HARM REDUCTION
INTERNATIONAL
www.hri.global
The Death Penalty
for Drug Oences:
Global Overview 2018
FEBRUARY 2019
Giada Girelli
Harm Reduction International
2
3The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Giada Girelli
© Harm Reduction International, 2019
ISBN 978-0-9935434-8-7
Copy-edited by Richard Fontenoy
Designed by Mark Joyce
Published by Harm Reduction International
61 Mansell Street, Aldgate, London E1 8AN
Telephone: +44 (0)20 7324 3535
E-mail: o[email protected]
Website: www.hri.global
Harm Reduction International is a leading non-governmental organisation dedicated to reducing the
negative health, social and legal impacts of drug use and drug policy. We promote the rights of people
who use drugs and their communities through research and advocacy to help achieve a world where
drug policies and laws contribute to healthier, safer societies.
This publication has been produced with the nancial support of the European Union. The contents
of this publication are the sole responsibility of Harm Reduction International and can under no
circumstances be regarded as reecting the position of the European Union.
Acknowledgements
This report would not be possible without data made available or shared by leading human rights organisations and individual
experts, with many of them also providing advice and assistance throughout the drafting process. We would specically like to thank:
the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Amnesty International, Hands O Cain, the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide,
the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran, The Rights Practice, the
Global Commission on Drug Policy, the International Drug Policy Consortium, Reprieve, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan,
the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, the Lawyers Collective, the Death Penalty Project, the Asian Network of People who Use Drugs,
Release, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the Human Rights and Democracy Media Center ‘SHAMS’ in Palestine, Project 39A,
Odhikar, Foundation for Fundamental Rights, Justice Project Pakistan and the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights. We are
also indebted to Samantha Chong, Rick Lines, Lucy Harry and Amal Ali.
Thanks are also owed to the following colleagues at Harm Reduction International for their helpful feedback and support in preparing
this report: Cinzia Brentari, Naomi Burke-Shyne, Catherine Cook, Edward Fox, Sarah Lowther, Emily Rowe, Gen Sander, Sam Shirley-
Beavan and Katie Stone.
Any errors are the responsibility of Harm Reduction International.
The Death Penalty for Drug Oences:
Global Overview 2018
HARM REDUCTION
INTERNATIONAL
Harm Reduction International
4
INTRODUCTION
Harm Reduction International (HRI) has monitored use of
the death penalty for drug oences worldwide since our rst
ground-breaking publication on this issue in 2007. This report,
our eighth on the subject, continues our work of providing
regular updates on legislative and practical developments
related to the use of capital punishment for drug oences, a
practice which is a clear violation of international human rights
law.
The 2018 Global Overview outlines key trends across the
at least 35 countries that retain the death penalty for drug
oences in law, and analyses data on death sentences and
executions from the last decade. Extensive examination
is provided on the divergent trends witnessed in 2018 of
falling execution numbers globally, and rising appeal for
reimplementation of the death penalty in some countries,
while considering the role public opinion plays in all of this.
Harm Reduction International opposes the death penalty in all
cases without exceptions, regardless of the person accused
and their conviction, the nature of the crime, and the method
of execution.
METHODOLOGY
Drug oences (also referred to as drug-related oences or
drug-related crimes) are drug-related activities categorised as
crimes under national laws; for the purposes of this report, this
denition excludes activities which are not related to tracking,
possession or use of controlled substances and related
inchoate oences (inciting, assisting or abetting a crime).
In retentionist states, capital punishment is typically applied
for the following drug oences: cultivating and manufacturing,
smuggling, tracking and importing/exporting controlled
substances. However, the denition of capital drug oences
can also include (among others): possession, storing and hiding
controlled substances; nancing drug oences; and inducing
or coercing others into using drugs.
Harm Reduction International’s research on the death penalty
for drug oences excludes countries where drug oences
are punishable with death only if they involve, or result in,
intentional killing. For example, in Saint Lucia (not included in
this report), the only drug-related oence punishable by death
is murder committed in connection with drug tracking or
other drug oences.
1
The death penalty is reported as ‘mandatory’ when it is the only
punishment that can be imposed for at least certain categories
of drug oences, or in the presence/absence of certain
circumstances.
The numbers that have been included in this report are drawn
from, and cross-checked against: ocial government reports
(where available) and state-run news agencies; judgments;
NGO reports and databases; United Nations (UN) documents;
media reports; scholarly articles; and communication with local
human rights advocates, organisations and groups. Every eort
has been taken to minimise inaccuracies, but there is always
the potential for error. HRI welcomes information or additional
data not included here.
Identifying current drug laws and controlled drugs schedules
can be challenging, due to limited reporting and recording
at national level, together with language barriers. Some
governments make their laws available on ocial websites;
where it was not possible to independently verify a specic law,
the report relies on credible secondary sources.
With respect to data on death row populations, death
sentences and executions, the margin for error is even
greater. In most countries, information around the use of the
death penalty is shrouded in secrecy, or opaque at best. For
this reason, many of the gures cited in this report cannot
be considered comprehensive, and have to be considered
minimum numbers of conrmed sentences and executions,
illustrative of how capital punishment is carried out for drug
oences. It is likely that real numbers are higher, in some cases
signicantly. Where information is incomplete, there has been
an attempt to identify the gaps. In some cases, information
among sources is discordant, due to this lack of transparency.
In these cases, HRI has made a judgement based on available
evidence.
When the symbol ‘+’ is found next to a number, it means that
the reported gure refers to the minimum conrmed number,
but according to credible reports real gures are likely to be
higher. Global and yearly gures are calculated by using the
minimum conrmed gures.
THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENCES:
Global Overview 2018
5The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Foreword 6
Executive summary 7
At a crossroads: an analysis of divergent trends 9
Progress towards abolition 10
Resurgence or expansion of the death penalty for drug oences 16
Public support for capital punishment and penal populism 17
Country-by-country analysis 22
Categories 22
Legislation table - high application states 28
High Application Low Application Symbolic Application Insucient Data
China 24 Egypt 30 Bahrain 33 Libya 38
Indonesia 25 Iraq 30 Bangladesh 33 North Korea 38
Iran 25 Lao PDR 31 Brunei Darussalam 37 Syria 38
Malaysia 26 Pakistan 31 Cuba 37 Yemen 38
Saudi Arabia 26 State of Palestine (Gaza) 32 India 34
Singapore 27 Taiwan 32 Jordan 34
Vietnam 27 Thailand 32 Kuwait 37
Mauritania 35
Myanmar 35
Oman 37
Qatar 35
South Korea 36
South Sudan 37
Sri Lanka 36
Sudan 36
United Arab Emirates 36
United States of America 37
CONTENTS
Harm Reduction International
6
We have reached a tipping point in the history of the death
penalty for drug oences. This abhorrent practice is now being
implemented with less frequency, thanks to the realisation
among countries that were once prolic executioners that the
death penalty is a futile practice.
Capital punishment does not deter people from using or
tracking drugs. There is an enormous amount of evidence in
support of this. In countries that have aggressively pursued the
death penalty in recent decades, the drug market continues to
ourish.
While failing in its primary goal of impacting the drug trade,
the death penalty has enacted misery on the lives of some of
society’s poorest and most vulnerable. Those sentenced to
face execution for drug oences are often people at the lowest
level of the trade, a number of whom may have entered it out
of coercion or simply having no economic choice. In these
scenarios, the legal system will only exploit their indigence,
as stories of no access to legal aid and sham trials are all too
common.
It has been heartening to see my home country of Malaysia
– spurred by the case of a man convicted for a low-level drug
oence – begin to explore full abolition of the death penalty,
with government ministers admitting its ineectiveness as a
deterrent. The country’s executions for drug oences have
dropped markedly in recent years, though the death row
population continues to grow – roughly three-quarters of
the more than 1,200 people there were convicted for drug
oences. Until the death penalty is done away with, the
risk remains of more people having to languish in horric
conditions awaiting implementation of a death sentence.
While there is optimism in Malaysia’s moves toward abolition
and the downward trend globally in executions, now is not the
time to celebrate. Progress is fragile, and Malaysia’s review of
abolition is causing unrest in some quarters that want to see
continuation of the death penalty. Furthermore, a bill is yet
to be laid before parliament to decide the issue. Meanwhile
in Iran, which has seen the starkest fall in executions for drug
oences, death sentences continue to be handed down with
regularity.
Worryingly, we are seeing the re-emergence of pro-death
penalty rhetoric from country leaders playing to populist
anti-drug sentiment. Bangladesh expanded use of the death
penalty for drug oences in 2018, citing the scourge of drugs
on the country’s youth and families. At the time of writing,
Sri Lanka’s president was threatening to end a 43-year
moratorium on executions and begin signing death warrants
for convicted drug trackers.
Drugs will forever be a lightning rod in political discourse, but
leaders cannot continue to be guided by ill-informed prejudice
against drug use. For too long, the evidence has been ignored
that punitive drug policies, including the death penalty, do
more harm than good to our societies.
To capitalise on this tipping point for the death penalty for
drug oences, total abolition has to be enacted. It is not good
enough that executions cease and people are still left at the
mercy of unjust legal processes and ultimately appalling death
row conditions. As Bangladesh and Sri Lanka underscore,
until there is abolition, the spectre of the death penalty’s
reimplementation will remain.
With regards to drug oences more broadly, this conversation
needs to go further than the death penalty. Punitive drug
policies are ineective and causing myriad harms to society.
If leaders truly want to protect their citizens and mitigate
harm, they must ground drug laws in dignity, human rights
and evidence. More and more countries are beginning to
understand this. Now is the time for them to accelerate change
and ensure past failures are not repeated in the future.
FOREWORD BY Professor Adeeba Kamarulzaman
Dean of Medicine, University of Malaya, Malaysia
7The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
The death penalty for drug oences is a clear violation of
international human rights law. Numerous international
authorities and legal scholars have rearmed this point,
including the UN Human Rights Committee as recently as
2018.
Since Harm Reduction International began monitoring the use
of this abhorrent practice in 2007, annual implementation of
the death penalty for drug oences has uctuated markedly.
Over 4,000 people were executed globally for these oences
between 2008 and 2018, with executions hitting a peak above
750 in 2015 (excluding China and Vietnam, where these gures
are a state secret). Notably, 2018 gures show a signicant
downward trend, with known executions falling below 100
globally.
Iran, among the most prolic executioners for drug oences,
passed reforms in 2017 which resulted in a drastic reduction in
the implementation of the death penalty. After a bloody stretch
from 2015-2016, there were no executions (for any oence)
carried out in Indonesia for a second consecutive year, and
Malaysia – once among the most resolute supporters of the
death penalty, including for drug oences – committed to total
abolition of the death penalty in 2018.
Yet, while executions are falling, thousands of people remain
on death row for drug oences. A number of these people
are at the lowest levels of the drug trade, socio-economically
vulnerable, are tried without due process and/or have
inadequate legal representation. In short, it appears that the
death penalty for drug oences is primarily reserved for the
most marginalised in society.
Other events in 2018 show that for every progressive step,
there is a regressive counter-narrative. In Bangladesh
and Sri Lanka, populist rhetoric against the ‘threat’ of the
‘drugs menace’ has seen leaders push for expansion or re-
implementation of the death penalty, while governments in the
Philippines and United States (among others) pointed to capital
punishment as an essential tool to confront drug tracking or
public health emergencies.
There is no evidence that the death penalty is an eective
deterrent to the drug trade – in fact, according to available
estimates, drug markets continue to thrive around the world,
despite drug laws in almost every country being grounded in
a punitive approach. The response to drug use and the drug
trade remains heavily politicised, frequently resulting in a
rejection of evidence, even when brutal crackdowns are shown
to inict countless harms and rights violations on society.
In December 2018, a record 120 countries voted in favour
of the Resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death
penalty at the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly,
2
and
since 2008 the number of abolitionist countries crept up from
92 to 106 in 2017.
3
This is a positive trend, but when countered
by inammatory political rhetoric, progress is fragile at best.
Governments must ground their drug laws in rights, dignity and
evidence, and do away with the death penalty once and for all.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Harm Reduction International
8
THE DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENCES
IN 2018: A SNAPSHOT
Drug oences are punishable by death in at least 35
countries and territories worldwide.
4
The total number of conrmed executions for drug
oences (excluding China, including very limited data from
Vietnam) between 2008 and 2018 is 4,366 (of which
3,975 were in Iran alone).
Only four of these countries executed individuals for drug
oences in 2018 (China, Iran, Singapore and Saudi Arabia).
It is likely that Vietnam carried out drug-related executions,
but because of state secrecy it is not possible to conrm
this.
At least 91 people were executed for drug oences in
2018 (excluding China and Vietnam).
This represents a 68.5% decrease from 2017, a fall
primarily driven by developments in Iran, where
executions for drug oences fell 90% (from 221 in 2017 to
23 in 2018).
Saudi Arabia was responsible for the most conrmed
drug-related executions in 2018 (at least 59).
Singapore executed nine people in 2018 (one more
than 2017), all of them for drug oences.
Over 7,000 people are currently on death row for drug
oences globally.
5
At least 13 countries sentenced a minimum of 149
people to death for non-violent drug oences in 2018.
A signicant proportion of those sentenced are foreign
nationals.
Civil society reports and UN investigations shed light
on the grave human rights abuses endured by many
individuals awaiting or risking execution: fair trial
violations; physical and psychological abuse; isolation;
and denial of food and water, among many others.
Table 1
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Global Executions
for Drugs
168
208
706
529
399
327
526
755
369
288
91
0
200
400
600
800
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
168
208
706
529
399
327
526
755
369
288
91
Global Executions for Drugs
(Minimum confirmed figures, excluding China)
1
Chart 1: Global Executions for Drugs
(minimum conrmed gures, excluding China)
9The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
In contrast with a global trend towards abolition, in the past
30 years the death penalty has been increasingly employed by
some states as a key element of repressive strategies aimed at
curbing drug use and/or drug tracking. Often, such strategies
are rooted in prejudice, fear, intimidation and violence, rather
than empirical and scientic evidence.
After decades of policies that rely on harsh punishment, and
the threat and spectacle of executions, there is no evidence
that the death penalty has any unique deterrent eect on
either the supply or the use of controlled substances. In fact,
the opposite appears to be true: the 2018 World Drug Report,
published by the UN Oce on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),
admits that in spite of punitive approaches to drug control,
the drug market is booming, and a “potential supply-driven
expansion of drug markets, with production of opium and
manufacture of cocaine at the highest levels ever recorded”
is expected.
6
The UNODC Regional Oce for Southeast
Asia – where most retentionist countries for drug oences
are located – recently acknowledged that the production
and tracking of methamphetamine in the region has been
increasing steadily, and is now reaching “alarming levels”.
7
Another common claim of retentionist governments is that
the death penalty is necessary to protect the health of their
citizens.
8
However, analysis by HRI suggests that no positive
correlation has been found between the imposition of the
death penalty and drug use or the protection of public health.
In particular, the latest data from UNODC show that high
application countries – such as Malaysia, Vietnam and Iran
– have larger documented populations of people who inject
drugs than countries that have abolished the death penalty
for drug oences, in law or in practice.
9
Similarly, Thailand,
Vietnam, Malaysia and China (all retentionist countries)
record higher prevalence of Hepatitis C among people who
inject drugs than their counterparts in the region which are
abolitionist in law or in practice (such as Sri Lanka, Cambodia
and Nepal).
10
These ndings mirror those of an earlier study conducted
by Professor Jerey Fagan, which found no evidence that
the death penalty deters drug tracking and states that
“comparisons of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore show that
the rate of execution has no eect on the prices of drugs nor
on the relative rates of drug prevalence”.
11
An analysis of recent developments regarding the use of
the death penalty for drug oences points to the existence
of divergent while contemporaneous trends. This report
will deconstruct and assess these trends, and consider an
interesting third dynamic playing into both: public opinion on
the death penalty.
The rst notable trend is a shift away from the death penalty
for drug oences, also manifested by a substantial drop in
drug-related executions in 2018. The analysis below details
key national reforms that have progressively restricted the
application of the death penalty. It also highlights signicant
limitations of these reforms, in particular:
A failure to envisage fair, proportionate and humane
alternatives to the death penalty.
Restrictions to judicial discretion.
A limited impact on the imposition of death sentences in
practice – insomuch that thousands of individuals remain
on death row for non-violent drug oences around the
world, in inhumane conditions of detention.
The second and opposite trend is the resurgence of
discourses advocating for the death penalty as an essential
instrument of drug control.
This can be witnessed in populist contexts and is driven
by a rejection of evidence pointing to the lack of a unique
deterrent eect of the death penalty, and of health- and
evidence-based approaches to drug control. The rise of
populism has revamped local and international crackdowns
on drugs in many parts of the world, from the United States
to the Philippines and from Sri Lanka to Bangladesh: self-
pronounced anti-establishment leaders dismiss ‘politically
correct’ discourses of human rights, dignity and the rule of
law to launch anti-drug campaigns feeding o prejudice and
misinformation.
Finally, this report will examine surveys on public attitudes on
the death penalty in South East Asian countries, which reveal
surprisingly diverse public opinion on the topic.
AT A CROSSROADS:
AN ANALYSIS OF DIVERGENT TRENDS
Harm Reduction International
10
PROGRESS TOWARDS ABOLITION
In the past decade, progressive reforms restricting the
application of capital punishment for drug oences have
been adopted in at least ve out of the 35 countries that
retain the death penalty for drug oences. Some were the
result of domestic civil society activism,
12
or were preceded
by mounting international pressure; some followed a more or
less tacit acknowledgment on the part of national authorities
of the ineectiveness of capital punishment as a tool for drug
control. This is best exemplied by the case of Iran, where a
2017 amendment to the Law for Combating Illicit Drugs was
preceded by unexpectedly frank stances by prominent gures.
Mohammad Baqer Olfat, the deputy head of the judiciary,
stated: “The truth is, the execution of drug smugglers has had
no deterrent eect”,
13
and called for a revision of the anti-
narcotics law, joining the secretary of Iran’s Human Rights
Council and over half of the country’s lawmakers.
14
Similarly
throughout 2017, Jalil Rahimi Jahanabadi, MP and member
of the Parliament Legal and Judicial Committee, repeatedly
acknowledged the failure of executions to deter drug use and
drug tracking.
15
Globally, progress to restrict the scope of the death penalty
took three key forms:
a) Abolition of the death penalty for certain drug oences.
b) Abolition of the death penalty as a mandatory
punishment for drug oences in the presence of specic
circumstances, thus giving judges some degree of exibility
in sentencing.
c) Amendments to the denition of drug oences punishable
by death.
a) Abolition of the death penalty for certain drug oences
Since 2015, Vietnam and Thailand reviewed their laws
to remove certain drug oences from the list of crimes
punishable by death. In 2015, Vietnam adopted an amended
criminal code where the death penalty is abolished for eight
oences, including drug possession.
16
Other drug oences,
such as manufacturing, transporting and tracking specic
controlled substances, are still punishable by death.
17
A similar approach was followed by Thailand, which in 2017
confronted severe prison overcrowding by amending the
Narcotics Act B.E. 2522, with the eect of abolishing the death
penalty for selling drugs. The same reform also expanded
opportunities for legal defence. Before the amendment,
any person caught in possession of certain quantities of
controlled drugs was automatically tried for drug tracking;
now, the intention to sell drugs is presumed, but rebuttable by
presenting adequate evidence.
18
b) Abolition of the death penalty as a mandatory
punishment for drug oences in the presence of specic
circumstances
Singapore and Malaysia partially abolished the death penalty
as a mandatory punishment for drug oences. In 2013,
Singapore removed the death penalty from its Misuse of
Drugs Act as a mandatory punishment for drug tracking,
importing and exporting.
19
Judges can now exercise a
limited amount of discretion in sentencing in the presence
of specic circumstances – namely, the limited involvement
of the accused in the illicit activity, and her/his substantial
contribution to disrupting drug tracking (described more in
detail below).
A similar reform was passed by Malaysia in late 2017. The
amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 (Revised
1980), which entered into force in March 2018,
20
repeals the
mandatory death penalty for drug tracking, thus removing
a major obstacle to judicial discretion. Similarly to Singapore,
this discretion can only be exercised if the defendant satises
strictly dened requirements (described in more detail below).
c) Amendments to the denition of drug oences punishable
by death
In October 2017, the Guardian Council of Iran approved a
parliamentary bill which amended the Law for Combating
Illicit Drugs (2017 Iranian Bill),
21
most notably by raising
the minimum amounts required for drug oences to be
punishable by death. The threshold for capital punishment
of production and tracking
22
of natural substances (bhang,
Indian hemp juice, grass, opium and opium juice, residue) has
been raised from ve to 50 kilogrammes; while the relevant
amount of processed substances (heroin, morphine, cocaine
and other chemical derivatives of morphine or cocaine), once
30 grammes, is now two kilogrammes.
23
Carrying, storing and
hiding processed substances is now punishable by death in
cases where the oence involves over three kilogrammes of
such substances.
24
11The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
THE IMPACT OF THE REFORMS
The aforementioned and other national reforms have had
some positive impact on the ground. Most signicantly, the
steady decrease in (conrmed) global executions for drug
oences:
25
from 755 in 2015 to 369 conrmed executions in
2016, to 288 conrmed executions in 2017, and 91 conrmed
executions in 2018 (this represents a 68% drop from 2017 and
a 88% drop from 2015).
