value of the death penalty and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in the implementation of the death penalty is irreversible and irreparable... ~ United Nations Resolution 62/149, Moratorium on the use of the death penalty,26 February 2008.

The Advocates for Human Rights 650 Third Avenue South, #1240, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-341-3302

Human Rights and the Death Penalty in the United States

1. 2. Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50. Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, G.A. res. 44/128, annex, 44 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, UN Doc A/44/49 (1989), entered into force 11 July, 1991. The U.S. Declaration of Independence, Preamble. Death Penalty and Arbitrariness, Amnesty International [on-line]; http://www.amnestyusa. org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-arbitrariness/page.do?id=1101083. Accessed 15 May 2009. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Geographic Unfairness, http://ncadp.org/ index.cfm?content=5. Accessed Sept. 15, 2009. Death Penalty and Arbitrariness, Amnesty International [on-line]; http://www.amnestyusa. org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-arbitrariness/page.do?id=1101083. Accessed May 15 2009. Amnesty International, Death Penalty and Race, http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/ death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-race/page.do?id=1101091. Accessed Sept. 15, 2009. Amnesty International, United States of America: Death by discrimination the continuing role of race in capital case, Apr. 23, 2003, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AMR51/046/2003/en/bd8584ef-d712-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/amr510462003en.pdf. Amnesty International, United States of America: Death by discrimination the continuing role of race in capital case, Apr. 23, 2003, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ AMR51/046/2003/en/bd8584ef-d712-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/amr510462003en.pdf. Ruth Friedman, Decisions and Death. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/death01. htm. Accessed May 19 2009. Ruth Friedman, Decisions and Death. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/03justice/death01. htm. Accessed May 19 2009. Raymond Paternoster et al., An Empirical Analysis of Marylands Death Sentencing System With Respect to the Influence of Race and Legal Jurisdiction. 2003, 36-37. Jon B. Gould and Lisa Greenman, Update on Cost, Quality, and Availability of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases. June 2008, 39-40. Death Penalty and Arbitrariness, Amnesty International [on-line]; http://www.amnestyusa. org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-arbitrariness/page.do?id=1101083. Accessed 15 May 2009. Death Penalty: Uncertain Justice, Seattle Post-Intelligencer. http://www.seattlepi.com/ specials/deathpenalty. Accessed May 26 2009. M. Coyle et al. cited in Arbitrariness, Death Penalty Information Center. http:// deathpenaltyinfo.org/arbitrariness. Accessed 15 May 2009. Jon B. Gould and Lisa Greenman, Update on Cost, Quality, and Availability of Defense Representation in Federal Death Penalty Cases. June 2008, 24-25. Death Penalty Information Center, Costs of the Death Penalty, http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ costs-death-penalty. Accessed Sept. 15 2009. Death Penalty Information Center, Costs of the Death Penalty, http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ costs-death-penalty. Accessed Sept. 15, 2009. WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, FINAL REPORT OF THE DEATH PENALTY SUB COMMITTEE 32, (2006). Performance Audit Report: Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections, The Legislative of Post Audit of the state of Kansas. December 2003, 11. Amnesty International, Death Penalty Cost, http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/deathpenalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/page.do?id=1101084. Accessed Sept. 15, 2009. National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Cost, http://ncadp.org/index. cfm?content=24 (accessed Sept. 15, 2009). Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice cited in Costs of the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty. Accessed 19 May 2009. Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice cited in Costs of the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty. Accessed 19 May 2009. Natasha Minsker, ACLU of Northern California, California Could Save $1 Billion Dollars in 5 Years By Eliminating Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center. http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-could-save-1-billion-5-years-eliminating-death-penalty. Accessed 18 June 2009. The Budgetary Repurcussions of Capital Convictions (Natl Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 8382, 2001). The Inflation Calculator, http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ (accessed Sept. 15, 2009). Lethal Injection, Amnesty international [on-line]; available from http://www.amnestyusa. org/death-penalty/lethal-injection/page.do?id=1101012; Internet; accessed 15 May 2009. AMA Press Release, AMA: Physician Participation in Lethal Injection Violates Medical Ethics, July 17, 2006 Lethal Injection, Capital Punishment in the U.K. [on-line]; available from http://www. capitalpunishmentuk.org/injection.html; Internet; accessed 18 June 2009. Lethal Injection, Amnesty international. