- A global overview of the death penalty
- The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) conducted an inquiry into Australia’s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty in 2015 and published its report, A world without the death penalty, Australia’s advocacy for the abolition of the death penalty (2016 Report) in 2016. Understanding the current global status of the death penalty is critical to understanding what progress, if any, has been made since the 2016 Report.
- With a shifting geopolitical environment, this chapter looks at evidence around what the global picture now looks like, current areas of concern and possible trends that can be seen in retentionist countries. The chapter also looks at the two main international treaties of which Australia is a signatory, that pertain to the use of capital punishment.
Global overview
2.3The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) stated that there is a global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty and that international law imposed a ‘strict restriction’ on how it should be used in countries that retain it. Despite this restriction capital punishment itself is not specifically forbidden in international law.
2.4Stakeholders to this inquiry generally noted that the death penalty was not a deterrent for crime, as claimed by some retentionist countries. Amnesty International Australia (Amnesty Australia) observed that this claim had been discredited with no evidence the death penalty was more effective in reducing crime than a sentence of life in prison.
2.5Evidence received to the inquiry showed unanimous opposition to capital punishment and noted it was a violation of fundamental human rights and the right to life. Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) asserted that while all countries had a sovereign right to the approach they take to criminal justice, the death penalty was not ‘an evidence-based or effective way to do so’. ALHR stated that,
It is a counterintuitive proposition that a state would seek to deter violent crime by mirroring that violence in punishment by death.
2.6The Amnesty International Global Report, Death Sentences and Executions 2023 (Amnesty International Global Report), observed that due to the lack of transparency in some countries, the true overall figures on the use of the death penalty globally, are likely to be higher than the figures in its report.
2.7An overview of data from the Amnesty International Global Report, showed that most countries globally have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice:
- Abolitionist for all crimes: 112
- Abolitionist for ordinary crimes only: 9
- Abolitionist in practice: 23
- Abolitionist in law and practice: 144
- Retentionists: 55
- The report further highlighted that the rise in executions by a smaller number of states affirmed the ‘ever-increasing isolation of retentionist countries’. However, it was reported that in 2023 the lowest number of countries had the highest known number of executions in nearly a decade, with the increase in the number of executions driven by drug-related offences in Iran. In evidence given to the inquiry, Mr Ry Atkinson, Strategic Campaigner, Amnesty International Australia, stated that in Iran there was a 48 percent increase in executions from 576 in 2022 to 853 in 2023, which accounted for around 74 per cent of all known global executions.
- Amnesty International noted that there were 1,153 executions recorded in 2023, an increase of 31 per cent from 2022 and the highest number recorded by Amnesty since 2015. This figure was noted to not include individuals executed in China. Further, it was observed that 2023 saw 2,428 new recorded death sentences, up 20 per cent from 2022 but the report noted that the availability in information from country to country makes yearly comparisons ‘methodologically challenging’.
- China was stated to be the global leader in executions, but the lack of data makes the true extent unknown. Due to concerns over how officials in China ‘misrepresented’ its’ data, in 2009 Amnesty International stopped publishing estimated figures relating to the death penalty in China.
- The Amnesty International Global Report noted the countries and the various recorded methods they used to carry out the death penalty in 2023.
Table 2.1Methods of executions in 2023
Beheading | Saudi Arabia |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hanging | Bangladesh | Egypt | Iran | Iraq | Kuwait | Singapore | Syria |
Lethal injection | China | USA | Viet Nam |
|
|
|
|
Shooting | Afghanistan | China | North Korea | Palestine (State of) | Somalia | Yemen |
|
Source: Amnesty International Global Report, Death Sentences and Executions 2023
Overview by region
2.12Amnesty International’s Global Report also provided a regional overview of the death penalty globally. According to the report:
The Americas
- For the 15th consecutive year, the United States of America (USA) was noted to be the only country in the Americas to have carried out executions in 2023. Alongside the USA, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago were the only countries in the Americas who imposed a sentence of the death penalty.
- Despite increases in sentences and executions in the USA, the figures remained in line with historic low numbers for the recent decade. Alabama, Missouri and Texas were noted as the three states that carried out executions every year from 2019 – 2023.