26
The latter is primarily due to a 90% decrease in drug-related
executions in Iran (from 221 conrmed executions
27
in 2017
to 23 in 2018).
28
With some exceptions, executions for drug
oences were put on hold in the country whilst thousands of
eligible sentences were being reviewed. The 2017 Iranian Bill
applies retroactively: in March 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur
on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of
Iran reported that over 5,000 individuals on death row or
imprisoned for life for drug oences – 90% of which are young
rst-time oenders – may see their sentence commuted.
29
In the past ten years, non-violent drug oences have
accounted for 23% to 66% of all executions globally. In 2018,
due to the impact of the Iranian reform (together with the
absence of executions in high-application countries such as
Indonesia and Malaysia) they only constituted 13% of total
global executions. In turn, global executions for all crimes saw
a 31% decline.
30
This shows how signicant domestic reforms
to narcotic laws can be in substantially reducing the application
of the death penalty overall.
Confirmed Executions in Iran
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Drugs
140
200
705
521
378
297
479
672
339
221
23
Other crimes
269
251
94
166
201
481
473
382
253
286
231
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Executions for drug offences Executions for other offences
1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Drug Oences 140 200 705 521 378 297 479 672 339 221 23
Other Oences 269 251 94 166 201 481 473 382 253 286 231
Chart 2: Conrmed Executions in Iran
Global executions per year (minimum confirmed figures, excluding China)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Executions for
drugs
168
208
706
529
399
327
526
755
369
288
91
Execs total
567
569
368
476
548
860
744
956
688
705
591
0
600
1200
1800
2008 2009
2010
2011
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
591
705
688
956
744
860
548
476
368
569
567
91
288
369
755
526
327
399
529
706
208
168
Executions for drug offences Executions for other offences
735
777
1074
1005
947
1187
1270
1711
1057
993
682
1
Chart 3: Global executions per year (minimum conrmed gures, excluding China)
Harm Reduction International
12
LIMITATIONS OF THE REFORMS
Notwithstanding their signicance in reducing the number
of people executed, central aspects of the aforementioned
reforms are problematic in their design and implementation.
As such, they risk obstructing the very progress towards
abolishing the death penalty they have contributed to.
a) Disproportionate alternatives and limited judicial
discretion
While substantial attention has been devoted to the review
of quantities of controlled substances ‘activating’ the death
penalty, other, less progressive provisions of the 2017 Iranian
Bill have received less scrutiny. In fact, newly inserted clauses
will likely expand capital punishment to new categories of
oences and oenders. The Abdorrahman Boroumand Center
for Human Rights in Iran (ABC) stressed the risk that individuals
who have not personally committed a crime will be sentenced
to death through collective liability, and expressed concern
regarding the potential for abusive interpretations of broad
and unclearly dened terms in the bill.
31
The 2017 Iranian Bill also fails to address credible and
systematic reports of torture and ill-treatment suered by
those arrested for drug oences with the aim of forcing
confessions, and grave violations of fair trial rights, such
as denial of legal representation in the early stages of
investigations.
32
Finally, although ocial information on the
review process is not available, civil society reports excessive
and disproportionate punishments being imposed as an
alternative to death sentences, in the form of excessive prison
terms, corporal punishment and/or nes.
“The mother of one drug defendant reports to ABC
that her son’s death sentence for a crime involving 450
grams of methamphetamine was converted to 30 years’
imprisonment and a ne of 200 million tomans (around
US$64,000) – a punishment she calls tantamount to the
death penalty”.
33
For reference, the average annual income of urban families
in Iran has been reported at around 37 million tomans
(US$8,800), with an average living cost of nearly 33 million
tomans. For rural families, the average annual income
registered is just over 20 million tomans (US$4,770).
34
Failure
to pay can lead to expropriation of assets, as well as additional
prison time. Such a provision is highly problematic, in that it
“intensies negative consequences faced by those sentenced,
many of whom are driven to drug activity out of poverty and
unemployment, and their families”.
35
Disproportionate alternative punishments are also prescribed
in the Malaysian and Singaporean reforms. Both laws limit
the discretion of judges to life imprisonment and caning as
alternative to the death penalty.
36
This limitation to judicial power is not exceptional. Rather, it is a
common feature of many domestic narcotics laws, and a visible
manifestation of the exceptionalism characterising repressive
drug policies. For example:
In Pakistan, when the relevant oence involves more
than ten kilogrammes of a controlled substance, the only
available punishments are the death penalty and life
imprisonment.
37
In Saudi Arabia, a death sentence can only be commuted
(irrespective of the crime, the controlled substance and
individual circumstances) to imprisonment for a minimum
of 15 years, agellation and a ne of at least 100,000 riyals
(around $26,600).
38
In Taiwan, the only possible alternative to capital
punishment for relevant drug oences is life
imprisonment.
39
In Thailand, the death penalty for selling drugs has been
replaced with life imprisonment and a ne.
40
Judicial discretion in Malaysia and Singapore is further
restricted via prosecutorial powers. In Singapore, this
happens through ‘certicates of assistance’, whose use and
impact was thoroughly scrutinised by Amnesty International in
2017.
41
The recent amendments to the countries’ respective narcotic
laws allowed judges to exercise a degree of discretion, but only
if and after a prosecutor certies that the convicted person
has provided substantial assistance in disrupting tracking
activities (details in the text box below).
42
This further manifests
the exceptionalism characterising drug control policies: “in
no other common law jurisdiction does the prosecution have
the power to tie the judge’s hands in this way and prevent the
exercise of discretion in capital cases”.
43
In parallel, several presumptions were kept in place. Firstly,
alleged oenders are presumed guilty of drug tracking any
13The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
time they are found in possession of a certain amount of
controlled substances (in Singapore as little as three grammes
of cocaine, roughly the equivalent of a cube of sugar; while
tracking over 30 grammes of cocaine is punishable with
death).
44
And secondly, possession, control and knowledge of
the nature of the substances are presumed in a broad range
of circumstances, thus placing the onus on the accused to
prove their innocence.
45
In Singapore, for example, a person
is presumed to be in possession of a drug anytime s/he has
in possession or under her/his control anything containing a
controlled substance, or keys to any place, premises or object
where a controlled substance is found.
46
In addition, a prosecutor’s determination of whether a person
‘deserves’ a discretionary sentence is dicult to appeal: in
Singapore, a judicial review is only allowed for cases in which
the prosecutor has acted in bad faith, or with malice.
Presumptions in drug cases: Singapore
and Malaysia
The Singapore Misuse of Drugs Act allows imprisonment
rather than the death penalty only if:
“(a) The convicted individual was involved in the drug crime
as a mere ‘courier’, meaning his involvement in the oence
was restricted —
(i) to transporting, sending or delivering a controlled
drug;
(ii) to oering to transport, send or deliver a controlled
drug;
(iii) to doing or oering to do any act preparatory to
or for the purpose of his transporting, sending or
delivering a controlled drug; or
(iv) to any combination of activities in sub-paragraphs (i),
(b) the public prosecutor certies that the individual has
substantively assisted the Central Narcotics Bureau in
disrupting drug tracking activities within or outside
Singapore”.
Similarly, judicial discretion in Malaysia can now be
exercised only if:
(a) There was no evidence of buying and selling of a
controlled substance at the time when the person
convicted was arrested;
(b) There was no involvement of agent provocateur; or
(c) The involvement of the person convicted was limited
to the role of courier (here dened as transporting,
carrying, sending or delivering a controlled substance);
AND
(d) that the person convicted has assisted an enforcement
agency in disrupting drug tracking activities within or
outside Malaysia.
The combined impact of the provisions expanding
prosecutorial powers, together with the several presumptions,
is a structurally prejudiced system of justice:
48
Because of the presumptions, and the strict standards for
their rebuttal, defendants are essentially guilty until proven
innocent, in violation of one of the most fundamental
tenets of the right to fair trial.
The substantial assistance test is inherently discriminatory:
the lower the position of the courier in the drug tracking
chain, the less likely it is that s/he will be able to provide
meaningful information, and thus be “certied” (even less
if the person has been coerced or forced into tracking.)
By denition, couriers operate at the peripheries of drug
markets, with little to no impact on decision-making
processes. These provisions are therefore double-edged
in allowing for clemency in favour of such a low-level,
powerless gure, while at the same time conditioning
such potential for clemency on their ability to provide
information that is likely to be unavailable to them.
Regardless of the amount and reliability of the information
shared, a person will only meet the “substantial assistance
test” if their cooperation had the eect of assisting in the
disruption of tracking activities.
The Singaporean law stresses that the determination of
the assistance is “at the sole discretion”
49
of prosecutors,
who have exclusive and ultimate authority. This opens up
substantial space for corruption and abuse, and violates
the fundamental principles of fairness and separation
of powers. A literal life or death decision is entrusted to
prosecutors (parties to the process with incentives to
convict, thus not neutral gures) and stripped from judges,
who can only – eventually – exercise a limited amount of
discretion in a later stage.
Harm Reduction International
14
b) Failure to reform discriminatory systems
The reforms failed to address systemic issues characterising
the imposition of the death penalty for drug oences. Those
convicted of capital drug oences are largely among the most
marginalised and vulnerable both within the drug market and
in society.
“A prison guard once told me that the death penalty is
a privilege reserved for the poor” – recounted a death
row lawyer in 2011.
50
It has now been six years since Singapore amended its Misuse
of Drugs Act. According to Amnesty International, fewer death
sentences were imposed in the country in the period between
2013 and 2017 in comparison to the ve years preceding the
reform, and the amendment halved the number of people
who would have been sentenced to death.
51
However, steady
annual increases in death sentences from 2013 onwards
suggest that the reform had a limited impact in practice.
52
Most notably, sentences and executions for drug tracking
now constitute a higher proportion of overall death sentences
and executions in Singapore: while around 50% of all
executions between 2008 and 2013 were for drug oences,
this gure rose to 89% between 2014 and 2018.
53
Amnesty
International also reports that out of 41 sentences pronounced
for drug oences in Singapore between 2013 and 2017, 34
were for non-violent crimes involving extremely low quantities
of drugs (less than 90 grammes of pure substance).
54
All executions carried out in Singapore in 2018 were for
non-violent drug oences. The stories of the defendants are
telling: Prabu Pathmanathan, a 31-year-old Malaysian, was
sentenced to death for drug tracking in 2014 after heroin
was found in a car he owned, but was not driving at the time of
the discovery. His family was informed of the execution a mere
week before it was scheduled, and none of the many requests
for review submitted to Singapore – including by the Malaysian
government – succeeded in halting the execution.
55
The 2017 Malaysian reform does not apply retroactively, and
continues to allow the imposition of capital punishment for
drug tracking, which is the most common crime for which
death sentences are meted out in the country.
56
As a result,
death sentences continue to be handed down, often as a result
of awed trials.
A 2018 study by the Penang Institute in Malaysia looked at
121 cases of death sentences pronounced by Malaysian High
Courts for drug tracking between 2012 and June 2018, and
found that 25.6% of them were overruled at appeal.
57
Taking
the overruling as an indication that the earlier judgment was
“either factually or lawfully incorrect, then this would imply
that a judicial error had occurred in the lower court”.
58
Such
a nding is somewhat positive, in that it suggests that higher
courts are eective in reviewing the judgments of lower
courts, and correcting potential mistakes. However, it also
emphasises the importance of access to strong legal defence
– which is often unavailable to the most vulnerable in society
due to resource constraints in the justice system and fair trial
violations. When this is absent, or the case is not properly
reviewed, then the risk of wrongful convictions (and thus
potentially executions) remains high.
The study further points to discrimination in death penalty
cases, nding that foreign nationals are half as likely to have
their Court of Appeal judgment revised, and that women
convicted for tracking drugs have considerably less chance
than their male counterparts of seeing their cases revised and
overruled.
59
As a consequence, hundreds remain on death row in Malaysia.
According to the latest data, 932 out of 1,279 people on death
row are awaiting execution for drug oences.
60
Moreover,
convictions for drug oences continue to drive the expansion
of death row in the country: while the overall death row
population grew 13.8% between 2017 and 2018, death row
prisoners for drug oences specically increased by 38%
during the same period.
61
This is far from an exceptional situation. In Vietnam, many of
the more than 650 people on death row are awaiting execution
for drug oences.
62
Meanwhile in Thailand, almost 60% of
the 539 people on death row as of December 2018 had been
convicted of drug oences. Notably, the overwhelming majority
of women awaiting execution in Thailand (76 out of 83) have
been convicted for drug oences.
63
These data conrm how
exceptionally repressive drug control strategies adopted by
many states are, as well as their dening impact on death row
and incarceration gures.
The Foundation for Fundamental Rights recently found that out
of 133 capital cases prosecuted under the Pakistani Control
of Narcotic Substances Act, every single death sentence was
15The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
pronounced primarily for possession-based oences, rather
than tracking or management of drug syndicates. In fact, in
30% of these cases at least one senior tracker was identied,
but only in 1% of cases were they subsequently charged
or arrested.
64
The Foundation for Fundamental Rights also
analysed the prisoners’ socio-economic backgrounds, and
noted that many of these people were mere ‘drug mules’,
who were either coerced or driven into drug tracking by
their socio-economic circumstances. Their median income
was signicantly lower than the minimum wage for unskilled
workers in the country, and over 40% of them were found to
be illiterate.
“There is little chance these individuals could be acting
independently or have acquired the narcotics they were
seized with via their own means. The average value of
the narcotics seized from each prisoner was roughly
1,600 times the prisoners’ median income”.
65
Foreign nationals, who often endure unique violations of their
fair trial rights, also constitute a substantial proportion of the
global death row population. In 2018, 569 foreign nationals
were awaiting execution in Malaysia (44% of all death row
prisoners), many for drug oences.
66
At least 29 of the 59
people executed for drug oences in Saudi Arabia in 2018
were foreign nationals, mostly from Pakistan and Nigeria.
Similarly, 60 out of 236 death row prisoners in Indonesia are
foreign nationals.
67
The charts below are illustrative of the
discrimination suered by foreign nationals in the country:
while less than 1% of police investigations into drug oences
were against foreigners in 2015 and 2016, they accounted for
almost 85% of those executed for drug oences in the same
period.
Table 1
Indonesians
99.5%
Foreign nationals
0.5%
Investigations 2015 - 2016
0.50%
Indonesians Foreign nationals
0.31%
99.69%
1
Table 1
Indonesians
16.70%
Foreign nationals
83.30%
Executions 2015 - 2016
83.30%
16.70%
Indonesians Foreign nationals
1
Chart 4: Police investigations (left) and executions (right) carried out for drug oences in Indonesia in 2015 and 2016,
against Indonesians and foreign nationals.
68
Investigations 2015 - 2016 Executions 2015 - 2016
Harm Reduction International
16
RESURGENCE OR EXPANSION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY FOR DRUG OFFENCES
In 2014-2015 – just as executions began to decrease globally
– a number of populist governments pledged to confront drug
emergencies through punitive drug control strategies centred
around judicial and extrajudicial killings.
Populism relies on a constant state of crisis and emergency.
69
As such, nothing ts a populist rhetoric better than the concept
of a war on drugs – of a domestic battleeld that requires
swift, direct and severe responses. Typically, populist leaders
identify an emergency or menace, and point to themselves
(not the international community, judges nor lawyers) as the
only authorities able and willing to confront the situation and
restore order. In a populist scenario, violence is performative:
it shows strength and control. Extrajudicial killings and the
death penalty are thus neither extreme nor unintended
consequences of populist policies, but rather essential
manifestations of power.
One of the rst indications of this trend was Indonesian
President Joko Widodo’s renewal of the ‘war on drugs’ in
the country in 2014. Widodo relied on a populist rhetoric in
support of this strategy: he denounced drugs as the number
one problem in the country,
70
and claimed Indonesia was in a
state of emergency because of drug use and tracking, and
that it could only be confronted with capital punishment.
71
In
support of this claim, the Indonesian president cited inated
data on drug dependence and drug-related deaths in the
country, the collection of which has since received criticism.
72
In January 2015, six people were executed for drug oences;
in April of the same year, eight more individuals were executed
for drug tracking.
73
This was a signicant shift for Indonesia,
which had only carried out four executions for drug oences
between 2008 and 2014, with a hiatus between 2009 and
2012. The last execution was carried out in Indonesia in July
2016;
74
however, authorities are adamant that no moratorium
is in place.
75
The resumption of capital punishment in 2015 was part of
an aggressive anti-drug campaign which continues to this
day, and features extrajudicial killings,
76
arbitrary detention,
77
compulsory treatment of people who use drugs
78
and refusal
by the president to consider clemency applications submitted
by death row prisoners convicted of drug oences.
79
In the neighbouring Philippines, President Duterte’s
crackdown on drugs – a centrepiece of his presidential
campaign
80
– has led to over 20,000 suspected extrajudicial
executions since June 2016
81
and is driving the reintroduction
of the death penalty for drug oences (a dedicated bill passed
the lower house of parliament in 2017, and is now sitting in the
senate).
82
“Duterte’s rise to power utilized penal populism by
presenting a clear narrative built on the anxieties felt
by the public. His aggressive rhetoric translated to a
promise of justice and sense of control via a strong
leader”.
83
The Philippines fully abolished the death penalty in 2006,
84
and is one of few countries in Asia to have ratied the
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death
penalty.
85
The protocol bars signatory countries from carrying
out executions and reintroducing capital punishment.
86
However, with a pro-death penalty leader, arbitrary drug
arrests and detention in overcrowded cells
87
and a preliminary
investigation for crimes against humanity opened by the
International Criminal Court,
88
the country is on the extreme
fringe of the international community.
The brutal strategy implemented in the Philippines met the
praise of USA President Donald Trump, who commended
Duterte’s “unbelievable job on the drug problem”.
89
In March
2018, President Trump laid out a plan to confront the opioid
crisis in the US, which included the imposition of the death
penalty against drug trackers.
90
This declaration was followed
by a memorandum released by then-attorney general Je
Sessions, strongly encouraging United States Attorneys to
pursue capital punishment for drug tracking.
91
In July 2018, the government of the Indian state of Punjab
called for expanding the death penalty to rst-time drug
oenders, also citing “with approval, the examples of the
regimes in Saudi Arabia and Thailand chopping o the heads of
drug trackers as eective measures”.
92
India formally retains
the death penalty for drug oences, but only for a subsequent
oence involving possession, production or transportation of
specied drugs and quantities. As a consequence, only six of
the 915 death sentences conrmed to have been pronounced
in the country from 2011 onwards are for drug oences.
17The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
This proposal represented an escalation in the local
government’s ght against the “drug menace”,
93
a term used
to refer to growing opioid use in the area. The chief minister
of Punjab, Amarinder Singh, incited violence and introduced
increasingly repressive measures, from compulsory drug
testing of government employees to prohibiting the sale of
syringes without a prescription.
94
This move was eventually
rejected by the central government.
95
In July 2018, Sri Lanka’s President Maithripala Sirisena
quashed hopes for abolition by threatening to execute 19
convicted drug trackers, which would thereby end the
country’s 42-year-long de facto moratorium on the use of the
death penalty.
96
The president cited alleged drug tracking
being directed by prisoners as a driver of an alleged “growing
tide of drugs” in the country, and praised the successes of
President Duterte.
97
According to ocial gures, Sri Lanka
hands down dozens of death sentences each year.
98
If such
a decision is implemented, it could have tragic consequences
for death row prisoners in a country where possessing two
grammes of cocaine is enough to be sentenced to death.
99
Finally, on 27 October 2018, Bangladesh approved a new
Narcotics Control Act which expands the application of
capital punishment to the manufacture and distribution of
methamphetamine, known as yaba.
100
No execution has ever
been conrmed in Bangladesh for drug oences, and only one
drug-related death sentence was reported between 2008 and
2017, although more could have been pronounced.
101
Early
signs of a potential shift are the two death sentences handed
down for drug tracking in 2018.
102
This possible resurgence of the death penalty in the country is
not an isolated phenomenon, but rather part of a wider anti-
drug campaign which has created hundreds of victims since
it was launched in May 2018 by the country’s prime minister,
Sheikh Hasina. The prime minister armed in June of the same
year: “Drugs destroy a country, a nation and a family. […] We
will continue the drive, no matter who says what”.
103
Local human rights organisations denounced 292 extra-judicial
killings between May and December 2018 caused by the
government-backed war on drugs,
104
while credible evidence
emerged of mass arrests of over 25,000 individuals,
105
enforced
disappearances and obstacles to accessing healthcare services
for people who use drugs. This war on drugs is ultimately a
war on the poor, and a political strategy to spread fear ahead
of the general elections which took place on 30 December
2018.
107
UN experts denounced that:
“‘Slum’ areas have been particularly subjected to
raids and [...] the ‘war on drugs’ disproportionately
targets poor and underprivileged people. There are
also reports that lists of individuals to be subjected to
operations have been prepared, that members of the
RAB [Rapid Action Battalion] are accepting money not to
target certain individuals, and that in some cases killings
may have been politically motivated”.
108
PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR CAPITAL
PUNISHMENT AND PENAL POPULISM
Another key feature of populist governments is their symbiotic
relationship with the public and thus their strong focus on
public opinion.
On one side, populist policies are often designed with the aim
of building or strengthening public support. Not by chance,
they tend to become more visible, or more aggressive,
in the vicinity of elections (as developments in Indonesia
and Bangladesh show). A particular manifestation of this
phenomenon is penal populism, or “the idea that public support
for more severe criminal justice policies […] has become a
primary driver of policy making”.