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/lethalinjection/page.do?id=1101012. Accessed 15 May 2009. John J. Donohue, The Death Penalty: No Evidence for Deterrence, Economists Voice (2006). Dr. Jeffrey Fagan, Death and Deterrence Redux:Science, Law and Casual Reading on Capital Punishment, 4 OHIO ST. J. OF CRIM. L. 255 (2006) Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates, Death Penalty Information Center. http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-stateswithout-the-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates. Accessed 26 May 2009. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (Fourth Ed. 2000). Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007). See James E. Ellis, Mental Retardation and the Death Penalty: A Guide to State Legislative Issues, p. 5-6. Whats New, Death Penalty Information Center, http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/. Accessed Oct. 8, 2009. Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International. http://asiapacific.amnesty. org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng. Accessed 22 May 2009. Amnesty International, Death Penalty and Innocence, http://www.amnestyusa.org/ death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-innocence/page.do?id=1101086 (last accessed 14 September 2009). Status as at :29-06-2009 10:02:07 EDT: Chapter IV Human Rights, Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, UN Treaty Collection. http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails. aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-12&chapter=4&lang=en. Accessed June 29 2009. Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty, Amnesty International. http://asiapacific.amnesty. org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng. Accessed May 22 2009. Death Penalty: Countries Abolitionist for All Crimes, Amnesty International [on-line]; available from http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/countries-abolitionist-for-all-crimes. Accessed 19 June 2009. Death Penalty and Human Rights Standards, Amnesty International [on-line]; available from http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-and-humanrights-standards/page.do?id=1101089. Accessed 26 May 2009. Death Penalty Trends, Amnesty International [on-line]; available from http://www. amnest yusa .org /de ath - penalt y/de ath - penalt y-f ac t s/de ath - penalt y-trends/page . do?id=1011572; Internet; accessed 26 May 2009. Death Penalty Statistics, Amnesty International. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/ international-death-penalty/death-penalty-statistics/page.do?id=1011348. Accessed May 2009. Statistics. Anti-Death Penalty.org. http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html. Accessed 26 May 2009. States With and Without the Death Penalty, Death Penalty Information Center. http:// www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty. Accessed June 19 2009. Rell Vows to Veto Ban on Death Penalty in Connecticut, The Associated Press. http://www. nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/connecticut/23death.html?scp=2&sq=death%20penalty%20 +connecticut&st=cse. Accessed June 19 2009. Tom Coyne, Indiana executions at slowest pace in 15 years, The Associated Press. http:// www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-indianaexecutions,0,4511935.story. Accessed June 19 2009. Death Penalty Statistics, Amnesty International. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/ international-death-penalty/death-penalty-statistics/page.do?id=1011348. Accessed May 2009. Death Penalty Statistics, Amnesty International. http://www.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/ international-death-penalty/death-penalty-statistics/page.do?id=1011348. Accessed May 2009. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), (16 December 1966) entry into force 23 March 1967, in accordance with Article 49. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, G.A. res. 2106 (XX), (21 December 1965) entry into force 4 January 1969, in accordance with Article 19. Human rights Committee, General Comment No. 13: Equality Before the Courts and the Right to A Fair Trial and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law, April 13, 1984. Supra note 1. ICCPR art. 9. Ibid ICCPR art. 6. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6: The Right to Life, April 30, 1982. Supra note 1. ICCPR art. 7/10 AND UDHR art. 5. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, March 3, 1992. International Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G. A. res. 39/46 (10 December 1984) entry into force 26 June 1987, in accordance with article 27 (1).) Human Rights Committee General Comment 8: Right to liberty and security of persons, June 30, 1982. Supra note 5 GC 13. Supra note 1 ICCPR art. 9. Supra note 6. CAT. Supra note 1. ICCPR art. 6 AND Supra note 5. GC 6. Ibid. ICCPR art. 14 AND UDHR art. 11. Human Rights Committee General comment 18: Non-discrimination, November 10, 1989. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6: The Right to Life, April 30, 1982. Human Rights Committee General Comment 8: Right to liberty and security of persons, June 30, 1982. Human rights Committee, General Comment No. 13: Equality Before the Courts and the Right to A Fair Trial and Public Hearing by an Independent Court Established by Law, April 13, 1984. Human Rights Committee General comment 18: Nondiscrimination, November 10, 1989. Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 20: Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, March 3, 1992.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

45.

9.

46. 47.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

48.

49.

50. 51. 52. 53.

15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

54.

55. 56. 57.

22. 23. 24.

58.

25.

26.

59. 60. 61. 62.

27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.

The Advocates for Human Rights 650 Third Avenue South, #1240, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612-341-3302