Asia-Pacific
- The Asia-Pacific region was recorded as having the highest number of executions globally, with China noted to have carried out more executions than the rest of the world combined. In 2023, executions were recorded in six out of 20 countries in the region, with 18 imposing death sentences.
Europe and Central Asia
- No executions were recorded in the Europe and Central Asia region in 2023, with Belarus the only country to record a death sentence for that year. Russia and Tajikistan currently have moratoriums on death sentences.
Middle East and North Africa
- There was a noted increase in the use of the death penalty in the Middle East and North Africa region, with recorded executions increasing by 30 per cent and death sentences by 15 per cent. The number of known executions in the region was stated to be around 1,000, with Iran accounting for 80 per cent of these. Most of the executions in Iran were for drug related offences, followed by murder and then ‘corruption on earth and enmity against God.’
- Eight countries in the region were stated to have carried out the death sentence in 2023. These countries were: Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen.
Sub-Saharan Africa
- It was noted that there was an increase in the use of the death penalty in the Sub-Saharan region. Somalia was the only country in the Sub-Saharan African region known to have carried out executions in 2023, with 14 countries recording death sentences. Positively, four countries - Ghana, Kenya, Zimbabwe and Liberia - took legislative steps towards the abolition of the death penalty.
- The Amnesty International Global Report highlighted areas where there were violations of international law and standards with way the death penalty was used in 2023. Some of these included:
- At least five people in Iran were executed for crimes that took place when they were under 18 years of age;
- In some countries including Japan, the Maldives and the USA, people with mental or intellectual disabilities were under a death sentence;
- Use of the death penalty for drug-related offences;
- Use of the death penalty for economic crimes such as corruption in China;
- In Iran the death penalty was imposed for apostasy and sexual relationships outside of marriage between consenting adults.
Progress towards global abolition
2.14The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in its submission to the inquiry, commented on recent progress towards abolition that had been made in various countries:
- Malaysia - in 2023 the mandatory death penalty was abolished;
- Pakistan - in 2023 the death penalty was repealed for some drug-related offences;
- Ghana - in 2023 the death penalty was abolished for ordinary crimes;
- Papua New Guinea and Central African Republic - in 2022 the death penalty was abolished for all crimes;
- Zambia and Equatorial Guinea - in 2022 the death penalty was abolished for ordinary crimes;
- Chad - in 2020 the death penalty was abolished;
- Kazakhstan - in 2021 the death penalty was abolished.
- DFAT noted that where progress was made towards abolition of capital punishment, Australia had made representations or statements to those countries on the abolition of the death penalty.
- Progress towards abolition of capital punishment globally is not linear and while the overall goal is for abolition, DFAT stressed that it was recognised that there are various paths that retentionists countries take towards abolition.
- Ms Angela Robinson, First Assistant Secretary, Multilateral Policy and Human Rights Division, DFAT stated that overall, there was some optimism with global trends pointing to fewer countries carrying out executions. Further, since the last inquiry, there are countries that have become abolitionist in law or in practice and countries that have taken steps towards abolition.
- This was echoed by Mr Ry Atkinson, who affirmed that progress towards the global abolition of the death penalty had been made, with some retentionist countries in Africa and Asia making positive moves.However, he noted that this progress has meant that some retentionist countries hide data around the death penalty and the fact that it is carried out.
International agreements relating to the death penalty
2.19Australia’s advocacy and position on the abolition of the death penalty is grounded in its ratification of two international agreements in particular:
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and
- The Second Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
2.20The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) came into force on 23 March 1976. The aim of the ICCPR is to protect the ‘civil and political rights’ of people, including the right to life, freedom from torture, the right to be treated with humanity in detention and the right to a fair trial. The ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) compliment the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the three together form the International Bill of Human Rights.
2.21Article 6(1) of the ICCPR states that everyone has the inherent right to life which should be protected by law. Article 6(2) further states that for countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, ‘the sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes’, following a judgement by a ‘competent court’. Australia ratified the ICCPR in 1980 and as of September 2024, there were 174 Parties to the ICCPR.