109
Penal populism is identied
as a driver of the increase in the use of severe criminal
punishment, irrespective of its potential as well as adequacy
to reduce crime and confront issues, because of the public
support it garners. On the other side, populist discourses often
reject evidence, expert opinions and international standards,
pointing to popular support to justify and legitimise their
policies.
These dynamics are apparent both in the eld of drug control
and in relation to the use of capital punishment. Evidence
clearly shows that the death penalty, and violently repressive
policies in general, have no unique deterrent eect on drug
tracking (as illustrated above).
110
On the contrary, they
cause signicant health and social harm. However, this body
of evidence, together with basic human rights standards, are
rejected by populist leaders as biased or foreign, or simply
ignored; while drugs are reduced to a mere criminal issue, to
be confronted with harsh criminal measures. Accordingly, the
death penalty is paraded as an easy solution to complex and
Harm Reduction International
18
deep-rooted phenomena – which are often exacerbated by
misguided choices of those same governments.
Public opinion surveys play a critical role in perpetuating
this vicious cycle. They are often cited in support of, and as
nal justication for, repressive drug policies.
111
At a closer
look, however, the reality appears to be one of awed data
collection, cherry-picked results and conated rhetoric, with
public opinion being more complex and diverse than is often
reported.
In 2013, the Death Penalty Project published the results from
one of the most detailed public opinion surveys on the death
penalty conducted in an Asian country, focused on popular
perceptions in Malaysia.
112
This study highlighted the elasticity
of people’s attitudes towards capital punishment.
When asked about their support for the death penalty for
drug tracking generally, a staggering 74% to 80% of the
participants declared to be in favour (depending on the drug
involved).
113
However, once presented with specic cases,
responses changed considerably: none of the scenarios
involving a drug oence garnered more than 29% support, and
in one specic case (a woman drug courier with no criminal
record), the support plummeted to 9%.
114
Another key factor found to be inuencing popular attitudes
is the belief in perfect justice. When expressing their support
for the death penalty for drug tracking, if it was proven that
innocent people had been executed, approval fell almost 50
points, from 75% to 26%.
115
More recently, this same methodology was employed to assess
public attitudes in Singapore. Although the country is one
of the most resolute supporters of capital punishment as an
instrument of drug control, in part because of the perceived
support enjoyed from the population, the results largely mirror
those of Malaysia:
86.9% of participants claimed to support the death penalty
for drug tracking “in general”.
117
Once presented with real-life scenarios, attitudes changed
signicantly. For the case of a female drug courier, support
for the death penalty fell to 16.7%.
118
The main reason for supporting capital punishment is
belief in its deterrent eect, and in perfect justice: “[I]f it
was proved that innocent persons have sometimes been
executed […] between 61.5% and 67.6% of those who
supported the death penalty for at least one of the three
crimes [murder, drug tracking, rearm oences] would
change their minds”.
119
Chart 5: Public support for the death penalty for drug
oences
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
General/non-contextual
Aggravated scenario
Mitigated scenario
86.9%
46.7%
16.7%
77%
29%
9%
Malaysia Singapore
Table 1
Malaysia
Singapore
General/non-
contextual
77.0%
86.9%
Aggravated
scenario
29.0%
46.7%
Mitigated
scenario
9.0%
16.7%
1
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
General/non-contextual
Aggravated scenario
Mitigated scenario
86.9%
46.7%
16.7%
77%
29%
9%
Malaysia Singapore
Table 1
Malaysia
Singapore
General/non-
contextual
77.0%
86.9%
Aggravated
scenario
29.0%
46.7%
Mitigated
scenario
9.0%
16.7%
1
On 10 October 2018, the Human Rights Commission of the
Philippines released the results of a public opinion survey on
the death penalty for drug oences
120
which disproves the
ongoing narrative claiming the people are calling for capital
punishment to be reintroduced.
121
Respondents were given dierent scenarios, and tasked with
choosing among four dierent forms of punishment, including
the death penalty. The results suggest that the majority of
Filipinos do not support the death penalty for drug oences.
For the crimes of working in and maintenance of areas where
people use drugs, manufacture, sale or importation of illicit
drugs and murder under the inuence of drugs, only 22%
to 33% of respondents (depending on the specic oence)
believe that capital punishment is the most appropriate
response.
122
Consistent with the ndings of other surveys, the
main reason for supporting the death penalty is the belief in its
deterrent eect.
123
19The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Innocence and perfect justice again proved to be key
determinants of opinion, with three in ve respondents
convinced that “the death penalty can only be imposed if
the courts are certain that they will not wrongfully execute
an innocent person”.
125
At the same time, Filipinos do not
seem to believe this perfect justice exists: almost half of the
survey respondents are convinced that most people in prison
are innocent, and three in ve are concerned that wrongful
sentencing is “very possible”.
126
These three surveys consistently recorded a general lack of
knowledge by the public around basic death penalty facts: the
overwhelming majority of respondents both in Malaysia
127
and
in Singapore
128
were unable to correctly estimate the number
of people executed for drug oences in the countries in the
previous ten years. Over half of Malaysian interviewees was
also not aware that (at the time of the survey) judges were
mandated to impose the death penalty for drug tracking.
129
Public opinion is often mentioned as a key justication for
retaining the death penalty for drug oences. This argument
is a fallacious one. On the one hand, public policies should
be centred around the respect for and protection of human
rights, not purely determined by public preferences. On the
other hand, the abovementioned surveys unequivocally show
that support for the death penalty – especially for non-violent
crimes – is elastic and contextual. Calls for capital punishment
are often rooted, and dependent on, the belief in (1) its ability
to deter crime and (2) the infallibility of the justice system, both
of which have been disproved.
CONCLUSIONS
Recent political, legal and practical developments with regards
to the death penalty for drug oences suggest we are in a
dening and critical moment.
On the one hand, several countries are progressively shifting
away from capital punishment as a tool of drug control, often
after acknowledging the failure of the death penalty to deter
drug use and drug tracking. The most visible consequence of
such shifts is a stark decrease in executions for drug oences,
and consequently overall (as the examples of Iran and Malaysia
show).
On the other hand, thousands of people continue to be
sentenced to death for non-violent drug oences around the
world, and endure harsh conditions of detention, sometimes
for decades, in crippling uncertainty about their future.
Governments inate perceived drug emergencies and push
for the imposition or expansion of the death penalty, often on
the basis of apparent popular support coupled with populist
discourses:
“The ‘war on drugs’ approach allows people to simplify
the complex nature of drug dealing and drug use. This
misleads people into thinking that tough laws alone
are a magic bullet that can deal with all drug-related
problems once and forever”.
130
Table 1
It deters crime
55%
It dispenses justice
37%
It solves the drug
problem
7%
It reduces the
number of prisoners
0.4%
It depends on the
situation
0.2%
Other reasons
1%
It deters crime
It dispenses justice
It solves the drug problem
It reduces the number of prisoners
It depends on the situation
Other reasons
0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
1%
0.2%
0.4%
7%
37%
55%
1
Chart 6: Findings from the March 2018 National Survey on Public Perceptions on the Death Penalty published by the
Human Rights Commission of the Philippines
124
REASON FOR AGREEING THAT THE DEATH PENALTY BE RE-INSTATED FOR PEOPLE PROVED BY
THE COURTS TO HAVE REALLY COMMITTED HEINOUS CRIMES.
(WS and Commission on Human Rights (2018) Special Report: March 2018 National Survey on Public Perceptions on the Death Penalty)
Harm Reduction International
20
Throughout this report, three recurring themes emerge,
which situate the death penalty as one of the most visible
manifestations of repressive approaches to drug use and
tracking, rather than an isolated measure.
First, the exceptionalism characterising punitive drug policies,
manifested by the sidelining of fundamental standards of
dignity and legality in favour of grossly disproportionate and
dehumanising responses. This is embodied (among others) by
the many presumptions, the mandatory character of the death
penalty or the disproportionate alternatives prescribed, and
the subjugation of judicial discretion to prosecutorial powers.
By preventing judges from considering the circumstances of
the crime and the accused, these features make it virtually
impossible to respect the fundamental principles of fairness
and proportionality that must characterise due process.
Notably, such a departure from fundamental standards of law
is not exclusive to the death penalty, but rather characterises
many punitive responses to drugs, as they are ultimately
rooted in misperception and prejudice: a person who engages
with drugs is by denition ‘guilty’, and as such not deserving of
the legal guarantees and fundamental protections aorded to
others.
The lack of proportionality, with capital punishment employed
to punish non-violent behaviours because of sometimes
minimal involvement of drugs, is also not limited to the death
penalty. Rather, it infuses repressive drug policies around the
world, as manifested by global rates of over-sentencing and
over-incarceration of people engaging – or suspected to be
engaging – with drugs.
131
“[H]arsh criminal justice responses
to drugs are a major contributor to prison overcrowding”, and
in certain countries the majority of the prison population has
been incarcerated for drug oences.
132
Second, the fundamentally discriminatory nature of the death
penalty, which reects the inherently inequitable character of
punitive drug policies.
Repressive responses to drugs around the world
disproportionately impact upon the most vulnerable, both in
society and within the drug market. In the same way, because
of the combination of lack of adequate legal aid, the imposition
of capital punishment for minor oences and structural
features of the drug market, death row prisoners in countries
retaining the death penalty for drug oences are largely
individuals with histories of poverty, discrimination and fragility,
convicted for often marginal involvement with drug tracking.
Due to the way drug control laws are designed and enforced,
the primary targets of law enforcement are individuals
occupying positions within the drug market characterised by
high risk and low reward (such as couriers).
133
Third, a rejection of evidence and evidence-based
interventions and approaches. This report has retraced
recurring discourses around the purported deterrent eect of
the death penalty on drug use and drug tracking – in contrast
with an increasing body of evidence denying it. The same
rhetoric, and the same dynamic, can be witnessed for punitive
drug policies more generally. While governments around the
world call for crackdowns on drug use and drug markets,
studies consistently nd that punishment and criminalisation
do not reduce either drug use or drug markets; in fact, drug
markets continue to expand.
134
The repressive climate in which
these measures are implemented fuels impunity and violence,
while negatively weighing on both individual and public health.
More generally, punitive drug policies around the world fail
to produce positive results because they ignore mounting
evidence about dening aspects of drug use and drug markets.
In the same way, the death penalty simply cannot work as a
tool of drug control and supply reduction, because in making
it the cornerstone of their drug policies, governments choose
to ignore the reasons that determine many to engage in the
drug market (such as coercion, ignorance of the consequences
or lack of economic opportunities) and the power dynamics
shaping it.
135
Finally, any measure that aims to work as a
deterrent must be predictable and certain. Domestic narcotics
laws, however, are extremely diverse and varied (as the table
at page 28 shows), each punishing dierent crimes, types and
quantities of drugs, insomuch that they are simply unt to
successfully deter any behaviour; even less those which are by
nature transnational, such as many drug oences.
In light of this, it becomes apparent that the limitations of
the reforms analysed throughout this report are not due
to the specicities of the context, nor to the laws. Rather,
they are to be attributed to the fundamental unfairness of
capital punishment, and of those repressive drug control
policies of which the death penalty is a manifestation. In other
words, a comparative analysis of these reforms and their
implementation shows that a death penalty reform which
falls short of total abolition will never be fair, because
both capital punishment and repressive drug control policies
21The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
are inherently abusive, discriminatory, and contrary to basic
principles of humanity and dignity.
Domestic developments show that change is possible, and
that tackling the death penalty for drug oences is a strategic
step towards the achievement of total abolition of this
barbaric punishment. At the same time, recent reforms also
demonstrate how complex the struggle towards abolition is.
Examples such as Sri Lanka and Bangladesh demonstrate
how any change in policy or political will can undo decades of
advancements, if not resisted and counteracted with evidence,
education, compassion and human rights-based strategies.
Harm Reduction International
22
CATEGORIES
HRI has identied 35 countries and territories that retain the
death penalty for drug oences in law.
Only a small number of these countries carry out executions
for drug oences on a regular basis. In fact, ve of these
states are classied by Amnesty International as abolitionist
in practice.
136
This means that they have not carried out
executions for any crime in the past ten years (although in
some cases death sentences are still pronounced), and are
believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying
out executions.
137
Others have never executed anyone for a
drug oence, despite having dedicated laws in place.
In order to demonstrate the dierences between law and
practice among states with the death penalty for drug oences,
HRI categorises countries into high application, low application
or symbolic application states.
High Application States are those in which the sentencing of
those convicted of drug oences to death and/or carrying out
executions is a regular and mainstream part of the criminal
justice system.
Low Application States are those where executions for drug
oences are an exceptional occurrence, although executions
for drug oences may have been carried out within the last ve
years, while death sentences for drug oences are relatively
common.
Symbolic Application States are those that have the death
penalty for drug oences within their legislation but do not
carry out executions, or at least there has not been any record
of executions for drug oences. Most of these countries are
retentionist, which, according to Amnesty International, means
that they retain the death penalty for ‘ordinary crimes’.
138
However, a few are what Amnesty International denes
as ‘abolitionist in practice’. Some of these countries may
occasionally pass death sentences, but there is little or no
chance that such a sentence will be carried out.
South Sudan and the USA are the only two symbolic
application countries conrmed to have carried out executions
in 2018, and not for drug oences. The dedicated section
therefore only provides gures on death sentences and death
row populations.
A fourth category, insucient data, is used to denote
instances where there is simply not enough information to
classify the country accurately.
COUNTRY-BY-COUNTRY ANALYSIS
This part of the Global Overview provides a state-by-state mapping of those countries that have capital drug laws, and an
analysis of how these laws are enforced, applied or changing in practice. The information presented here updates and
builds upon the data presented in previous editions of the Global Overview.
23The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
High Application Low Application Symbolic Application Insucient Data
China Egypt Bahrain Libya
Indonesia Iraq Bangladesh North Korea
Iran Lao PDR Brunei Darussalam Syria
Malaysia Pakistan Cuba Yemen
Saudi Arabia State of Palestine (Gaza) India
Singapore Taiwan Jordan
Vietnam Thailand Kuwait
Mauritania
Myanmar
Oman
Qatar
South Korea
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Harm Reduction International
24
CHINA
The cornerstone of China’s death penalty policy (according to
its own government) is: “To retain the death penalty, control
it strictly and apply it prudently”.
166
The reality, however,
appears to be one of widespread use of capital punishment;
167
insomuch that Amnesty International consistently rates
China as the “world’s lead executioner, implementing more
death sentences than the rest of the world combined”.
168
Drug tracking and murder are the main oences for which
executions are carried out, and the Dui Hua Foundation
reports a rising trend in capital drug cases.
169
Figures on the death penalty in China are classied as a
state secret. This, combined with media censorship, makes it
virtually impossible to provide credible estimates of executions.
Nevertheless, reports of executions emerged throughout
2018, particularly in the lead-up to 26 June, the International
Day Against Drug Abuse and Illicit Tracking, when Chinese
authorities often step up their imposition of death sentences
and executions as a warning against drug use and tracking.
170
In 2018, at least 33 executions were reported between 20-26
June,
171
some carried out in the immediate aftermath of the
sentence being imposed.
172
Several of these mass trials were
conducted in front of hundreds of people.
173
Civil society denounced systemic violations of fundamental
rights in criminal and capital cases, ranging from denial of legal
assistance to arbitrary detention, and from forced confessions
to inhuman treatment and torture.
174
In September 2018, a
new law was enacted stipulating that all death penalty cases
(among others of a certain gravity) be adjudicated in front of a
panel of three judges and four jurors. This has the potential to
contribute to fairer trials and a more cautious imposition of the
death penalty.
175
In China, the death penalty is disproportionately meted out
against the poorest in society. In a recent report, The Rights
Practice identied several factors which make the death
penalty inherently discriminatory in the country, including: poor
quality of legal aid; the practice of paying compensation to the
victim’s family in order to avoid execution (which leaves those
unable to pay in a more vulnerable position); the tendency for
drug trackers to recruit couriers in the most marginalised
areas of the country; and, police targets for drug oences,
which incentivise the arrest of low-level couriers rather than
high-level gures within the drug market.
176
In November 2018, China underwent its third round of
Universal Periodic Review. It received recommendations on
the death penalty from 19 countries, among others suggesting
the adoption of a moratorium on execution and highlighting
the need for greater transparency on the use of capital
punishment.
177
Death row for drugs Death row total Executions for drugs Executions total
Country 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018 2017 2018
China Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
Indonesia 75
139
130
140
165
141
236
142
0 0 0 0
Iran Unknown 5,300+
143
Unknown Unknown 221 23 507 254
144
Malaysia 675
145
932
146
1,124+
147
1,279
148
0 0 4+
149
0
Saudi Arabia Unknown Unknown 45+
150
58+
151
59
152
59
153
146
154
149+
155
Singapore Unknown 16+
156
40+
157
46+
158
8
159
9
160
8
161
9
162
Vietnam Unknown Unknown 600+
163
650+
164
Unknown Unknown Unknown 85+
165
HIGH APPLICATION STATES
25The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
INDONESIA
The last executions for drug oences took place in Indonesia in
2016.
In March 2018, the head of the Public Information Bureau
(the Public Relation Division of the National Police), Cahyo
Budi Siswanto, acknowledged that the death penalty failed
to deter drug oences.
178
Notwithstanding, the country’s
attorney general forcefully denied a moratorium is in place
179
and death sentences continue to be imposed. The head of the
national Anti-Narcotics Agency (BNN) also stated in September
2018 that he had coordinated with the attorney general to
immediately execute those convicted of narcotics cases on
death row.
180
Thirty-four death sentences for drug oences were
pronounced in 2018 (64% of the total),
181
and 130 individuals
are currently awaiting execution for drug oences (four of
whom are women.)
182
The country’s death row population
increased by 43% between October 2017 and December
2018.
183
This was largely driven by drug-related sentences: the
number of death row prisoners convicted for drug oences
increased by 73% in 2018. Concurrently, President Widodo has
refused to review clemency applications for drug oences.
Local civil society has denounced systemic fair trial violations
in capital cases, such as arbitrary detention and forced
confessions, denial of adequate translation to foreign nationals,
summary trials and the absence of legal counsel at all stages of
the trial.
184
In April 2018, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard
of physical and mental health published his reports on
his 2017 mission to Indonesia. Amongst other issues, he
denounced the detrimental impact of the criminalisation of
drugs – of which the death penalty is the most egregious
manifestation – on both individual and public health, and
recommended that the country abolish the death penalty for
drug-use oences.
185
In March 2018, 178 Indonesian citizens were reported to be on
death row in other countries, chiey Saudi Arabia and Malaysia,
and mainly for drug oences.
186
IRAN
187
At least 3,950 individuals were executed in Iran for drug
oences alone between 2008 and 2017,
188
and Iran
consistently featured among the world’s top executioners, both
overall and for drug oences specically. Developments in
2018 may suggest a change in trend.
The 2017 amendment to the Law for Combating Illicit Drugs,
with its retroactive validity, activated a process of judicial
review of thousands of eligible death sentences. Meanwhile,
executions for drug oences in the country were put on hold,
with a few exceptions. As a result, 23 executions took place
in the country for drug tracking in 2018, against the 221
conrmed for 2017.
189
This 90% decrease in drug-related
executions translated to a 50% drop in total executions in the
country.
Nevertheless, the eect of the Iranian reform on the number
of executions carried out in the country may be temporary.
Indeed, while a moratorium on drug-related executions was in
place in the rst months of 2018, executions restarted in late
April. They were carried out every month following, apart from
May and November, with a spike in December 2018 (when
at least 13 drug-related executions were recorded.)
190
Also,
the secrecy surrounding the imposition of the death penalty
prevents any thorough assessment of whether and how the
reform has modied sentencing patterns in the country.
Reports on the implementation of the amendment also shed
light on the death row population in the country. The UN
Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the
Islamic Republic of Iran reported in March 2018 that at least
5,300 people, many of whom are from vulnerable economic
backgrounds, are awaiting execution in Iran,
191
while other
sources report signicantly higher numbers.
192
As a former
death row prisoner recounts, conditions are inhumane:
“A prisoner who is taken to his nal visit hasn’t cleaned
himself and eaten in days and has had to wash his
hands in the toilet bowl of his solitary connement
cell. As the windows are sealed shut, the solitary
connement cell is steaming hot in the summer. […] In
these conditions, the prisoner, whose hands and feet
are cued, is brought to the last visit and given ten
minutes to say goodbye to his family. […] The blankets
which are given to prisoners in the solitary connement
cell reek of vomit. When they moved me to solitary
Harm Reduction International
26
connement, there was a blanket under the dustbin
and slime was dripping on it from the waste in the bin.
The ocer told me to pick it up”.
193
Finally, Iranian civil society warned against several problematic
aspects of the reform, such as the expansion of capital
punishment to new categories of oences and oenders, and
the inclusion of vague terms and provisions which enable
misinterpretation and abuse (a detailed analysis of these issues
is provided in the previous section of this report, at page 12).
MALAYSIA
A year after reforming its narcotics legislation and removing the
death penalty as a mandatory punishment for drug tracking
(in the presence of certain circumstances), the newly-elected
government pledged on 10 October 2018 to abolish the death
penalty for all oences.
194
A key driver was the wave of protest
sparked by the death sentence of 29-year-old Muhammad
Lukman, charged with possession of cannabis and cannabis
derivatives which he was oering as a pain relief solution to
cancer patients.