Second Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty
2.22The Second Optional Protocol Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty (the Protocol) is subsidiary agreement to the ICCPR, focused on the total abolition of the death penalty. The Protocol requires ratifying State Parties, who are signatories to the ICCPR, to ‘abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction’.
2.23Article 1 of the Protocol calls for a ban on executions and for the abolition of the death penalty within member States. Article 2 however states that,
No reservation is admissible to the present Protocol, except for a reservation made at the time of ratification or accession that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war pursuant to a conviction for a most serious crime of a military nature committed during wartime.
2.24The Protocol also sets out reporting obligations for States and the procedure for complaints. While the Protocol is not compulsory,
once a State party to the Covenant also becomes a party to the Protocol, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the State party may lodge a written complaint with the Human Rights Committee (subject to any permissible reservations).
2.25Australia ratified the Protocol in 1990, which then came into force in 1991. In 2010, the Australian Parliament passed legislation to prohibit capital punishment being reintroduced.
Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
2.26Australia also takes part in the United Nations Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which every four and a half years, calls for UN Member States to have their human rights records peer reviewed. This provides an opportunity to
- Report on the actions it has taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights; and
- Receive recommendations – informed by multi-stakeholder input and pre-session reports – from UN Member States for continuous improvement.
- Ms Robinson noted the success rate of countries adopting UPR recommendations broadly with regards to human rights. It was stated that the UPR was ‘one of the most successful innovations in the human rights mechanisms for incremental progress’. Ms Robinson further commented that:
If you make your recommendations very precise, so the country has to react to it and come back in four years and tell you how they've done, it is more effective than other UN mechanisms that we've seen. We can't tell you that has turned abolitionist countries but it is a very detailed, global focus on the world stage, where they have to come and explain how they will react to a specific recommendation progressing abolition.
Trends and areas of concern
2.28Throught the inquiry, the consensus was that there is a global trend towards abolition of the death penalty generally, but there were noted challenges to this progress and in some cases, setbacks. Evidence received pointed to areas of concern and challenges that face efforts towards the worldwide abolition of the death penalty. Some of the challenges and concerns raised related geopolitical conditions, while others were based on what stakeholders viewed as shortcomings in Australia’s engagement with partners and concerns with some aspects of legislation in Australia and abroad. Stakeholders also broadly noted a lack of transparency around judicial processes and executions in some retentionists countries.
2.29The joint submission from Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP), Eleos Justice, Monash University, Julian Wagner Memorial Fund (JWMF), Australians Against Capital Punishment (AACP), Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) (CPJP joint submission) claimed that some States had regressed away from abolition. The submission noted that Singapore’s progress towards abolition was viewed with optimism in 2015 – 2016, but since March 2022, 19 people have been executed in the country, most after being convicted of the trafficking of small amounts of drugs. It was indicated that:
Having seemingly paused executions since late July 2023 – presumably, because a number of people on death row are involved in legal challenges, and with the exception of one carried out in February 2024 – it now appears Singapore will commence executions again at pace. Two executions were carried out in the first week of August 2024. Both hangings were scheduled despite the prisoners being involved in ongoing legal proceedings.
2.30The CPJP joint submission also emphasised that the path towards abolition was not linear and that setbacks were possible. The submission gave the example of the Philippines, a country that had ratified the Second Optional Protocol and where the death penalty had been abolished on numerous occasions. It was claimed that under the country’s former President, Rodrigo Duterte, the chances of the death penalty being reinstated was a possibility from mid-2016. Although advocacy had reduced the likelihood, it was observed that the possibility of the death penalty being reintroduced in the Philippines remains possible, with several bills still pending.
2.31In giving evidence to the inquiry, Ms Bronte Moules, Assistant Secretary, Human Rights Branch and Ambassador for Human Rights, DFAT contended that tracking trends was difficult because they tended to occur in countries where it is difficult to obtain data. However, she pointed out that some of the issues that arose when looking at the death penalty were ‘religious beliefs, political views, sexual orientation or gender identity’. Ms Moules emphasised that:
While there is not necessarily a clearly defined definition of 'most serious crimes' for the death penalty…. there is some guidance. It makes very clear that, to the extent that any country retains the death penalty, it should not be applied for a person's religious belief or other beliefs….and also….it makes it clear that it should not be used for drug related crimes.