195
Since rst announcing the decision, the Malaysian law
minister Datuk Liew Vui Keong repeatedly acknowledged that
capital punishment is “ineective as a deterrent”,
196
and the
country reversed its former vote on the UN General Assembly
Resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty
from against to in favour.
197
This important political commitment, at the heart of a
predominantly retentionist region of the world, is a welcome
development. At the time of writing, however, no draft law had
been presented, parliament is not likely to discuss the issue
until March 2019 and signicant resistance is expected in the
senate.
198
In the meantime, while no executions were carried out in 2018,
death sentences were routinely imposed. Thirty-one death
sentences for drug tracking were reported in 2018 (while
more could have been pronounced), including at least two
after the government committed to abolition. In November
2018, around 1,279 people remained on death row, of which
143 were women and 569 foreign nationals. The overwhelming
majority of death row prisoners have been convicted for drug
oences.
199
In November, 2018 Malaysia underwent the third round of
Universal Periodic Review, receiving recommendations on the
death penalty by 20 countries.
200
SAUDI ARABIA
With the possible exception of China, Saudi Arabia was the
world’s top executioner for drug oences in 2018.
At least 59 individuals were executed for non-violent drug
oences, mainly smuggling, although actual numbers are likely
to be higher. A signicant proportion were foreign nationals: 17
Pakistanis
201
and at least seven individuals from Nigeria.
202
Death sentences are not consistently communicated or
reported, and the use of the death penalty is shrouded in
secrecy. The State News Agency only reports executions after
they take place, and provides only basic information on the
case.
203
Notwithstanding, dozens of people are believed to be
held on death row for drug oences. A substantial proportion
of these are foreign nationals, including Pakistanis, Nigerians,
Filipinos and Indonesians. In its 2018 Concluding Observations
on Saudi Arabia, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination noted disproportionally high representation of
the migrant population among those sentenced to death, and
recommended that the country abolish the death penalty.
204
Civil society consistently reports mass trials, summary trials
and systematic abuses of due process rights (including denial
of interpretation and consular assistance to foreign nationals),
as well as ill-treatment and torture of individuals on – or facing
– death row.
205
In addition, several executions are carried out
as public beheadings,
206
which are widely condemned as cruel
and inhuman.
207
In November, Saudi Arabia underwent the third round
of Universal Periodic Review. The country received 25
recommendations on the death penalty (slightly more than in
2013),
208
including addressing crimes which do not qualify as
“the most serious”.
209
27The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
SINGAPORE
Singapore continues to be one of the most vocal supporters of
the death penalty for drug oences, which is strongly defended
in international fora as a cornerstone of domestic drug policy
and aggressively implemented on the ground.
210
The 2013 reform to the Misuse of Drugs Act coincided with
record low numbers of death sentences and executions.
However, in the past ve years an increase in capital
punishment has been recorded, both of death sentences and
executions for drug tracking – often for crimes involving
minimal quantities of substances. Convictions for drug oences
are now responsible for the majority of executions carried out
in the country, as conrmed in 2018: 100% of executions that
year were for drug oences.
211
Out of 16 death sentences pronounced in Singapore in
2018, 15 were for drug tracking. Around one third of
these concerned foreign nationals. In three of these cases
the accused was identied as a mere courier; however, a
mandatory death sentence was imposed because no certicate
of substantial assistance was provided by the prosecutor (an
analysis of sentencing standards in the country is provided in
the previous section of this report, at page 12).
Domestic developments surrounding the death penalty mirror
the broader drug control strategy in the country, characterised
by over-incarceration and disproportionate punishment. The
latest available ocial data show that 69.6% of the 8,885
convicted prisoners in Singapore are serving their sentences
for drug oences,
212
several as a result of grossly unfair
proceedings.
213
Of these, 1,690 have been incarcerated in 2017
alone – an average of almost ve a day.
214
VIETNAM
The amended Criminal Code entered into force on 1 January
2018. Its review restricted the application of the death
penalty by removing drug possession from the list of capital
oences.
215
Manufacturing, transporting and tracking of
controlled substances are still punishable by death, as these
activities are considered by the government to be “extremely
serious crimes”,
216
in contrast with the prevailing interpretation
of Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights.
Statistics on the death penalty continue to be classied as
state secrets. However, on 13 November 2018 the Vietnamese
government reported to the National Assembly that 85
individuals had been executed throughout the year, and 122
more death sentences than in 2017 were pronounced
217
(unfortunately, the gure for 2017 has not been revealed). No
disaggregated information was provided. Thirty-one death
sentences were reported in 2018 for drug oences, either
by the Supreme People’s Court or by news outlets, and more
could have been pronounced.
The centrality of the death penalty also transpires from the
fact that “to cope with the large number of executions, ve
new execution compounds have been built at unspecied
locations to supplement those currently operational […] and
Security ocials were being rapidly trained to administer lethal
injections”.
218
Accordingly, Vietnam is considered one of the
world’s leading executioners.
219
Fair trial standards are routinely violated in death penalty
cases,
220
and conditions of detention on death row are
worrying. In its 2018 Concluding Observations, the UN
Committee against Torture expressed concerns:
“About reports of the physical and psychological
suering that persons sentenced to the death penalty
have experienced as a result of their particularly harsh
conditions of detention, which may amount to torture
or ill-treatment, including solitary connement in
unventilated cells, inadequate food and drink, being
shackled 24 hours a day and being subjected to physical
abuse, and that such prisoners often commit suicide
and develop psychological disorders as a result”.
221
Thirty-six death row prisoners died between 2011 and 2016,
222
and the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights reports “media
concerns about the growing suicide rate on Vietnam’s death
row” (although gures are hard to verify).
223
Harm Reduction International
28
LEGISLATION TABLE – HIGH APPLICATION STATES
The following table provides a snapshot of the dierent drug laws in place in high application countries, prescribing the imposition
of capital punishment for drug oences. Although a degree of simplication is inevitable, this comparison shows how diverse – and
inconsistent – these laws are.
The symbol ‘T’ means an oence is punishable by death only if committed “for the purpose of tracking”.
A full table including legislation for the 35 countries covered by this report is available at: https://www.hri.global/death-penalty-drugs-2018
CHINA
vi
Is it mandatory?
i
NO
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
(armed)
Divert legally possessed
substances with purpose of prot
Lead drug tracking ring
Use arms to cover up smuggling,
tracking, transporting or
manufacturing drugs
Use violence to resist inspection,
detention or arrest in a serious
situation
Take part in organised
international drug tracking
activities
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
Tracking and production:
Opium: 1,000g
Heroin: 50g
Other narcotics: “large quantity”
Other oences: no minimum quantity
INDONESIA
vii
Is it mandatory?
i
NO
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
(as organised
crime)
Conspiracy to commit a drug
oence
“Use [substances] against others”
resulting in death or permanent
disability
Involving minors in drug crimes
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
All crimes:
Opium (raw or rened), cocaine,
cannabis, heroin & 21 other
substances: 5g
Plants: 1kg or 5 “trees”
Fentanyl, methadone & 85 other
substances: 5g
T
IRAN
viii
Is it mandatory?
i
YES
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
Armed smuggling
Provide nancial support to/
invest in drug oences
Act as a ringleader
Repeat drug oence (with
previous conviction for death, life
imprisonment or imprisonment
exceeding 15 years)
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
Production and tracking (rst
oence):
“Natural substances” (cannabis,
hashish, grass, opium, etc): 50kg
“Synthetic substances” (heroin,
morphine, cocaine & other
chemical by-products): 2kg
Possession and storing (rst oence):
“Natural substances”: only if
recidivist and over 20kg
“Synthetic substances”: 3kg
29The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
MALAYSIA
ix
Is it mandatory?
i
YES
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
Possession presumed for tracking:
Heroin: 15g
Opium: 1,000g
Cannabis: 200g
Cocaine: 40g
Amphetamines: 50g
Part of a list of over 160 substances
T
T
SAUDI ARABIA
x
Is it mandatory?
i
NO
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
List of 114 substances including: heroin,
opium, cannabis, cocaine & methadone
No minimum quantities specied
T
SINGAPORE
xi
Is it mandatory?
i
YES
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
Production:
Morphine, heroin, cocaine &
methamphetamine: no minimum
quantity
Tracking:
Opium: 1,200g
Morphine: 30g
Heroin: 15g
Cannabis: 500g
Cannabis resin: 200g
Cocaine: 30g
Methamphetamine: 250g
T
VIETNAM
xii
Is it mandatory?
i
NO
Production
ii
:
Possession
iii
:
Tracking
iv
:
Storing:
Aiding/Abetting
v
:
Other drug oences: Minimum quantities
activating the death penalty
Production, Tracking, Storing:
Poppy resin, cannabis resin: 5kg
Cannabis leaves: 75kg
Heroin, cocaine, amphetamine:
100g
Other narcotic substances: 300g (in
solid from), 750 ml (in liquid form)
T
i The death penalty is reported as mandatory if it is the only punishment available for at least certain drug oences or those presenting certain circumstances. This prevents judges from exercising
discretion and tailoring the punishment to the circumstances of the case and the individual.
ii Production: any act of manufacturing, producing or cultivating a drug. This includes any reference to: manufacture, cultivate, prepare, transform a plant or substance, extract a substance, separate,
rene or process.
iii Possession: the mere possession or owning of a substance.
iv Tracking: any act of smuggling, trading, exchanging or selling a drug. This includes any reference to the following acts: smuggle, receive from a smuggler, purchase, buy, sell, transport, trans-ship,
cause the transit of, administer, distribute, import, export, deal in, carry, oer to be sold, broker, give, receive, send, procure, supply, oer or advertise for sale, exchange, accept, be an intermediary
in sale and purchase, acquire or deliver.
v Aiding and abetting: any act of support or complicity to a criminally-relevant behaviour involving drugs, for which the death penalty is envisaged. This includes reference to: carry a rearm or a
hunting weapon with the intention of opposing [law enforcement] ocials, assisting in the trade or acting as an intermediary.
vi Articles 347 and 355, Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (1979), as amended 1997.
vii Article 59, Law of the Republic of Indonesia No 5 of 1997 on Psychotropic Substances; articles 74, 113, 114, 116, 118, 119, 121, 132, 133 and 144, Law No 35 of 2009 on Narcotics.
viii Law for Combating Illicit Drugs (1988), as amended 2017.
ix Articles 37 and 39(b)(2)(a), Act 234, Dangerous Drugs Act 1952, as amended 2017.
x Article 37, Law of Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Royal Decree No M/39, dated 8/7/1426 (2005).
xi Articles 15-33 and Second Schedule (oences punishable on conviction), Misuse of Drugs Act 1973, as amended 2012.
xii Articles 194(4), 248(4), 250(4) and 251(4), Criminal Code (2015).
Harm Reduction International
30
EGYPT
The government of Egypt does not provide ocial gures
on capital punishment in the country. However, consistent
reports indicate a prolic use of the death penalty. At least
63 individuals were executed and hundreds were sentenced
in 2018, mostly for murder and terrorism,
248
sometimes as
a result of mass trials.
249
Both sentences and executions
dramatically increased since 2014, when President al-Sisi rose
to power.
No executions have been reported for drug oences, but the
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights has been able to conrm
at least 23 death sentences pronounced for drug oences in
2018,
250
3.9% of total sentences, including at least one against
a foreign national.
251
Human rights violations have been denounced in the course
of investigations and trials leading to death sentences,
including: civilians being judged in military courts;
252
enforced
disappearances and incommunicado detention;
253
denial
of legal representation during the investigation phase; and
various forms of torture including beatings and electrocution,
also used with the aim of extorting confessions.
254
Conditions of detention on death row are abysmal. Prisoners
are kept in solitary connement for over 23 hours a day, and
endure beatings and other forms of physical and psychological
violence.
255
Death row prisoners are frequently unaware of the
date of execution, which is communicated to families either at
the last minute or after the execution has taken place.
256
The protracted use of the death penalty in the country was
denounced in 2018 by several international mechanisms,
including Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights
Council,
257
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
Michelle Bachelet, who denounced the ongoing mass trials
as “a gross and irreversible miscarriage of justice”,
258
and
the European Parliament.
259
The latter adopted a resolution
on 8 February 2018 calling for an immediate moratorium
on executions, which was strongly rejected by the Egyptian
Parliament in the name of national sovereignty.
260
IRAQ
Information on Iraq is scarce. Any disaggregated information
on the imposition of capital punishment in the country is nearly
impossible to gather, although Amnesty International was able
to report four death sentences imposed for drug oences in
2017. The same report also mentions executions carried out
for drug oences;
261
no additional information on this could be
gathered.
Lack of transparency on the part of the government was
denounced in June 2018 by the UN Special Rapporteur on
Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions in her mission
report on Iraq. The rapporteur stated that:
“Since 2015, no information has been made public on
the number, charges and trials of detainees sentenced
to death, remaining on death row and executed. The
Country
(all gures 2018)
Death row
for drugs Death row total
Executions
for drugs
Executions
Total
Death
sentences
for drugs
Death
sentences total
Egypt 23+
224
2,000+
225
0 63
226
23+
227
595
228
Iraq 4+
229
2,000+
230
None known 43+
231
None known 415+
232
Lao PDR 311
233
315
234
0 0 Unknown Unknown
Pakistan Unknown 4,688
235
0 14
236
4 150
State of
Palestine
(Gaza)
5
237
46+
238
0 0 0 13
239
Taiwan None known 42
240
0 1
241
0 3
242
Thailand 309
243
539
244
0 1
245
1+
246
13+
247
LOW APPLICATION STATES
31The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
latest numbers released by the authorities in August
2014 indicated 1,724 prisoners were on death row,
excluding the Kurdistan region. However, this number
has likely increased exponentially due to the defeat of
ISIL with large numbers of ghters being captured and
undergoing trial”.
262
In support of this conclusion, over 3,000 sentences have been
reported by news outlets in the past few years, mostly for
terrorism.
263
The majority of death sentences and executions
in 2018 were also imposed for terrorism,
264
and concerns
were expressed at reports of mass executions, violations of
fundamental standards of fair trial and torture.
265
LAO PDR
The last execution took place in Lao in 1989,
266
and the
country has a moratorium in place “in practice”.
267
Information on the imposition of capital punishment in the
country is extremely limited. In July 2018, Lao’s compliance
with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
was reviewed by the UN Human Rights Committee. In this
forum, the government acknowledged that 311 out of the
315 people on death row at the time had been convicted
for drug oences.
268
This revelation provided a glimpse into
the otherwise secretive practice of capital sentencing in the
country, proving that publicly available gures only account
for a fraction of the sentences pronounced each year. It also
conrmed that drug oences are the main category for which
the death penalty is imposed. Accordingly, the country has
been re-classied from ‘symbolic’ to ‘low application’.
The government also revealed that during the process
of debating a revised penal code, the abolition of the
death penalty was discussed; however, the majority of the
national assembly voted in favour of retaining this form of
punishment.
269
In its Concluding Observations, the UN Human Rights
Committee expressed concern at the protracted imposition
of death sentences in the country, and recommended that
Lao review its legislation in order to align itself with the “most
serious crimes” standard and consider abolishing capital
punishment.
270
PAKISTAN
Although Pakistan remains one of the most prolic
executioners in the world, some positive developments were
witnessed in the past few years. Since a record 340 executions
were carried out in 2015, mostly for murder, gures rapidly
decreased to 14 in 2018.
271
A similar pattern emerged
regarding death sentences – whose numbers have been
gradually diminishing since 2016 – and death row population.
Once the largest in the world, this shrank from over 6,000 in
2015 to 4,688 individuals at the end of 2018, thanks mainly to
judicial reviews and commutation of sentences.
272
This is a signicant achievement in a country where people face
a heightened risk of wrongful convictions. According to Justice
Project Pakistan, in the past ve years the Supreme Court of
Pakistan overturned 85% of appealed death sentences, mostly
on the basis of faulty investigations.
273
This is in line with the
ndings of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights (FFR). In
its 2018 report on the application of the Control of Narcotics
and Substances Act, the human rights group found signicant
aws in capital drug cases, insomuch that no single case was
identied “where the Supreme Court upheld a death sentence
handed down by the CNSA’s special courts”.
274
With regards to drug oences, no one has been executed for
possessing, manufacturing or tracking controlled substances
in the past ten years. Nevertheless, death sentences continue
to be imposed. The aforementioned FFR study:
“[…] does not reveal a single case where a defendant
[…] had faced the harshest penalties under the act —
death or life imprisonment — for the organization,
management or nancing of drug cartels. All death
penalties handed out under the CNSA are for
possession-based oences”.
275
Such a nding speaks volumes about the awed and
discriminatory nature of both drug control laws and capital
punishment.
A signicant number of Pakistani citizens are on death row
– or were executed – in other countries for drug oences,
particularly Saudi Arabia
276
and Iran.
277
Harm Reduction International
32
STATE OF PALESTINE (GAZA)
278
In the State of Palestine, the death penalty can be imposed
for drug oences only in the Gaza Strip. None of the 13
death sentences pronounced in 2018 were for drug oences.
However, ocial information on capital punishment in the
country is non-existent, so this should not be considered
denitive.
Research has not revealed further information on the ve
individuals sentenced to death for drug tracking in 2017, so it
is assumed that those convicted remain on death row.
In June 2018, the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
committed to accede the Second Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at
the abolition of the death penalty.
279
TAIWAN
After a year without executions in 2017, Taiwan executed a
man for murder in September 2018.
280
This rst execution
under the new administration quashed hopes that the country
could soon move closer to abolition.
281
The last conrmed death sentence for drug oences dates
back to 2010.
282
Secrecy on the part of the government
prevents the provision of updated and complete information
on the use of the death penalty. Meanwhile, the drug control
strategy in the country remains strictly punitive: almost a
third of people in prison in Taiwan have been convicted for
violations of the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act.
283
In 2015, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
reported that “[s]ince [2002], even though the District Court
and High Court have sentenced people to death for drug
oences, these have been overturned after appeals to the
Supreme Court and there have been no drug oenders under
a nal sentence of death after appeals”.
284
It is thus possible
that none of the 42 people on death row in the country are
awaiting execution for drug oences.
At least 11 Taiwanese nationals were sentenced to death for
drug tracking in Indonesia in 2018.
285
THAILAND
Thailand last carried out an execution – for a drug oence –
in 2009,
286
meaning the country would have been declared
abolitionist in practice in 2019. Regrettably, on 18 June 2018
Thailand resumed executions (for murder).
287
In recent years, Thailand had taken positive steps towards
the abolition of the death penalty by restricting its application
and committing to considering the establishment of a
moratorium.
288
If the June 2018 execution represents a shift
in the government’s attitude towards the death penalty, there
could be dramatic consequences for the more than 500
individuals currently on death row in the country (among which
are 83 women), the majority of whom have been convicted for
drug oences.
289
33The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
BAHRAIN
Bahrain lifted its de facto moratorium on the death penalty in
2017, executing three men.
330
Since then, no more executions
have taken place. Death sentences continue to be handed
down, and civil society reports grossly unfair trials (often held in
military courts), forced confessions and arbitrary detention.
331
On 31 December 2018, two individuals, one of whom was a
foreign national, were sentenced to death for drug tracking
and smuggling. These are the rst two drug-related death
sentences conrmed to have been pronounced in the country
in the past ten years.
In July 2018, Bahrain was reviewed by the UN Human Rights
Committee, which expressed concern at the increase in
reported death sentences in the country and the refusal on
the part of the state to provide information on the death row
population.
332
Notwithstanding this lack of information, around
23 individuals are believed to be awaiting execution in the
country, most convicted in military courts for terrorism-related
oences.
333
BANGLADESH
In 2019, it will be ten years since the last drug-related
execution took place in the country. However, this de
facto moratorium for drug oences is threatened by the
government’s push to expand capital punishment as a tool to
combat a perceived drug emergency.
On 27 October 2018, parliament adopted the Narcotics
Control Act 2018, which expands the applicability of the death
penalty by including yaba (methamphetamine pills) among
the controlled substances whose production, possession
or tracking can be punished by death.
334
This move forms
Country
(all gures 2018) Death row for drugs Death row total
Death sentences
for drugs Death sentences total
Bahrain 2+
290
23+
291
2
292
17+
293
Bangladesh Unknown 1,708+
294
2
295
244
296
Brunei Dar 1
297
1+
298
0 0
Cuba 0 0 0 0
India 0 426
300
0 162
Jordan Unknown 132
301
0 13
302
Kuwait Unknown
303
36+
304
0 9+
305
Mauritania None known 90
306
0 0
Myanmar 5+
307
9+
308
Unknown 9+
310
Oman None known 2+
311
None known 2+
312
Qatar Unknown 10+
313
0 1+
314
South Korea 0
315
61
316
0 1
317
South Sudan Unknown 345+
318
0 8+
319
Sri Lanka 48+
320
1,299
321
6+
322
28+
323
Sudan None known 300+
324
None known 3+
325
United Arab Emirates Unknown 37+
326
Unknown 19+
327
United States of
America
0 2,738
328
0 42
329
SYMBOLIC APPLICATION STATES
Harm Reduction International
34
part of a wider crackdown on drugs launched in May 2018
by the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, which also provided
an opportunity to quash political activists and human rights
defenders, ahead of the country’s general election on 30
December 2018.
335
In spite of this problematic record, Bangladesh was elected as
a member of the UN Human Rights Council in October 2018.
336
In May 2018, Bangladesh underwent the third cycle of
Universal Periodic Review, receiving recommendations by 18
states to establish a moratorium and work towards the total
abolition of the death penalty. These were all noted but not
accepted.
337
INDIA
In 2018, it was three years since the last execution took place
in India. Courts around the country, however, continue to
sentence individuals to death, mostly for murder and rape.
In April 2018, the cabinet passed a bill expanding capital
punishment to child rape
338
and death sentences for this new
category of crime quickly followed.
339
A similar proposal was
put forward by the government of Punjab to punish rst-time
drug oenders, but was eventually rejected by the central
government. Among others, the Ministry of Finance justied its
decision by stressing that the “death penalty is not supported
by the international drug control conventions”, and that the
UN Oce on Drugs and Crime opposes the imposition of the
death penalty for drug oences.
340
Ocial gures on executions, death sentences and death row
population are not available.
341
The last two conrmed death
sentences for drug oences date back to 2017, and were
reported by Project 39A at the National Law University.
342
It
now appears that these sentences were commuted and no
death sentences for drug oences were reported in 2018.
343
In
2016, Project 39A found that “none of the prisoners sentenced
to death for drug oences by trial courts over the past 15
years had their sentences conrmed in rst appeal”.
344
All these
sentences were either commuted or the alleged perpetrator
was acquitted on appeal. As a result, it is unclear whether
anyone is currently on death row for a violation of the domestic
Narcotics Act.
In August 2018, Shashi Tharoor MP introduced a private
members bill to parliament seeking total abolition of the death
penalty.
345
The bill denes capital punishment as “an aberration
in a healthy democracy” which has failed to deter crime and
highlights that “a signicant percentage of individuals who
have been given this sentence hail from socio-economically
vulnerable groups”.
346
The bill was pending as of February
2019.
347
JORDAN
Secrecy and uncertainty surround the death penalty for drug
oences in Jordan.
Law No 11 of 1988 on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances prescribed the death penalty for a range of drug
oences. In 2006, Law No 54 was approved, which replaced
the death penalty with life imprisonment for certain drug
oences. Accordingly, HRI’s The Death Penalty for Drug Oences:
Global overview 2010 reported that Jordan had repealed the
death penalty for drug oences.
348
Our most recent research reveals the death penalty can still
be imposed (although it does not appear to be) for drug
tracking when committed as part of an international drug
tracking operation, or in conjunction with international
money laundering or arms smuggling. This was reported,
amongst others, by the Co-operation Group to Combat Drug
Abuse and Illicit Tracking in Drugs of the Council of Europe
(Pompidou Group),
349
the Cornell Center on the Death Penalty
Worldwide,
350
and more recently by the Journal of Law and
Criminal Justice
351
and the Amman Centre for Human Rights
Studies.
352
The chair of the UN Human Rights Committee
also referred to the applicability of the death penalty to drug
tracking in the interactive dialogue during the latest review of
the country’s human rights performance.
353
As a consequence, HRI took the decision to re-include Jordan
among the countries prescribing the death penalty for drug
oences in law.
After an eight-year hiatus, Jordan resumed executions in
2014, mostly for murder and terrorism. Death sentences are
recorded every year – but no sentence or execution has been
conrmed in the past ten years for drug tracking.
At least two Jordanian nationals were executed for drug
oences in Saudi Arabia in 2018.
354
35The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Civil society denounced human rights violations including
arbitrary detention, coerced confessions, torture in detention,
and lack of healthcare and sanitation on death row.
355
During the latest round of Universal Periodic Review in
November 2018, 24 countries recommended that Jordan takes
immediate steps towards the abolition of the death penalty.
356
MAURITANIA
The last execution took place in Mauritania in 1987, and the
country is listed as abolitionist in practice.
The death penalty can be imposed in Mauritania for a broad
range of oences, and most death sentences are handed
down for murder, terrorism and apostasy.
357
Recent research
also revealed that Mauritania retains the death penalty for
drug oences.
358
Law 37 of 1993 “on repression of production,
trac and illicit use of drugs and psychoactive substances”
prescribes the death penalty as a possible punishment for
production and manufacturing,
359
international tracking,
360
oering, importing/exporting, possession, distribution and
transport of “high risk drugs”.
361
The death penalty can be
imposed in cases of recidivism or if aggravating circumstances
are present, namely:
362
The oence is committed within a framework of organised
crime.
Where violence or weapons have been used by whoever
committed the crime.
Where the drugs have caused death.
Accordingly, HRI decided to include Mauritania among the
countries prescribing the death penalty for drug oences.
The last conrmed death sentences were imposed in
Mauritania in 2015;
363
however, news sources report that four
death sentences were handed down in May 2016 against
drug trackers who had an armed confrontation with army
soldiers.
364
In its 2018 Concluding Observations on Mauritania, the UN
Committee Against Torture noted with concern the persistence
of the death penalty in domestic law, and recommended that
the state abolish capital punishment and commute death
sentences to prison sentences.
365
MYANMAR
Myanmar is de facto abolitionist: the last execution was carried
out in the 1980s, and it is unclear whether anyone has ever
been executed for drug oences. Capital punishment remains
an option for judges, and a few sentences are reported every
year, mostly by media outlets.
Myanmar’s drug control strategy appears to be at a crossroads.
On one side, a new National Drug Control Policy was released
in February 2018, explicitly aligning with international best
practices and the seven pillars approach endorsed in the
Outcome Document of the UN General Assembly Special
Session on Drugs of 2016.
366
The National Drug Control Policy
mainstreams a human rights approach and, among other
suggestions, recommends considering the repeal of the death
penalty for drug oences.
367
On the other hand, the Myanmar Times reported that ten
people were charged with death for drug oences in August
2018 as part of a revamped ‘war on drugs’ in the country. If
these are sentenced, that would mark a signicant shift in
Myanmar’s drug control strategy, where the death penalty was
envisaged but very rarely (if ever) imposed.
QATAR
The last execution was carried out in Qatar in 2003, thus the
country is de facto abolitionist.
369
Few people are believed to be on death row, but lack of clarity
prevents conrmation for which crime they were convicted.
The UN Committee against Torture reviewed Qatar in May
2018, and concluded that:
“The State party should consider establishing an
immediate moratorium on executions, with a view
to abolishing the death penalty, and commute
death sentences to prison sentences. It should also
ensure that if the death penalty is imposed it is only
for the most serious crimes and in compliance with
international norms”.
370
In 2018, the country conrmed its vote against the UN General
Assembly Resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death
penalty.
371
However, in a promising development in May 2018,
Qatar ratied the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, the key instrument regulating the application of the
death penalty at the international level.
372
Harm Reduction International
36
SOUTH KOREA (REPUBLIC OF KOREA)
The last execution in South Korea took place in 1997.
Recent developments point to the possibility that South
Korea could soon abolish the death penalty for all crimes: the
National Human Rights Commission repeatedly recommended
that the government abolish capital punishment and enshrine
the right to life in the constitution,
373
and the Presidential
Oce agreed to consider establishing a formal moratorium
on executions.
374
Such a move would be supported by 70% of
South Koreans, according to recent research conducted by the
National Human Rights Commission.
375
Abolition would send a strong message in a region that is
home to the greatest number of retentionist countries, and
would give hope to the 61 persons currently on death row,
none of whom are sentenced for drug oences.
376
In December 2018, South Korea again abstained from voting
on the UN Moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
377
SRI LANKA
Sri Lanka is one of the longest-standing de facto abolitionist
countries in the world, with the last recorded execution dating
back to 1976.
378
This has been mostly thanks to political will, as
past presidents consistently refused to issue death warrants.
379
This may change if the pledge by President Sirisena to execute
19 drug trackers currently on death row is acted upon. Such
a call is part of a wider anti-drug campaign, citing a perceived
increase in drug trade as justication (more information on
recent developments in the country is provided in a previous
section of this report at page 17).
380
The announcement was
met with international condemnation, and the European Union
warned Sri Lanka that if executions resume, the country will
lose its GSP (Generalised Scheme of Preference) plus status,
381
which grants preferential access to the European market on
account of positive human rights achievements.
382
More promising signals come from Sri Lanka’s engagement
at the international level: the latest cycle of Universal Periodic
Review was held in 2017, and by December 2017 the country
accepted two recommendations to consider abolishing the
death penalty (although other, more specic recommendations
on this issue were merely noted).
383
In line with this, in
December 2018 the country conrmed its vote in favour of a
UN Moratorium on the use of the death penalty.
384
Death sentences for possession and tracking of controlled
substances are reported every year. Since 2008, at least 60
individuals (of which six were women) were sent to death row
for drug oences.
385
At least six new death sentences for drug
oences were handed down in 2018; of these, four were for
possession and/or trading of 2.8 to 18.2 grammes of heroin.
386
SUDAN
Information on the death penalty in Sudan is minimal. In
2018, as in the previous ten years, there was no sign of
capital punishment being imposed for drug oences, and the
government recently stated that since 1991, executions have
only been carried out for premeditated murder and rape.
387
The UN Human Rights Committee reported that around 300
individuals were under sentence of death in Sudan in May
2018;
388
however, numbers could be signicantly higher.
389
Government gures also indicate that dozens of sentences are
reviewed every year.
390
At least three death sentences were
imposed in Sudan in 2018, of which one was overturned.
391
In November 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee
expressed concern at the applicability of the death penalty
for crimes which do not qualify as ‘most serious’, and on the
mandatory nature of capital punishment for several of them,
including drug tracking. Besides recommending Sudan to
consider a moratorium on the death penalty, the UN body
also condemned the inhumane methods of execution allowed,
among which are stoning and crucixion.
392
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Although tracking of any quantity of controlled substances
is punishable by death, no executions for drug oences have
been conrmed in the country since Federal Law 14 of 1995
was introduced. In fact, all recorded executions in the past 23
years have been for homicide.
Although news of drug-related arrests and trials potentially
leading to death sentences emerged throughout 2018,
393
no
conclusive information was available at the time of publication
on the number of death sentences actually imposed for drug
oences.
In its submission ahead of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR),
Reprieve reported that “at least 86 capital trials for non-lethal
drug oences have gone through the local criminal courts”
37The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
since 2014, and denounced excessively lengthy pre-trial
detention, physical abuses and lack of legal representation.
394
During the latest cycle of Universal Periodic Review in January
2018, the United Arab Emirates received 16 recommendations
on the issue of the death penalty,
395
including two specically
advising commutation of sentences for drug and other non-
violent oences.
396
Regrettably, the country did not accept any
of them.
397
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
The USA is one of a handful of retentionist countries in the
Americas, and the only one to execute.
398
Federal law allows the imposition of the death penalty for
tracking of substantial quantities of controlled substances
(amongst others, 60kg of heroin or 60,000kg of cannabis),
399
but there is no record of a person being sentenced to death
for drug oences in the country – insomuch that the provision
was broadly understood as a symbolic relic.
In 2018, however, President Donald Trump called for the
imposition of the death penalty against drug trackers, as
part of a plan to confront the opioid crisis in the country.
400
In
support, President Trump cited the self-proclaimed successes
of zero-tolerance strategies pursued by countries such as
Singapore.
401
This declaration was promptly followed by a memorandum
released by then-attorney general Je Sessions, strongly
encouraging United States Attorneys to pursue capital
punishment for drug tracking.
402
Despite President Trump’s rhetoric, as of February 2019 no
death sentences have been pronounced for drug oences
not involving intentional killing in the United States. This is
partly due to a perceived incompatibility of the measure with
the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
403
Nevertheless, this ‘war on drugs’ rhetoric had very real
consequences around the world, emboldening authoritarian
leaders to implement abusive drug control measures, and
legitimising populist narratives around the potential of the
death penalty to respond to public health emergencies.
Notably, federal US legislation prescribes the death penalty as
a possible punishment for homicides committed in connection
with drug oences
404
and as of December 2018, 14 people
were on federal death row for drug-related killings.
405
Experts
found that this legislation “yielded few kingpins or major
dealers – and mostly ensnared poor, African-American, mid-
to low-level persons involved in the drug trade [and] there is
no reason to believe this new call for capital punishment in
homicide cases for drug dealers will be any more successful”.
406
OTHER COUNTRIES
Other countries which HRI categories as ‘symbolic application
countries’ are Brunei Darussalam, Cuba, Kuwait, Oman and
South Sudan.
No executions have been reported in Brunei since 1957.
407
Death sentences, however, continue to be imposed. In spite of
the lack of transparency, which obstructs data collection on the
death penalty, at least one person – a Malaysian man convicted
in late 2017 for smuggling cannabis – appeared to be on death
row for drug oences in 2018.
408
Cuba has not executed in
the past 15 years, and during its Universal Periodic Review in
January 2018, the government conrmed that no one has been
either sentenced to death since the previous review (in 2013)
nor is sitting on death row.
409
The other three countries are classied as retentionists.
Kuwait has carried out 12 executions since 2013, and courts in
the country hand down a few death sentences every year. No
execution has been reported for drug oences in the past ten
years, although at least 19 individuals have been convicted for
drug oences since 2010. Due to a lack of transparency, it is
unclear whether these individuals are currently on death row.
The last executions in Oman were reported in 2015, and very
few subjects are believed to be on death row in the country
– none of them for drug oences, although ocial data on
the imposition of the death penalty are not available. A news
article from July 2018 reported that “the death penalty is rarely
exercised in Oman, but such sentences are usually handed out
in drug-related crimes and premeditated murder”.
410
Secrecy also characterises South Sudan’s use of the death
penalty, meaning it is impossible to either conrm or exclude
that any of the 345 individuals on death row in 2018 were
convicted for drug oences. In December 2018, Amnesty
International denounced seven executions in the country, and
revealed the presence of children and a breastfeeding mother
on death row.
411
Harm Reduction International
38
According to the latest available analysis, narcotics laws were
in place in Libya, North Korea, Syria and Yemen allowing the
imposition of the death penalty for certain drug oences. The
dictatorship in North Korea and conicts in Libya, Syria and
Yemen prevent not only updated information on the use of
the death penalty, but also conrmation that such laws are
still in place and implemented by courts throughout these
countries.
No information is available on the imposition of the death
penalty in Libya since Colonel Muammar Gadda was deposed
in 2011.
412
Since then, the crumbling of national institutions
and struggles for power and legitimacy have gravely impacted
upon the rule of law in the country, and on the application of
existing legislation, including – potentially – the 1990 Law No 7
on Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances. The last conrmed
execution took place in the country in 2010, but dozens of
death sentences have been imposed since.
413
North Korea is one of the most secretive dictatorships in the
world. Notwithstanding, credible and systematic reports point
to an extensive use of the death penalty for a broad range of
oences, including drug oences.
414
Since 2011, Syria has gradually become the epicentre of
hegemonic struggles for regional control, at an unbearable
cost to the local population. The impact on the rule of law in
the country has been dire, and it is impossible to provide any
accurate information on how criminal justice provisions are
implemented in the country. A similar scenario is unfolding in
Yemen. Three public executions (it is not clear whether judicial
or extrajudicial) have been reported by the media for rape and
murder in 2018,
415
but more could have taken place. A prisoner
of conscience was sentenced to death in January 2018 by a
Special Criminal Court in the country’s capital,
416
and 24 more
Yemeni of Bahá’i faith are currently being processed.
417
Drug
tracking is reportedly still punishable by death, but no further
information is available.
Table 1
Country
Death
Sentences
China
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Thailand
1
Bahrain
2
Bangladesh
2
Pakistan
4
Sri Lanka
6
Singapore
15
Egypt
23
Malaysia
31
Vietnam
31
Indonesia
34
0
10
20
30
40
China
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Thailand
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Singapore
Egypt
Malaysia
Vietnam
Indonesia
34
31
31
23
15
6
4
2
2
1
Death Sentences
+
+
+
1
Chart 7: Death sentences for drug oences in 2018 (minimum conrmed gures)
INSUFFICIENT DATA
39The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
1. Article 86(1)(d)(vi), Criminal Code of Saint Lucia (Act 9 of 2004, in force from 1 January
2005).
2. UN General Assembly (2018) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Report of the Third Committee; UN General Assembly
55th plenary meeting, ‘Vote Name: Item 74(b) A/73/589/Add.2 Draft Resolution XIII.
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty.’
3. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/.
4. HRI’s 2017 Global Overview: The Death Penalty for Drug Oences identied 33 countries
and territories. Further research revealed the other two countries – Jordan and
Mauritania – have laws in place allowing the death penalty to be imposed for drug
oences.
5. Based on a HRI dataset on death sentences and executions for drug oences. On le
with the author and available upon request. Of these, 5300 are on death row in Iran,
according to the minimum conrmed gures available in March 2018.
6. UNODC (2018) World Drug Report 2018, Executive Summary, 1. Vienna: United Nations
Oce for Drugs and Crime. Available from: https://www.unodc.org/wdr2018/prelaunch/
WDR18_Booklet_1_EXSUM.pdf.
7. Berlinger J (2018) ‘Meth tracking in SE Asia reaching “alarming Levels,” UN warns.’ CNN.
Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/asia/methamphetamine-mekong-
intl/index.html.
8. See among others: Doshi V (2018) ‘138 people killed in 2 months in Bangladesh
police crackdown on drug dealers.’ Washington Post. Available from: https://
www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacic/138-people-killed-in-2-months-in-
bangladesh-police-crackdown-on-drug-dealers/2018/07/11/c78806ba-6f1d-11e8-
b4d8-eaf78d4c544c_story.html; Fadhil H (2018) ‘Buwas: amazingly Indonesia has the
death penalty but people don’t die.’ DetikNews. Available from: https://news.detik.com/
berita/d-3855598/buwas-hebatnya-indonesia-hukuman-mati-tapi-orangnya-tak-mati-
mati.
9. UNODC(2019) UNODC Statistics. Vienna: United Nations Oce for Drugs and Crime.
Available from https://data.unodc.org/#state:1.
10. Stone K and Shirley-Beavan S (2018) The Global State of Harm Reduction, 30. London:
Harm Reduction International. Available from: https://www.hri.global/les/2018/12/11/
global-state-harm-reduction-2018.pdf.
11. Fagan J (2007) ‘Deterrence and the death penalty: expert opinion and testimony to the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia,’ 7. Unpublished.
12. Gallahue P, et al. (2012) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2012:
Tipping the Scales for Abolition, 9. London: Harm Reduction International. available from:
https://www.hri.global/les/2012/11/27/HRI_-_2012_Death_Penalty_Report_-_FINAL.pdf.
13. Reuters (2016) ‘Death penalty failing to deter drug tracking in Iran,’ Reuters. Available
from: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-rights-executions/death-penalty-failing-to-
deter-drug-tracking-in-iran-ocial-idUKKCN1120A6.
14. Bezhan F (2017) ‘Why Iran quietly abolished death penalty for some drug crimes.’ Radio
Free Europe Radio Liberty. Available from: https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-death-penalty-
quietly-abolished-drug-crimes/28853642.html.
15. See Human Rights and Democracy for Iran (2017) ‘Majles Rep. Jahanabadi: Drug
Execution Law Reform Crucial.’ Washington DC: Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for
Human Rights in Iran. Available from: https://www.iranrights.org/library/document/3172;
Human Rights and Democracy for Iran (2017) ‘Majles Rep. Jahanabadi: Judiciary Should
Announce Statistics on Drug-Related Executions.’ Washington, DC: Abdorrahman
Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran. Available from: https://www.iranrights.org/
library/document/3207.
16. Human Rights Committee (2018) Third Periodic Report Submitted by Viet Nam under Article
40 of the Covenant, Due in 2004 [Date Received: 22 December 2017], UN Doc CCPR/C/
VNM/3, 67. Geneva: United Nations. Available from: https://www.ecoi.net/en/le/
local/1427370/1930_1521719322_g1802085.pdf.
17. Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2015) Criminal Procedure Code, Pub. L. No. Law No.
101/2015/QH13, § articles 194(4), 248(4), 250(4), 251(4) (2015). Available from: http://
www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/vn/vn086en.pdf.
18. Akbar P and Lai G (2017) ‘Thailand amends drug law to reduce penalties and ensure
more proportionate sentencing.’ Criminal Justice, Law Reform, International Drug Policy
Consortium. Available from: https://idpc.net/blog/2017/02/thailand-amends-drug-law-to-
reduce-penalties-and-ensure-more-proportionate-sentencing.
19. Republic of Singapore (1973) Misuse of Drugs Act, as amended 2012, articles 15-33.
20. Kingdom of Malaysia (1952) Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended 2017, article 39(b)(2)(a).
21. Islamic Republic of of Iran (1988) Law for Combating Illicit Drugs, as amended 2017.
22. The full list of oences which carry the death penalty include importing, exporting,
sending, producing, manufacturing, distributing, selling and making available for sale.
See Law for Combating Illicit Drugs (1988), as amended 2017.
23. Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran (2017) Bill for the Incorporation of a Single Article
into the Law for Combating Illicit Drugs, article 45. Translation available from: https://www.
iranrights.org/library/document/3262.
24. Ibid.
25. Caveat: real numbers are likely to be much higher, due to a lack of transparency by
most states on this issue and not accounting for the hundreds of executions which likely
took place in China.
26. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request. Notably, the
government of Iran provides only partial information on the use of capital punishment
in the country. For example, in 2017 only 93 executions were announced by the
government, while civil society reported more than 500; for details, see: IHRDC (2017)
IHRDC Chart of Executions by the Islamic Republic of Iran – 2017, New Haven: Iran Human
Rights Documentation Centre. Available from: https://iranhrdc.org/ihrdc-chart-of-
executions-by-the-islamic-republic-of-iran-2017/. As a consequence, dierent non-
governmental organisations report slightly dierent gures. HRI relies on the annual
gures conrmed by the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran.
For more information, see: https://www.iranrights.org/library/videos.
27. Data from the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran. On le with
the author.
28. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
29. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of
Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, UN Doc A/HRC/37/68, para 16. Geneva:
United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session37/Documents/A_HRC_37_68.docx. Notably,
dierent sources report dierent gures. For example, soon after the amendment was
approved, Hassan Nowrouz (spokesman for the Legal and Judicial Commission of Iran)
armed that up to 15,000 cases would be re-examined as a result of the reform. For
more information, see: ILNA (2018) ‘Spokesman for the House Judicial Commission in
an interview with ILNA: reviewing 15,000 cases to stop execution of drug prisoners/
Proposal to create a camp in Hassan Abad desert for prisoners whose death sentences
are cancelled,’ Iranian Labour news Agency. Available from: https://bit.ly/2rFQmqL.
30. For global executions gures, HRI relies on the gures provided yearly by Amnesty
International, combined with and adjusted in line with HRI recorded national gures.
31. ABC (2018) Iran’s Drug Policy Reform Brieng Paper, 3. Washington DC: The Abdorrahman
Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran. On le with the author.
32. ECPM, IHR (2018) Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Iran 2017, 20. Montreuil and
Oslo: Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort and Iran Human Rights. Available from: http://
leserver.idpc.net/library/ECPM-IHR-%20Iran%20report%202017.pdf.
33. ABC (2018) Iran’s Drug Policy Reform Brieng Paper, 6. Emphasis added.
34. Data from the Strategic Information and Statistics Centre (Iran): http://amarkar.ir/Main/
Products. Conversion current as of 24 January 2019.
35. ABC (2018) Iran’s Drug Policy Reform Brieng Paper, 2.
36. Caning is a form of corporal punishment prohibited by international law for being
inhuman and degrading.
37. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1997) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, section 15.
38. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2005) Law of Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances, Royal Decree No. M/39 dated 8/7/1426 (2005), article 37.
39. Republic of China (Taiwan) (1955) Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act, as amended 2017,
articles 4, 6 and 15.
40. Akbar P and Lai G (2017) ‘Thailand amends drug law to reduce penalties and ensure
more proportionate sentencing.’
41. Amnesty International (2017) Cooperate or Die: Singapore’s Flawed Reforms to the
Mandatory Death Penalty. London: Amnesty International. Available from: https://www.
amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5071582017ENGLISH.PDF.
42. Republic of Singapore (1973) Misuse of Drugs Act, chapter 185, article 33(B)(3)(b).
Available from: https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/MDA1973; Kingdom of Malaysia (1952)
Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended 2017, section 39B(2A).
43. Middleton J, Clift-Matthews A and Fitzgerald E (2018) Sentencing in Capital Cases, 11.
London: The Death Penalty Project. Available from: https://www.deathpenaltyproject.
org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Sentencing-in-Capital-Cases-2018.pdf.
44. Republic of Singapore (1973) Misuse of Drugs Act, as amended 2017, chapter 185,
articles 17-21; Kingdom of Malaysia (1952) Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended 2017,
section 37.
45. Republic of Singapore, ibid; Kingdom of Malaysia, ibid.
46. Republic of Singapore, ibid.
47. Republic of Singapore (1973) Misuse of Drugs Act, as amended 2017, chapter 185, article
33 (B)(4).
48. Amnesty International (2017) Cooperate or Die: Singapore’s Flawed Reforms to the
Mandatory Death Penalty.
49. Republic of Singapore, ibid.
50. Pouget S (2011) ‘Discrimination in the application of the death penalty: the death
penalty as a “sinister privilege” reserved for the poor and minority groups,’ 170. In:
Déchaud O (ed) A Handbook of Abolition. Montreuil: Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort.
Available from: http://www.ecpm.org/wp-content/uploads/ACTES-Gen%C3%A8ve-2010-
Eng.pdf.
REFERENCES
Harm Reduction International
40
51. Amnesty International (2017) Cooperate or Die: Singapore’s Flawed Reforms to the
Mandatory Death Penalty, 19.
52. Ibid, 20
53. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
54. Amnesty International (2017) Cooperate or Die: Singapore’s Flawed Reforms to the
Mandatory Death Penalty, 23.
55. Han K (2018) ‘The last man executed in Singapore, until the next.’ The Interpreter.
Available from: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/singapore-death-penalty.
56. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
57. Chee Han L, Chow Yin N and Arivananthan H (2018) Issues - Analysing Penang, Malaysia
and the Region: High Incidence of Judicial Errors in Capital Punishment Cases in Malaysia,
5. Penang: Penang Institute. Available from: https://penanginstitute.org/publications/
issues/high-incidence-of-judicial-errors-in-capital-punishment-cases-in-malaysia/.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid, 7.
60. Nadirah Ibrahim I (2018) ‘Dr M: govt has not abolished death penalty yet.’ Malay Mail.
Available from: https://www.malaymail.com/s/1683131/dr-m-govt-has-not-abolished-
death-penalty-yet.
61. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with author.
62. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 27. London:
Amnesty International. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/
ACT5079552018ENGLISH.PDF.
63. The latest ocial gures reported 309 people on death row for drug oences in
December 2018, including 76 women. Department of Corrections of Thailand (2018)
Statistical Report on Death Penalty Prisoners. Suanyai Sub-district: Ministry of Justice.
http://www.correct.go.th/executed/index.php.
64. FFR (2018) Optimising Pakistan’s Drug Law: Making the Control of Narcotic Substances Act
Stronger, Fairer and More Eective, 3. Islamabad: Foundation for Fundamental Rights. On
le with the author.
65. Ibid, 8.
66. Mayberry K (2018) ‘Malaysia says no ‘U-turn’ in death penalty abolition.’ Al Jazeera.
Available from: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/malaysia-turn-death-penalty-
abolition-181115061626577.html.
67. Napitupulu EAT, et al. (2018) Perpetuating Lies: 2018 Indonesian Death Penalty Report,
27. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. Available from: http://icjr.or.id/data/
wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018-Indonesian-Death-Penalty-Report-Perpetuating-Lies.
pdf.
68. Victoria W (2018) ‘Police data: many narcotics cases involve foreign ctizens.’ Rabu.
Available from: https://hukum.rmol.co/read/2018/10/03/360300/Data-Polri:-Banyak-
Kasus-Narkoba-Melibatkan-WNA-2/5.
69. Molloy D (2018) ‘What Is Populism, and What Does the Term Actually Mean?’ BBC News.
Available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-43301423.
70. Antara News (2016) ‘Drug abuse is number one problem in Indonesia: president.’ Antara
News. Available from: https://en.antaranews.com/news/103320/drug-abuse-is-number-
one-problem-in-indonesia-president.
71. Parlina I (2015) ‘Jokowi renews call for tough action on drug abuse, tracking.’ The
Jakarta Post. Available from: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/06/27/jokowi-
renews-call-tough-action-drug-abuse-tracking.html.
72. Stoicescu C (2015) ‘Indonesia uses faulty stats on “drug crisis” to justify death penalty.’
The Conversation. Available from: https://theconversation.com/indonesia-uses-faulty-
stats-on-drug-crisis-to-justify-death-penalty-36512.; Irwanto, et al. (2015) ‘Evidence-
informed response to illicit drugs in Indonesia.’ Lancet 385(9984):2249-50. Available
from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61058-3.
73. ICJR (2017) Death Penalty Policy in Indonesia, 167. Jakarta: Institute for Criminal Justice
Reform. Available from: http://icjr.or.id/data/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DEATH-
PENALTY-POLICY-nal-1.pdf.
74. Quiano K (2016) ‘Indonesia executes four convicted drug oenders.’ CNN. Available
from: https://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/28/asia/indonesia-drug-executions/index.html.
75. Ibid.
76. Reuters (2017) ‘Indonesia police ordered to shoot drug dealers to tackle “narcotics
emergency”.’ The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/
jul/23/indonesia-police-ordered-to-shoot-drug-dealers-to-tackle-narcotics-emergency.
77. Topseld J and Rompies K (2017) ‘Facing “narcotics emergency”, Indonesia ramps
up war on drugs.’ The Sydney Morning Herald. Available from: https://www.smh.com.
au/world/facing-narcotics-emergency-indonesia-ramps-up-war-on-drugs-20170806-
gxqahn.html.
78. Economic and Social Council (2014) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Concluding Observations on the Report of Indonesia, UN Doc E/C.12/IDN/CO/1, para 35.
New York: UN Economic and Social Council. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.
org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E/C.12/IDN/CO/1&Lang=En.
79. Stoicescu C (2017) ‘Why Jokowi’s war on drugs is doing more harm than good.’ Al Jazeera.
Available from: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/07/jokowi-war-drugs-
harm-good-170725101917170.html.
80. HRW (2017) ‘License to Kill’ – Philippine Police Killings in Duterte’s ‘War on Drugs’. New York:
Human Rights Watch. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/03/02/license-
kill/philippine-police-killings-dutertes-war-drugs#.
81. The Drug Archive, accessed 7 January 2019. Available from: https://www.drugarchive.ph.
82. Cepeda M (2017) ‘Death for drug convicts: House passes bill on nal reading.’ Rappler.
Available from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/163495-drug-convicts-philippines-
death-penalty-bill-nal-reading.
83. Discover Society (2017) ‘Focus: Duterte and penal populism – the hypermasculinity of
crime control in the Philippines.’ Discover Society. Available from: https://discoversociety.
org/2017/08/02/focus-duterte-and-penal-populism-the-hypermasculinity-of-crime-
control-in-the-philippines/.
84. Toms S (2006) ‘Philippines stops death penalty.’ BBC News. Available from: http://news.
bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacic/5112696.stm.
85. OHCHR (2019) Status of Ratication Interactive Dashboard, accessed 7 January 2019.
Geneva: Oce of the High Commission for Human Rights. Available from: http://
indicators.ohchr.org/.
86. Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life*, UN Doc CCPR/C/
GC/36, para 34. Geneva: United Nations. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/
Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/CCPR_C_GC_36_8785_E.pdf.
87. HRW (2018) Philippines: ‘Anti-loitering’ arrests target poor. Human Rights Watch. Available
from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/26/philippines-anti-loitering-arrests-target-
poor.
88. ICC (2018) Report on Preliminary Examination Activities – 2018. The Hague: International
Criminal Court. Available from: https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/181205-rep-otp-
PE-ENG.pdf.
89. Sanger DE and Haberman M (2017) ‘Trump praises Duterte for Philippine drug
crackdown in call transcript.’ New York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.
com/2017/05/23/us/politics/trump-duterte-phone-transcript-philippine-drug-
crackdown.html.
90. The White House (2018) Remarks by President Trump on Combatting the Opioid Crisis.
Washington DC: The White House. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briengs-statements/remarks-president-trump-combatting-opioid-crisis/.
91. Oce of the Attorney General (2018) Memorandum to United States Attorneys.
Washington DC: Oce of the United States Attorney General. Available from: https://
www.justice.gov/le/1045036/download?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
92. Surendranath A (2018) ‘Why introducing death penalty for rst-time oenders under
the NDPS act would do little to deter Punjab’s opioid epidemic.’ The Caravan. Available
from: https://caravanmagazine.in/law/death-penalty-ndps-act-punjab-opioid-epidemic.
Notably, the last execution for drug oences took place in Thailand in 2009.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. Email communication with local civil society (16 November 2018). On le with the
author.
96. Beaumont P (2018) ‘Sri Lanka to begin hanging drug dealers to “replicate success
of Philippines”.’ The Guardian. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/global-
development/2018/jul/11/sri-lanka-to-begin-hanging-drug-dealers-to-replicate-success-
of-philippines.
97. Ibid.
98. Annual reports are available here: http://www.prisons.gov.lk/Statistics/statistic_english.
html.
99. Republic of Sri Lanka (1929) Law Relating to Poisons, Opium, and Dangerous Drugs, as
amended 1984, paras 54a-b.
100. HRI (2018) Harm Reduction International Condemns New Bangladesh Law Expanding Use of
the Death Penalty for Drugs. Harm Reduction International. Available from: https://www.
hri.global/contents/1873.
101. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
102. Death Penalty News (2018) ‘Bangladesh: 2 sent to gallows for drug tracking; 4 to hang
for raping girl.’ Death Penalty News. Available from: https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.
com/2018/06/bangladesh-2-sent-to-gallows-for-drug.html.
103. Doshi V (2018) ‘138 people killed in 2 months in Bangladesh police crackdown on drug
dealers.’
104. The Daily Star (2019) ‘Rights situation in 2018: “extremely alarming”.’ The Daily Star.
Available from: https://www.thedailystar.net/country/highest-ever-extrajudicial-killings-
in-bangladesh-in-2018-ask-1685563.
105. AFP News (2018) ‘Bangladesh drug war death toll hits 200: rights group.’ Yahoo News.
Available from: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/bangladesh-drug-war-death-toll-hits-200-
rights-064700385.html.
41The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
106. OHCHR (2018) OHCHR Communication to Bangladesh. Geneva: United Nations Oce of
the High Commission for Human Rights. Available from: https://spcommreports.ohchr.
org/TmSearch/Results.
107. Notably, the coalition led by the prime minister won 96% of the seats. The election was
denounced as “farcical” and marred by violence and abuse of power. See, among others:
DAWN (2018) ‘Bangladesh ruling coalition declared winner of disputed election.’ DAWN.
available from: https://www.dawn.com/news/1454646.
108. OHCHR (2018) OHCHR Communication to Bangladesh. Geneva: United Nations Oce of
the High Commission for Human Rights. Available from: https://spcommreports.ohchr.
org/TmSearch/Results..
109. Wood WR (2014) ‘Punitive Populism,’ 1. In: Mitchell Miller J (ed) (2014) The Encyclopedia
of Theoretical Criminology. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118517390.wbetc140.
110. See also, among others: Fagan (2007) ‘Deterrence and the death penalty: expert
opinion and testimony to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.’
111. Rappler (2018) ‘War on drugs most important achievement of Duterte – Pulse Asia.’
Rappler. Available from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/207961-war-on-drugs-duterte-
achievement-pulse-asia-survey-june-2018.
112. Hood R (2013) The Death Penalty in Malaysia: Public Opinion on the Mandatory
Death Penalty for Drug Tracking, Murder and Firearms Oences. London: The Death
Penalty Project. Available from: https://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/Malaysia-report.pdf.
113. Ibid, 10.
114. Ibid, 13.
115. Ibid, 30.
116. Wing Cheong C, et al. (2018) Public Opinion on the Death Penalty in Singapore: Survey
Findings. Singapore: National University of Singapore. Available from: https://law.nus.
edu.sg/wps/pdfs/002_2018_Chan%20Wing%20Cheong.pdf.
117. Ibid, 12.
118. Ibid, 33.
119. Ibid, xviii.
120. SWS and Commission on Human Rights (2018) Special Report: March 2018 National
Survey on Public Perceptions on the Death Penalty: 33% or Less Demand the Death Penalty
for 6 of 7 Crimes Related to Illegal Drugs. Quezon City: Social Weather Stations. Available
from: https://www.sws.org.ph/downloads/media_release/pr20181010%20-%20SWS%20
Special%20report%20on%20CHRP%20Death%20Penalty%20Survey.pdf.
121. Torres J (2017) ‘Philippine church leaders wary of death penalty support.’ UCA News.
Available from: https://www.ucanews.com/news/philippine-church-leaders-wary-of-
death-penalty-support/79077.
122. SWS and Commission on Human Rights (2018) Special Report, 10 (or Chart 1).
123. Ibid, 11 (or Chart 4).
124. Ibid, Chart 4.
125. Ibid, 6.
126. Ibid, 6 and Chart 10.
127. Hood R (2013) The Death Penalty in Malaysia, 8.
128. Wing Cheong C, et al. (2018) Public Opinion on the Death Penalty in Singapore, 5.
129. Hood R (2013) The Death Penalty in Malaysia, 8.
130. Nasir S (2016) ‘Behind Jokowi and Duterte’s “war on drugs”.’ Policy Forum. Available from:
https://www.policyforum.net/behind-jokowi-dutertes-war-drugs/.
131. See, among others: Rope O and Sheahan F (2018) Global Prison Trends 2018, 14.
London: Penal Reform International/Bangkok: Thailand Institute of Justice. Available
from: https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/PRI_Global-Prison-
Trends-2018_EN_WEB.pdf.
132. Ibid; see also: IDPC (2018) Taking Stock: A Decade of Drug Policy, 64. London:
International Drug Policy Consortium. Available from: http://leserver.idpc.net/library/
Shadow%20Report_FINAL_ENGLISH.pdf; Stone K and Shirley-Beavan S (2018) The Global
State of Harm Reduction.
133. UNODC (2018) Women and Drugs: Drug Use, Drug Supply and Their Consequences, 23.
Vienna: United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime. Available from: https://www.unodc.
org/wdr2018/prelaunch/WDR18_Booklet_5_WOMEN.pdf; General Assembly (2013)
Pathways to, Conditions and Consequences of Incarceration for Women, UN Doc A/68/340,
paras 10, 11, 23. New York: United Nations. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/
documents/Issues/Women/A-68-340.pdf.
134. UNODC (2018) World Drug Report, Booklet 1 (Executive summary: Conclusions and Policy
Implications). Vienna: United Nations Oce on Drugs and Crime.
135. See, among others: GCDP (2016) Advancing Drug Policy Reform: A New Approach to
Decriminalization, 24. Geneva: Global Commission on Drug Policy. Available from: http://
www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GCDP-Report-2016-
ENGLISH.pdf.
136. Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, Myanmar, South Korea and Sri Lanka.
137. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 42.
138. Ordinary crimes are crimes dened in criminal codes or by the common law (such
as murder, rape or drug oences). Certain countries abolish the death penalty for
these crimes, but retain it for crimes occurring under extraordinary circumstances,
such as treason, war crimes or crimes against humanity. See: http://www.
deathpenaltyworldwide.org/faq.cfm.
139. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 30. London:
Harm Reduction International. Available from: https://www.hri.global/les/2018/11/13/
HRI-Death-Penalty-Report-2018-v2.pdf.
140. Communication with Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Indonesia. On le with the
author.
141. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 30.
142. Communication with Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, Indonesia. On le with the
author.
143. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, para 16.
144. All data on executions in Iran are from the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for
Human Rights in Iran. On le with the author. A caveat is that, due to the lack of
transparency on the part of the government, dierent organisations provide slightly
dierent gures.
145. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 27.
146. Mayberry K (2018) ‘Malaysia says no ‘U-turn’ in death penalty abolition.’
147. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, ibid.
148. Mayberry K (2018) ‘Malaysia says no ‘U-turn’ in death penalty abolition.’
149. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 22.
150. Ibid, 30.
151. ESOHR (2019) 2018 Death Penalty Report: Saudi Arabia’s False Promise. Berlin: European
Saudi organisation for Human Rights. Available from: http://www.esohr.org/en/?p=2090.
152. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 10.
153. ESOHR (2019) 2018 Death Penalty Report: Saudi Arabia’s False Promise.
154. ESOHR (2018) Saudi Arabia Death Penalty Annual Report 2017, 3. Berlin: European Saudi
organisation for Human Rights. Available from: http://www.esohr.org/en/wp-content/
uploads/2018/09/Saudi-Arabia-Death-Penalty-Annual-Report-2017.pdf.
155. ESOHR (2019) 2018 Death Penalty Report: Saudi Arabia’s False Promise.
156. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid.
159. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 25.
160. HRI (2018) Singapore Becomes One of World’s Top Executioners for Drug Oences. Harm
Reduction International. Available from: https://www.hri.global/contents/1874.
161. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, ibid.
162. HRI (2018) Singapore Becomes One of World’s Top Executioners for Drug Oences.
163. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 27.
164. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
165. Baomoi (2018) ‘Government report on judgment execution in 2018.’ Baomoi .
Available from: https://baomoi.com/chinh-phu-bao-cao-ve-cong-tac-thi-hanh-an-nam-
2018/c/28567685.epi.
166. Human Rights Council (2018) National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 5
of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21: China, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/31/
CHN/1, para 37. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: http://
ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=30500.
167. Dui Hua Foundation (2018) Estimated No. of Executions in China, accessed 12 October
2018. Dui Hua Foundation. Available from: https://duihua.org/resources/death-penalty-
reform/.
168. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 20.
169. Dui Hua Human Rights Journal (2018) ‘Mixed signals in reports of “zero confession”
executions.’ Dui Hua Human Rights Journal. Available from: https://www.duihuahrjournal.
org/2018/06/mixed-signals-in-reports-of-zero.html.
170. Executions, often in public, are consistently reported in connection with this recurrence:
Yusha Z (2017) ‘China marks Anti-Drugs Day with sentences, TCM rehab.’ Global Times.
Available from: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1053618.shtml.; Xinhua (2015)
‘China sentences 38 drug dealers at public rally.’ Shanghai Times. Available from: https://
archive.shine.cn/national/China-sentences-38-drug-dealers-at-public-rally/; Amnesty
International (2014) China: Annual Execution Spree Looms on UN Anti-Drugs Day. Available
from: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/china-annual-execution-spree-looms-
un-anti-drugs-day; Keck Z (2013) ‘Ahead of International Drug Day, China executes 6.’
The Diplomat. Available from: https://thediplomat.com/2013/06/ahead-of-international-
drug-day-china-executes-6/.
Harm Reduction International
42
171. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
172. Caixiong Z (2018) ‘10 executed for series of drug crimes.’ China Daily. Available from:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201806/25/WS5b304928a3103349141de81e.html.
173. You T (2018) ‘Drug dealers are sentenced to death on a sports ground in front of
hundreds of people by a Chinese court before being executed by ring squad.’ Mail
Online. Available from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5891447/Drug-dealers-
sentenced-death-public-Chinese-court-executed.html.
174. The Rights Practice (2018) Submission for the Third Cycle 31st Session UN Universal
Periodic Review of China: End the Use of Any Unocial Places of Detention and Ensure All
Detainees Have Prompt Access to a Lawyer. The Rights Practice. Available from: https://
www.rights-practice.org/news/upr-submission.
175. Chua N (2018) ‘“3+4”: Death Penalty Cases Now Jury Cases.’ World Coalition Against the
Death Penalty. Available from: http://www.worldcoalition.org/China-Death-Penalty-Cases-
Now-Jury-Cases.html.
176. The Rights Practice (2017) Life and Death: Access to Justice for the Poor in Death Penalty
Cases. London: The Rights Practice. Available from: https://www.rights-practice.org/
Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=4c39c7ea-7761-4744-a6ad-cee845bfd81a.
177. Human Rights Council (2018) Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: China, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/31/L.3, paras 6.11, 6.158-6.169. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/les/
article/les/cina-draft-report-a_hrc_wg_6_31_l_3.docx.
178. Eryani H (2018) ‘Indonesia narcotics emergency, how to overcome it?’ Lampung Post.
Available from: http://www.lampost.co/berita-indonesia-darurat-narkoba-bagaimana-
mengatasinya.html.
179. Rizki Saputra R (2018) ‘The attorney general calls death execution just
waiting time,’ CNN Indonesia. Available from: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/
nasional/20180523072741-12-300518/jaksa-agung-sebut-eksekusi-mati-tinggal-tunggu-
waktu.; Azizah, ‘Attorney general: death penalty must be done.’ DetikNews. Available from:
https://news.detik.com/berita/4250433/jaksa-agung-hukuman-mati-harus-dilakukan.
180. Tribun Jakarta, ‘BNN asks the AGO to immediately execute narcotics cases.’ Tribun
Jakarta. Available from: http://jakarta.tribunnews.com/2018/09/27/bnn-minta-kejagung-
segera-eksekusi-terpidana-mati-kasus-narkoba#gref.
181. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
182. Napitupulu EAT, et al. (2018) Perpetuating Lies: 2018 Indonesian Death Penalty Report, 27.
183. Ibid, 8.
184. AHRC (2018) Indonesian Death Row and Problems of Unfair Trial, Asian Human Rights
Commission. Available from: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/ahrc-news/AHRC-
PAP-002-2018/.
185. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone
to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health on His
Mission to Indonesia, UN Doc A/HRC/38/36/Add.1, paras 118, 128(l). Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.
aspx?si=A/HRC/38/36/Add.1.
186. Damarjati D (2018) ‘Migrant care: 178 Indonesian citizens threatened by death
sentences abroad.’ DetikNews. Available from: https://news.detik.com/berita/3942338/
migrant-care-178-wni-terancam-hukuman-mati-di-luar-negeri.
187. The government of Iran provides only partial information on the use of capital
punishment in the country. For example, in 2017 only 93 executions were announced
by the government, while civil society reported more than 500; for details, see: IHRDC
(2017) IHRDC Chart of Executions by the Islamic Republic of Iran – 2017. As a consequence,
dierent non-governmental organisations report slightly dierent gures.
188. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
189. Data from the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran. On le with
the author.
190. Data from the Abdorrahman Boroumand Centre for Human Rights in Iran. On le with
the author.
191. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, para 16.
192. For example, Majles Legal and Judicial Aairs spokesman Hassan Nowruzi spoke in
February of 2018 of more than 15,000 cases of drug oenders sentenced to death
which were in need of review under the terms of the new amendment. See https://bit.
ly/2rFQmqL.
193. Death Penalty News (2018) ‘Iran: the death penalty is an inhumane punishment for
death row prisoners, their families and society as a whole.’ Striving for a World without
Capital Punishment. Available from: https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2018/10/
world-day-2018-death-penalty-inhumane.html.
194. Agence France-Presse (2018) ‘Malaysia set to abolish death penalty, in move which
could spare lives of women accused of Killing Kim Jong-Nam.’ The Telegraph. Available
from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/11/malaysia-set-abolish-death-
penalty-move-could-spare-lives-women/.
195. Mayberry K (2018) ‘Malaysia death penalty abolition opens door to drug policy review.’
Al Jazeera. Available from: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/malaysia-death-
penalty-abolition-opens-door-drug-policy-review-181128061558622.html.
196. Santa Maria Chin E (2018) ‘Law minister: eectiveness of death penalty matters, not
relevance.’ Malay Mail. Available from: https://www.malaymail.com/s/1686284/law-
minister-eectiveness-of-death-penalty-matters-not-relevance.
197. General Assembly (2018) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Report of the Third Committee; General Assembly:
55th plenary meeting, ‘Vote Name: Item 74(b) A/73/589/Add.2 Draft Resolution XIII.
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty.’ New York: United Nations, accessed 14
January 2019. Available from: https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/media2/20306241/
item-74-b-a-73-589-add2-draft-resolution-xiii.pdf.
198. Death Penalty News (2018) ‘Malaysia: bill to abolish death penalty will only be tabled
later, says MP; expedite reforms or you’ll lose credibility, Ambiga warns PH.’ Striving for
a World without Capital Punishment. Available from: https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.
com/2018/12/malaysia-bill-to-abolish-death-penalty.html.
199. Mayberry K (2018) ‘Malaysia says no ‘U-turn’ in death penalty abolition.’
200. Human Rights Council (2018) Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: Malaysia, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/31/L.8, paras 6.37, 6.91-108. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/
les/document/malaysia/session_31_-_november_2018/a_hrc_wg_6_31_l_8_as_adopted.
pdf.
201. TheNews (2018) ‘62 Pakistanis executed in Saudi Arabia over drug tracking.’ The News.
Available from: https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/408564-62-pakistanis-executed-in-
saudi-arabia-over-drug-tracking.
202. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
203. Press releases are published here: https://www.spa.gov.sa/search.php?lang=en.
204. CERD (2018) Concluding Observations on the Combined Fourth to Ninth Periodic Reports
of Saudi Arabia, UN Doc CERD/C/SAU/CO/4-9, para 17. Geneva: Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_
layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD/C/SAU/CO/4-9&Lang=En.
205. ESOHR (2018) In 13 Years Saudi Arabia Deprived 504 Foreigners of the Right to Life through
Beheading after Unfair Sentences, Violating International Law. European Saudi Organisation
for Human Rights. Available from: https://www.esohr.org/en/?p=1725; ESOHR (2019)
2018 Death Penalty Report: Saudi Arabia’s False Promise.
206. Death Penalty News (2018) ‘Paralysis, eye gouging, amputation, crucixion: the medieval
punishments faced by criminals in Saudi Arabia.’ Striving for a World without Capital
Punishment. Available from: https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2018/08/paralysis-
eye-gouging-amputation.html.
207. Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, para 40.
208. In 2013, Saudi Arabia received 20 recommendations on the issue of the death penalty.
For more information, see: https://www.upr-info.org/database/.
209. Human Rights Council (2018) Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal
Periodic Review: Saudi Arabia, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/31/L.1, para 6.107. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/
les/document/saudi_arabia/session_31_-_november_2018/a_hrc_wg.6_31_l.1after_
adoption_002.pdf.
210. Tang L (2018) ‘The Big Read: capital punishment – a little more conversation on a matter
of life and death.’ Today Online. Available from: https://www.todayonline.com/big-read/
big-read-capital-punishment-little-more-conversation-matter-life-and-death.
211. HRI (2018) Singapore Becomes One of World’s Top Executioners for Drug Oences.
212. SPS (2017) Rehab, Renew, Restart: Dierentiated Programmes Key to Reducing Re-Oending,
5. Singapore: Singapore Prison Service. Available from: https://www.sps.gov.sg/docs/
default-source/publication/sps-annual-stats-release-for-2017_sg-press-centrefedc21700
a1d6b0c895e0000f6c7a3.pdf.
213. Channel News Asia (2018) ‘Singapore proposes 14th extension of law allowing
detention without trial.’ Channel News Asia. Available from: https://www.channelnewsasia.
com/news/singapore/singapore-proposes-14th-extension-of-law-allowing-
detention-9845040.
214. SPS (2017) Rehab, Renew, Restart: Dierentiated Programmes Key to Reducing Re-Oending,
6.
215. ANPUD, HRI and IDPC (2018) Universal Periodic Review Third Cycle: Viet Nam –
Stakeholder’s Information. Joint Submission Number 16. Asian Network of People
Who Use Drugs, Harm Reduction International and International Drug Policy
Consortium. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/
UPRVNStakeholdersInfoS32.aspx.
216. Human Rights Committee (2018) Third Periodic Report Submitted by Viet Nam under Article
40 of the Covenant, Due in 2004, para 67.
217. Baomoi (2018) ‘Government report on judgment execution in 2018.’
218. VCHR (2018) ‘Shrinking Spaces’: Assessment of Human Rights in Vietnam During the 2nd
43The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Cycle of Its Universal Periodic Review, 15. Paris: Vietnam Committee on Human Rights.
Available from: http://queme.org/app/uploads/2018/02/Shrinking-spaces-VCHR-2018-
EN.pdf.
219. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017.
220. ACAT-France, et al. (2018) Report to the United Nations Committee Against Torture for
the Examination of the First State Report of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 43. Geneva:
United Nations Committee Against Torture. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/
Treaties/CAT/Shared%20Documents/VNM/INT_CAT_CSS_VNM_32824_E.pdf.
221. Committee Against Torture (2018) Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Viet
Nam, UN Doc CAT/C/VNM/CO/1, para 32. Geneva: United Nations Committee Against
Torture. Available from: https://undocs.org/CAT/C/VNM/CO/1.
222. VCHR (2018) ‘Shrinking Spaces’: Assessment of Human Rights in Vietnam During the 2nd
Cycle of Its Universal Periodic Review, 3.
223. Ibid, 16.
224. Communication with Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. On le with the author.
225. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide (2018) Death Penalty Database: Egypt,
accessed 1 November 2018. Available from: https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=Egypt.
226. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
227. Communication with Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. On le with the author.
228. Death sentences pronounced by civilian (543) and military (52) courts. Note that in
Egypt, death sentences have to be referred to the Muftis before becoming nal.
229. Four death sentences were pronounced for drug oences in 2017. According to
available sources, none of these were executed – or had their sentence commuted – in
2018. It is thus assumed that they still sit on death row.
230. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
231. Capital Punishment UK (2018), Executions Worldwide. Available from: http://www.
capitalpunishmentuk.org/jan18.html.
232. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
233. Human Rights Committee (2018) 123rd Session: Summary Record of the 3505th Meeting
(Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Lao),
UN Doc CCPR/C/SR.3505, para 65. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Available from: https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/SR.3505.
234. Ibid.
235. JPP (2018) Counting the Condemned: Data Analysis of Pakistan’s Use of the Death Penalty.
Lahore: Justice Project Pakistan.
236. All the gures for Pakistan are from: Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Death
Penalty Monitor, accessed 8 February January 2019. Available from: http://hrcpmonitor.
org/search/?id=17.
237. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 33.
238. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
239. Communication with local civil society (SHAMS Human Rights and Democracy Media
Center). On le with the author.
240. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Taiwan,
accessed 15 January 2019. Available from: https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=Taiwan.
241. Amnesty International (2018) Taiwan: First Execution under President Tsai Ing-Wen a
Crushing Setback to Abolition Hopes. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/
news/2018/08/taiwan-dp/.
242. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘New Taipei court sentences man to death for murder of 4 year
old in his care.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/new-
taipei-court-sentences-man-to-death-for-murder-of-4-year-old-in-his-care-40307428.;
Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Taiwan: High Court sentences man to death over arson that
killed 6.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/taiwan-
high-court-sentences-man-to-death-over-arson-that-killed-6-40304416.; Hands O Cain
(2018) ‘Taiwan. Li Kuo-Hui sentenced to death.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://
www.handsocain.info/notizia/taiwan-li-kuo-hui-sentenced-to-death-40305643.
243. Department of Corrections of Thailand (2018) Statistical Report on Death Penalty
Prisoners.
244. Ibid.
245. Amnesty International (2018) Thailand: Country’s First Execution since 2009 a Deplorable
Move. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/06/thailand-
countrys-rst-execution-since-2009-a-deplorable-move/.
246. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
247. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
248. EIPR (2018) ‘In the Name of the People’: The Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Egypt
2017. Cairo: Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. Available from: https://eipr.org/sites/
default/les/reports/pdf/in_the_name_of_the_people.pdf.
249. The Arab Coalition Against the Death Penalty (2018) Egypt Sentences 75 to Death in
Grotesque Mass Trial. Available from: http://www.achrs.org/english/images/2018_09_10_
PR_Egypt_sentences_75_to_death_in_grotesque_mass_trial_EN.pdf.
250. Communication with Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights. On le with the author.
251. Mu Xuequan (2018) ‘Egypt court seeks execution of 13 Egyptian, Yemeni drug dealers.’
Xinhua. Available from: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/10/c_136883497.
htm.
252. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 9.
253. EIPR (2018) ‘In the Name of the People’, 23.
254. Ibid, 8.
255. EIPR (2018) Time on Death Row - Degrading Treatment. Cairo: Egyptian Initiative for
Personal Rights. Available from: https://eipr.org/en/publications/time-death-row-
degrading-treatment.
256. Hands O Cain, Database: Egypt, accessed 21 December 2018. Available from: http://
www.handsocain.info/bancadati/africa/egypt-40000044.
257. Oce for the High Commissioner on Human Rights (2018) Egypt Must Halt Executions,
Say UN Human Rights Experts. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/
Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22613.
258. Oce for the High Commissioner on Human Rights (2018) Egyptian Death Sentences
Result from Unfair Trial, Should Be Reversed – Bachelet. Available from: https://www.ohchr.
org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23517&LangID=E.
259. European Parliament (2018) Resolution of 8 February 2018 on Executions in Egypt,
2018/2561(RSP). Available from: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.
do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0035+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.
260. Ahram Online (2018) ‘Egyptian Parliament strongly rejects European Parliament’s
resolution on executions.’ Ahram Online. Available from: http://english.ahram.org.
eg/NewsContent/1/64/291222/Egypt/Politics-/Egyptian-Parliament-strongly-rejects-
European-Parl.aspx.
261. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 8 and 32.
262. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
or Arbitrary Executions on Her Mission to Iraq, UN Doc A/HRC/38/44/Add.1, para 64.
Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://undocs.org/A/
HRC/38/44/ADD.1.
263. Gulf News World (2018) ‘Behind Iraq’s death sentence frenzy.’ Gulf News. Available from:
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/behind-iraqs-death-sentence-frenzy-1.2248585.
264. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Iraq, accessed
24 January 2019. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-
post.cfm?country=iraq.
265. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary
or Arbitrary Executions on Her Mission to Iraq, para 65; Gulf News World (2018) ‘Behind
Iraq’s death sentence frenzy.’
266. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Laos, accessed
21 December 2018. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-
search-post.cfm?country=Laos.
267. Human Rights Committee (2018) List of Issues in Relation to the Initial Report of the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic - Addendum: Replies of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic
to the List of Issues, UN Doc CCPR/C/LAO/Q/1/Add.1, para 75. Geneva: United Nations
Human Rights Committee. Available from: https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/LAO/Q/1/ADD.1;
Human Rights Council (2015) Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review:
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UN Doc A/HRC/29/7, para 77. Geneva: United Nations
Human Rights Council. Available from: http://undocs.org/A/HRC/29/7.
268. Human Rights Council (2018) 123rd Session - Summary Record of the 3505th Meeting
(Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant, Lao,
UN Doc CCPR/C/SR.3505, para 65. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council.
Available from: https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/SR.3505.
269. Human Rights Committee (2018) List of Issues in Relation to the Initial Report of the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic - Addendum: Replies of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic to
the List of Issues, para 29.
270. Human Rights Committee (2018) Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of the
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UN Doc CCPR/C/LAO/CO/1, para 18. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Committee. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/
treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR/C/LAO/CO/1&Lang=En.
271. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Death Penalty Monitor, accessed 15 January
2019.
272. JPP (2018) Counting the Condemned: Data Analysis of Pakistan’s Use of the Death Penalty.
273. Ibid.
274. FFR (2018) Optimising Pakistan’s Drug Law, 15.
275. Hassan I (2018) ‘Rethinking Pakistan’s drug law.’ Daily Times. Available from: https://
dailytimes.com.pk/311900/rethinking-pakistans-drug-law/.
Harm Reduction International
44
276. For more on this, see: HRW and JPP (2018) ‘Caught in a Web’: Treatment of Pakistanis in
the Saudi Criminal Justice System, 25. New York: Human Rights Watch and Justice Project
Pakistan. Available from: http://www.jpp.org.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CAUGHT-
IN-A-WEB.pdf.
277. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, para 16.
278. For consistency, HRI refers to Palestine in line with the ocially terminology used by
the United Nations. See https://protocol.un.org/dgacm/pls/site.nsf/les/BB306/$FILE/
bb306.pdf.
279. Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (2018) Accession to Protocol Aiming at Abolition of
Death Penalty Is Step in Right Direction. Available from: https://pchrgaza.org/en/?p=10929.
280. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Taiwan: man executed by ring squad.’ Hands O Cain.
Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/taiwan-man-executed-by-ring-
squad-40309501.
281. Taipei Times (2018) ‘Government hopes to ‘one day’ abolish death penalty.’
Taipei Times. Available from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/
archives/2018/02/15/2003687699.
282. Gallahue P (2011) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2011 – Shared
Responsibility and Shared Consequences, 34.London: Harm Reduction International.
Available from: https://www.hri.global/les/2011/09/14/IHRA_DeathPenaltyReport_
Sept2011_Web.pdf.
283. Ministry of Justice (2018) Corrective Statistics: New Prisoners by Type of Oense, accessed
14 January 2019. Taipei: Ministry of Justice. Available from: https://www.moj.gov.tw/
lp-429-095.html.
284. FIDH and WCADP (2015) The Death Penalty for Drug Crimes in Asia: A Widespread and
Illegal Practice, 57. Paris: International Federation for Human Rights and World Coalition
Against the Death Penalty. Available from: https://www.dh.org/IMG/pdf/asia_death_
penalty_drug_crimes_dh_wcadp_report_oct_2015_pdf.pdf.
285. Lestari A (2018) ‘Again, Batam PN sentenced to death 3 Taiwan residents for carrying
1.03 tons of Sabu-Shabu.’ SindoNews. Available from: https://daerah.sindonews.com/
read/1358753/194/lagi-pn-batam-vonis-mati-3-warga-taiwan-pembawa-103-ton-
sabu-sabu-1543502995; Taipei Times (2018) ‘Eight Taiwanese sentenced to death for
drug smuggling.’ Taipei Times. Available from: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/
archives/2018/04/27/2003692074.
286. Kowitwanij W (2009) ‘Bangkok, drug trackers executed by lethal injection.’ Asia News.
Available from: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Bangkok,-drug-trackers-executed-by-
lethal-injection-16147.html.
287. Amnesty International (2018) Thailand: Country’s First Execution since 2009 a Deplorable
Move.
288. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 35.
289. Department of Corrections of Thailand (2018) Statistical Report on Death Penalty
Prisoners.
290. Zahra N (2019) ‘Two drug smugglers sentenced to death.’ GDN Online. Available from:
http://www.gdnonline.com/Details/468351/Two-drug-smugglers-sentenced-to-death.
291. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Bahrain,
accessed 14 January 2019. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=Bahrain; Zahra N (2019) ‘Two Drug Smugglers
Sentenced to Death.’
292. Zahra N (2019) ‘Two Drug Smugglers Sentenced to Death.’
293. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
294. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
295. New Age (2018) ‘2 to die in Sylhet for smuggling drugs’. New Age Bangladesh. Available
from: http://www.newagebd.net/article/43517/2-to-die-in-sylhet-for-smuggling-drugs.
296. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
297. Bandar Seri Begawan (2017) ‘Man convicted of drug possession to be hanged.’
BruDirect. Available from: http://www.brudirect.com/news.php?id=23030; Cornell Center
on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Brunei, accessed 21 December
2018. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.
cfm?country=Brunei.
298. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Brunei.
299. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 9.
300. All gures on India are from: Project 39A (2018) Annual Statistics Report: 2018, 28. Delhi:
National Law University. Available from: https://www.project39a.com/annual-statistics.
Project 39A reported two death sentences for drug oences in their Annual Statistics
Report: 2017, but these do not gure anymore in the 2018 Annual Statistics Report: 2018.
It is therefore assumed that these sentences were commuted and no one is sitting on
death row for drug oences.
301. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
302. Hands O Cain Database: Jordan, accessed 23 January 2019. Available from: http://www.
handsocain.info/bancadati.php?id_cont=23&id_state=40000507.
303. In 2016 and 2017, 14 people were sentenced to death for drug oences. However,
between 2016 and 2017 several commutations took place, for which specic
information on the identity of the prisoners is not available. It is thus not possible to
conrm whether all 14 individuals sentenced to death for drug oences remain on
death row.
304. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
305. Hands O Cain Database: Kuwait, accessed 1 November 2019. Available from:
http://www.handsocain.info/bancadati/asia-middle-east-australia-and-oceania/
kuwait-40000496.
306. Amnesty International (2018) Death Sentences and Executions in 2017, 35.
307. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Worldwide Database: Myanmar, accessed 21
January 2019. Available from: http://www.worldcoalition.org/Myanmar.
308. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
309. Wai Aung T (2018) ‘Special reporting centre boosts war on drugs.’
310. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
311. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Oman: woman, lover sentenced to death for husband’s murder.’
Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/oman-woman-
lover-sentenced-to-death-for-husband-s-murder-40307172.
312. Ibid.
313. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Qatar,
accessed 21 January 2019. Available from: https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=Qatar.
314. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Qatar: Nepali man sentenced to death for murdering Qatari
national.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/qatar-
nepali-man-sentenced-to-death-for-murdering-qatari-national-40305491.
315. Hankyoreh (2018) ‘South Korea has 61 people currently on death row.’ Hankyoreh.
Available from: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/866061.html.
316. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘South Korea: 61 people currently on death row.’ Hands O Cain.
Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/south-korea-61-people-currently-
on-death-row-40311302.
317. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘South Korea’s ‘Molar Daddy’ gets death penalty for murdering
teen girl.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/south-
korea-s-molar-daddy-gets-death-penalty-for-murdering-teen-girl-40302297.
318. Amnesty International (2018) South Sudan: Execution Spree Targets Even Children
and Threatens Nursing Mothers. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/
news/2018/12/south-sudan-execution-spree-targets-even-children-and-threatens-
nursing-mothers/. 11. This report conrms 342 sentences up to 28 November 2018.
Three more sentences were pronounced in December 2018: Hands O Cain (2018)
‘South Sudan: two men sentenced to death for killing a Kenyan priest.’ Hands O Cain.
Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/south-sudan-two-men-sentenced-
to-death-for-killing-a-kenyan-priest-40314091; Hands O Cain (2018) ‘South Sudan:
soldier sentenced to death for killing his children in Bor.’ Hands O Cain. Available from:
http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/south-sudan-soldier-sentenced-to-death-for-killing-
his-children-in-bor-40313964.
319. Ibid. Amnesty International also reported 79 additional death sentences pronounced
between 2013 and 2018 by military courts. For more info see: Amnesty International
(2018) South Sudan: Execution Spree Targets Even Children and Threatens Nursing Mothers.
320. Jayasekera SA (2019) ‘Ministry issues timeline on death penalty convicts.’ Daily Mirror.
Available from: http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Ministry-issues-timeline-on-death-
penalty-convicts-161469.html.
321. Sanjeewa D (2019) ‘1,299 on death-row in SL prisons.’ Daily Mirror. Available from:
http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/-on-death-row-in-SL-prisons-160894.html. According
to the same source, 823 have appealed against their sentence, while the other 476
sentences appear to be nal.
322. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
323. These were the sentences which HRI was able to conrm through reports and news
articles. However, dozens more are likely to have been imposed throughout the year.
Ocial gures are only published later in 2018.
324. Hawari A (2018) ‘Khartoum sentenced over 1,000 S. Sudanese to death.’ Eye Radio.
Available from: http://www.eyeradio.org/khartoum-sentenced-1-000-s-sudanese-death/.
325. Hands o Cain (2018) ‘Sudan: muezzin sentenced to death for rape.’ Hands O Cain.
Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/sudan-muezzin-sentenced-to-
death-for-rape-40311350; Hands o Cain (2018) ‘Sudan: White Nile court sentences
Darfur student to death.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.
info/notizia/sudan-white-nile-court-sentences-darfur-student-to-death-40313137;
Mackintosh E and Elbagir N (2018) ‘She stabbed her husband as he raped her. A court
sentenced her to death.’ CNN. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/10/
africa/sudan-teen-noura-hussein-death-sentence-rape-intl/index.html.
45The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
326. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
327. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
328. DPIC (2018) The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report, 3. Washington DC: Death Penalty
Information Center. Available from: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/
uploads/2018/12/Death-penalty-report.pdf.
329. Ibid, 1.
330. Ocially for murder, although these have been consistently denounced as politically
motivated executions. See: Reprieve, The Death Penalty in Bahrain: What You Need to
Know, accessed 21 December 2018. Available from: https://reprieve.org.uk/update/the-
death-penalty-in-bahrain-what-you-need-to-know/.
331. ADHRB (2018) Sacrice to the State: Capital Punishment in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, 1.
Washington DC: Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain. Available from:
https://www.adhrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Sacrice-to-the-State-Capital-
Punishment.pdf.
332. Human Rights Committee (2018) Concluding Observations on the Initial Report of Bahrain,
UN Doc CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1, para 30. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/BHR/
CCPR_C_BHR_CO_1_31860_E.pdf.
333. BCHR (2018) The Massacre of Justice. Manama: Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.
Available from: http://www.bahrainrights.org/sites/default/les/media-icons/تتتتت%20
تتتتت%20تتتتتتت%20-%20ENGLISH.pdf.
334. Dhaka Tribune (2018) ‘Narcotics control bill passed with death penalty for dealing
yaba.’ Dhaka Tribune. Available from: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/
parliament/2018/10/27/narcotics-control-bill-passed-death-penalty-for-smuggling-
selling-yaba.
335. Tasneem S (2018) ‘Wooing the voters? The ‘war on drugs’ during Bangladesh’s election.’
Asia Dialogue. Available from: http://theasiadialogue.com/2018/06/21/wooing-the-voters-
the-war-on-drugs-during-bangladeshs-election/.
336. Dhaka Tribune (2018) ‘Bangladesh Becomes UNHRC Member.’ Dhaka Tribune. Available
from: https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2018/10/13/bangladesh-becomes-
unhrc-member.
337. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: Bangladesh, UN Doc A/HRC/39/12, paras 149.3, 149.4, 149.36-44. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/
UNDOC/GEN/G18/211/03/PDF/G1821103.pdf.
338. BBC News (2018) ‘India introduces death penalty for child rapists.’ BBC News. Available
from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43850476.
339. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘India: man gets death sentence for raping 4-yr-old girl in MP.’
Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/india-man-gets-
death-sentence-for-raping-4-yr-old-girl-in-mp-40310350; Hands O Cain (2018) ‘India:
man gets death penalty for raping minor.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.
handsocain.info/notizia/india-man-gets-death-penalty-for-raping-minor-40309508;
Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Rajasthan: 19-year-old gets death penalty sentence for raping
infant in Alwar.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/
rajasthan-19-year-old-gets-death-sentence-for-raping-infant-in-alwar-40308236.
340. Lawyers Collective (2018) ‘Centre rejects Punjab CM’s call for death penalty for rst-time
drug oences.’ The Leaet. Available from: https://theleaet.in/centre-rejects-punjab-
cms-call-for-death-penalty-for-rst-time-drug-oences/.
341. Centre on the Death Penalty (2016) Death Penalty India Report: Volume 1, 16. Delhi:
National Law University. Available from; https://www.project39a.com/dpir.
342. Project 39A (2018) Annual Statistics Report: 2018, 8.
343. Project 39A (2018) Annual Statistics Report: 2018, 12.
344. Centre on the Death Penalty (2016) Death Penalty India Report: Volume 2, 166. Delhi:
National Law University. Available from; https://www.project39a.com/dpir.
345. Joy S (2018) ‘Tharoor moves private bill to abolish death penalty.’ Deccan
Herald. Available from: https://www.deccanherald.com/national/death-penalty-
abberation-686913.html.
346. Tharoor S (2017) The Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill 2017, Pub. L. No. 241 of 2017. Available
from: http://164.100.47.4/billstexts/lsbilltexts/asintroduced/2621LS%20As%20Int....pdf.
347. Project 39A (2018) Annual Statistics Report: 2018, 30.
348. Gallahue P and Lines R (2010) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2010,
12, 17. London: Harm Reduction International. Available from: https://www.hri.global/
les/2010/06/16/IHRA_DeathPenaltyReport_Web.pdf.
349. de La Rochefoucauld M (2014) Jordan: Drug Situation and Policy, 32. Strasbourg:
Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Tracking in Drugs.
Available from: https://rm.coe.int/drug-situation-and-policy-by-matthieu-de-la-
rochefoucauld/168075f2a7.
350. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Jordan,
accessed 1 November 2018. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=Jordan.
351. Al-Nuemat A and Ghnaimat A (2017) ‘Death penalty in Jordan between abolition and
retention.’ Journal of Law and Criminal Justice 5(1):46-67. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.15640/jlcj.v5n1a6.
352. Rihani Petersen S (2016) The Death Penalty in the Arab World. Amman: Amman Centre
for Human Rights Studies. Available from: https://www.achrs.org/english/images/Death_
Penalty_Annual_Report_2015-2016.pdf.
353. Human Rights Committee (2017) Summary Record of the 3420th Meeting (Consideration
of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant: Lao), UN Doc
CCPR/C/SR.3420, para 34. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.
aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FSR.3420&Lang=en.
354. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
355. The Advocates for Human Rights, et al. (2018) Jordan: Stakeholder Report for the
United Nations Universal Periodic Review, paras 1, 7. Geneva: United Nations Human
Rights Council. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/
UPRJOStakeholdersInfoS31.aspx.
356. Human Rights Council (2018) Draft Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: Jordan, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/31/L.7, paras 8.4-8.11. Geneva: United Nations
Human Rights Council. Available from: https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/les/
document/jordan/session_31_-_november_2018/a_hrc_wg_6_31_l_7_as_adopted.pdf.
357. Amnesty International (2015) Mauritania: Submission for the UN Universal Periodic Review
23rd Session of the UPR Working Group, 4. London: Amnesty International.
358. See also: Bridge J and Loglo M-G (2017) Drug Laws in West Africa: A Review and Summary.
London: International Drug Policy Consortium and West Africa Commission on Drugs, 4.
359. Islamic Republic of Mauritania (1993) Loi No. 93-37 Relative à La Repression de La
Production, Du Trac et de l’usage Illicite Des Stupéants et Substances Psychotropes,
37/1993 §, article 3, accessed 29 January 2019. Available from: https://sherloc.unodc.
org/res/cld/document/mrt/loi-93-37_html/mauritania-loi_stupeants.pdf.
360. Islamic Republic of Mauritania (1993) Loi No. 93-37 Relative à La Repression de La
Production, Du Trac et de l’usage Illicite Des Stupéants et Substances Psychotropes,
37/1993 §, article 4.
361. Islamic Republic of Mauritania (1993) Loi No. 93-37 Relative à La Repression de La
Production, Du Trac et de l’usage Illicite Des Stupéants et Substances Psychotropes,
37/1993 §, article 5.
362. Islamic Republic of Mauritania (1993) Loi No. 93-37 Relative à La Repression de La
Production, Du Trac et de l’usage Illicite Des Stupéants et Substances Psychotropes,
37/1993 §, article 13.
363. Amnesty International (2016) Death Sentences and Executions in 2015. London: Amnesty
International. Available from: https://www.amnestyusa.org/les/act_5034872016_
en_2103_web.pdf.
364. CRIDEM (2016) ‘Zouerate: condamnation à mort de quatre passeurs de drogue (Noms).’
Carrefour de la République Islamique DE Mauritanie. Available from: http://cridem.org/
imprimable.php?article=684510.
365. Committee Against Torture (2018) Concluding Observations on the Second Periodic
Report of Mauritania, UN Doc CAT/C/MRT/CO/2, paras 34, 35. Geneva: United Nations
Committee Against Torture.
366. Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control (2018) The Republic of the Union of Myanmar
National Drug Control Policy, 3. Myanmar: Central Committee for Drug Abuse Control.
Available from: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southeastasiaandpacic/2018/02/
Myanmar_Drug_Control_Policy.pdf.
367. Ibid, 24.
368. Wai Aung T (2018) ‘Special reporting centre boosts war on drugs.’
369. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 41.
370. Committee Against Torture (2018) Concluding Observations on the Third Periodic Report
of Qatar, UN Doc CAT/C/QAT/CO/3, para 34. Geneva: United Nations Committee Against
Torture. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CAT/C/QAT/CO/3&Lang=En.
371. General Assembly (2018) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Report of the Third Committee; General Assembly:
55th plenary meeting, ‘Vote Name: Item 74(b) A/73/589/Add.2 Draft Resolution XIII.
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty.’
372. International Justice Resource Center (2018) Qatar to Become Party to Two UN Human
Rights Conventions. Available from: https://ijrcenter.org/2018/06/05/qatar-to-become-
party-to-two-un-human-rights-conventions/.
373. National Human Rights Commission of Korea (2018) NHRCK Recommended
for Accession to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR. Available
from: https://www.humanrights.go.kr/site/program/board/basicboard/
view?menuid=002002001&pagesize=10&boardtypeid=7003&boardid=7603312.
374. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘South Korea: presidential oce says it may review introducing
moratorium on death penalty.’ Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.
info/notizia/south-korea-presidential-oce-says-it-may-review-introducing-moratorium-
on-death-penalty-40306439.
Harm Reduction International
46
375. Korea Herald (2018) ‘7 in 10 Koreans oppose death penalty.’ Korea Herald. Available
from: http://www01.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181011000808.
376. Hankyoreh (2018) ‘South Korea has 61 people currently on death row.’
377. General Assembly (2018) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Report of the Third Committee; General Assembly:
55th plenary meeting, ‘Vote Name: Item 74(b) A/73/589/Add.2 Draft Resolution XIII.
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty.’
378. Sander G (2018) The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2017, 42.
379. Hands O Cain (2018) ‘Lanka govt approves capital punishment for drug oences.’
Hands O Cain. Available from: http://www.handsocain.info/notizia/lanka-govt-
approves-capital-punishment-for-drug-oences-40307432.
380. Beaumont P (2018) ‘Sri Lanka to begin hanging drug dealers to “replicate success of
Philippines”.’
381. Dhaka Tribune (2018) ‘EU warns Sri Lanka over death penalty.’ Dhaka Tribune. Available
from: https://www.dhakatribune.com/world/south-asia/2018/07/17/eu-warns-sri-lanka-
over-death-penalty.
382. More information on the ‘GSP+’ status is available here: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/
tradehelp/gsp.
383. Human Rights Council (2017) Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: Sri Lanka, UN Doc A/HRC/37/17, paras 116.53, 116.54. Geneva: United Nations
Human Rights Council. Available from: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G17/370/50/PDF/G1737050.pdf.
384. General Assembly (2018) Promotion and Protection of Human Rights: Human Rights
Questions, Including Alternative Approaches for Improving the Eective Enjoyment of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms - Report of the Third Committee; General Assembly:
55th plenary meeting, ‘Vote Name: Item 74(b) A/73/589/Add.2 Draft Resolution XIII.
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty.’
385. Statistics Division (2018) Prison Statistics of Sri Lanka, 51. Colombo: Department of
Prisons.
386. Based on a Harm Reduction International dataset on death sentences and executions
for drug oences. On le with the author and available upon request.
387. Human Rights Committee (2017) Fifth Periodic Report Submitted by the Sudan under
Article 40 of the Covenant, Due in 2017, UN Doc CCPR/C/SDN/5, para 14. Geneva: United
Nations Human Rights Committee. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/
treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FSDN%2F5&Lang=en.
388. Human Rights Committee (2018) List of Issues in Relation to the Fifth Periodic Report of
the Sudan, UN Doc CCPR/C/SDN/Q/5, para 13. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights
Committee. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/
Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FSDN%2FQ%2F5&Lang=en.
389. Hawari A (2018) ‘Khartoum sentenced over 1,000 S. Sudanese to death.’
390. Human Rights Committee (2018) List of Issues in Relation to the Fifth Periodic Report
of the Sudan – Addendum Replies of the Sudan to the List of Issues, UN Doc CCPR/C/
SDN/Q/5/Add.1, para 27. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.
aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FSDN%2FQ%2F5%2FAdd.1&Lang=en.
391. Ebagir N and Dewan A (2018) ‘Sudan overturns death sentence for teen who killed her
husband after he raped her.’ CNN. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/26/
africa/sudan-death-sentence-noura-hussein-asequals-intl/index.html.
392. Human Rights Committee (2018) Concluding Observations on the Fifth Periodic Report of
the Sudan, UN Doc CCPR/C/SDN/CO/5, para 29. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights
Committee. Available from: https://undocs.org/CCPR/C/SDN/CO/5.
393. Al Amir S (2018) ‘Crime doesn’t pay: driver who accepted Dh140 to carry drug haul
faces death sentence.’ The National. Available from: https://www.thenational.ae/uae/
crime-doesn-t-pay-driver-who-accepted-dh140-to-carry-drug-haul-faces-death-
sentence-1.710046.
394. Reprieve (2017) Submission to the United Nations Universal Period Review: United
Arab Emirates, 4. Available from: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/
UPRUnitedArabEmiratesStakeholdersInfoS29.aspx.
395. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: United Arab Emirates – Addendum, UN Doc A/HRC/38/14/Add.1, paras 141.13-15,
141.96-108. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://
www.upr-info.org/sites/default/les/document/united_arab_emirates/session_29_-_
january_2018/a_hrc_38_14_add.1_en.pdf.
396. Ibid, paras 141.107-108.
397. Human Rights Council (2018) Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic
Review: United Arab Emirates, UN Doc A/HRC/38/14. Geneva: United Nations Human
Rights Council. Available from: https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/les/document/
united_arab_emirates/session_29_-_january_2018/a_hrc_38_14_e.pdf.
398. 25 executions were carried out in the United States in 2018. Death Penalty Information
Center (2018) The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report.
399. 18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(1); Ingraham C (2018) ‘Here’s how much marijuana you’d need to
be eligible for the death penalty under federal law.’ The Washington Post, Wonkblog.
Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/26/heres-
how-much-marijuana-youd-need-to-be-eligible-for-the-death-penalty-under-federal-
law/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b54eef750afd.
400. The White House (2018) Remarks by President Trump on Combatting the Opioid Crisis.
401. Lines R (2018) ‘Trump take note – why Singapore’s claim that the death penalty works
for drug oences is fake news.’ The Conversation. Available from: https://theconversation.
com/trump-take-note-why-singapores-claim-that-the-death-penalty-works-for-drug-
oences-is-fake-news-92305.
402. Oce of the Attorney General (2018) Memorandum to United States Attorneys.
403. Schipani V and Farley R (2018) Q&A: The Death Penalty for Drug Tracking? FactCheck.
Org. Available from: https://www.factcheck.org/2018/04/qa-the-death-penalty-for-drug-
tracking/.
404. See New Hampshire: ‘Murder committed in the course of drug crimes’ (R.S.A.
630:1,R.S.A. 630:5). Available from: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/
lxii/630/630-5.htm.
405. Death Penalty Information Center, List of Death Row Prisoners (Alphabetical), accessed
15 January 2019. Available from: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/federal-death-row-
prisoners#list.
406. Drash W (2018) ‘Trump’s death penalty plan for drug dealers a “step backwards”,
experts say.’ CNN. Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/19/health/trump-
death-penalty-drug-trackers-reaction/index.html.
407. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Brunei.
408. Faisal F (2017) ‘Death row convict’s appeal dismissed.’ Borneo Bulletin. Available from:
https://borneobulletin.com.bn/death-row-convicts-appeal-dismissed/.
409. Human Rights Council (2018) National Report Submitted in Accordance with Paragraph 5
of the Annex to Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21: Cuba, UN Doc A/HRC/WG.6/30/
CUB/1, para 22. Geneva: United Nations Human Rights Council. Available from: https://
documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G18/056/17/PDF/G1805617.pdf.
410. Al Mukrashi F (2018) ‘Omani woman sentenced to death for killing husband.’ Gulf News.
Available from: https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/oman/omani-woman-sentenced-to-
death-for-killing-husband-1.2246348.
411. Amnesty International (2018) ‘I Told the Judge I Was 15’: The Use of the Death Penalty in
South Sudan. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/afr65/9496/2018/
en/.
412. Hands O Cain, Database: Libya, accessed 1 November 2019. Available from: http://
www.handsocain.info/bancadati/africa/libya-40000357.
413. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: Libya, accessed
21 December 2018. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-
search-post.cfm?country=Libya.
414. Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide, Death Penalty Database: North Korea,
accessed 11 January 2019. Available from: http://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/
country-search-post.cfm?country=North+Korea.
415. Middleton L (2018) ‘Paedophiles publicly shot and hanged after raping and killing young
boy.’ Metro. Available from: https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/09/paedophiles-publicly-shot-
and-hanged-after-raping-and-killing-young-boy-7817941.
416. Human Rights Watch (2018) Yemen: Houthis Sentence Baha’i Man to Death. Available
from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/02/27/yemen-houthis-sentence-bahai-man-
death.
417. Amnesty International (2018) Yemen: 24 Baha’i People, Including a Child, Facing Possible
Death Penalty. Available from: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/yemen-
24-bahai-people-including-a-child-facing-possible-death-penalty/.
47The Death Penalty for Drug Oences: Global Overview 2018
Harm Reduction International is a leading NGO dedicated to
reducing the negative health, social and legal impacts of drug
use and drug policy. We promote the rights of people who use
drugs and their communities through research and advocacy to
help achieve a world where drug policies and laws contribute to
healthier, safer societies.
If you would like to nd out more about Harm Reduction International,
please contact us at:
Harm Reduction International
61 Mansell Street,
London, E1 8AN,
United Kingdom
Phone: +44 (0) 20 7324 3535
Email: o[email protected]
Web: www.hri.global