Suppression in retentionist States
2.32AHRC expressed the view that Australia should be concerned about the way in which the death penalty is being used in retentionist countries. Its submission to the inquiry noted Iran’s executions of citizens in response to protests that occurred following the death in September 2022 of Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini. The submission quoted the UN Human Rights Commission, which stated that these sanctions:
…are being imposed following legal proceedings that lack transparency and fail to meet basic fair trial and due process guarantees under international human rights law.
2.33Ms Elizabeth Wood, Chief Executive Officer, Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP) expressed a view of the blatant way in which Iran deals with dissent. It was noted that:
The Islamic Republic of Iran is trying to have absolute power and stop the protests. Recently a lot of women activists and human rights defenders are being given a death sentence for the spurious charge, very vaguely defined, of 'national security offences'. There are other ways that Iran is trying to limit women's participation in society. In terms of what we were talking about before, the flow-on effect encourages state sanction violence. It definitely encourages that by making women a target. Iran is absolutely a concern. They are averaging three executions a day; we can't keep up with the statistics.
2.34Regarding Iran, evidence was given that the number of executions for drug offences were increasing with the claim that charges were ‘spurious’ with those who expressed opposition to the government charged with ‘sowing corruption on earth.’
2.35Ms Jasmina Bajraktarevic-Hayward, Community Services Coordinator, New South Wales Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS) also identified that certain diaspora communities in Australia have expressed concerns about the death penalty being practiced in their home countries. Ms Deal commented that the Iranian community is:
… incredibly concerned, and we know that Iran practises the death penalty. We have worked closely with the Iranian community, particularly over the last two years with the Women, Life, Freedom movement, and they have talked about concerns about the death penalty for people who are demonstrating.
2.36While Iran was said to use the death penalty as a means of suppression, it was put forward that Singapore also used tactics of suppression against those who challenged or spoke out against the death penalty. Ms Wood commented that Singapore was:
…using and abusing their laws to force organisations to put up corrections notices saying that what they said was factually incorrect, when it wasn't factually incorrect; it was a difference of opinion to the government.
2.37Ms Sara Kowal, Acting Director, Eleos Justice, Vice-President, Capital Punishment Justice Project and Deputy Convenor, Executive Committee, Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network also noted that in Singapore civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights activists who have criticised Singapore’s death penalty practices, face harassment. It was stated that the Singapore law minister has named individuals and organisations who have challenged the death penalty and had read out the email of an activist in Parliament. Evidence given noted that the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN), which is not based in Singapore, was issued with a corrections notice by the Singaporean Government, which highlighted ‘harassment that goes beyond the borders of Singapore’.
2.38The Law Council of Australia (Law Council) in its submission, claimed that lawyers in in Singapore were ‘discouraged from taking on death penalty cases beyond a certain point.’ It was also claimed that:
… human rights defenders, including capital defence lawyers and civil society organisations in Singapore – and particularly those that publicly criticise government policy – are subject to scrutiny and persistent efforts to curtail their activities.
2.39Ms Kowal also expressed concerns regarding Myanmar. She articulated that recently, political activists were executed in the country, with concerns of more executions being imminent.
New methods approved for executions
2.40Another development noted was the use of untried means to carry out the death penalty in the United States of America (USA). Under Article 7 of the ICCPR, torture, cruel, inhumane, degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited. Article 7 states that:
In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
2.41AHRC highlighted that the state of Idaho in the USA passed a law allowing executions by firing squads due to a shortage of lethal-injecting drugs.
2.42Further, AHRC stated that in January 2024, Alabama executed a prisoner using nitrogen hypoxia. This was the first time globally that an execution was carried out using this drug. AHRC noted that UN experts labelled the execution of the Kenneth Smith, using nitrogen hypoxia, as ‘nothing short of State-sanctioned torture.’
Drugs related death sentences and executions
2.43The joint submission from Harm Reduction International (HRI), International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), Australian Injecting and Illicit Drug Users League (AIVL), Women and Harm Reduction International Network (WHRIN), Harm Reduction Australia, Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat (LBHM), and the Australian Civil Society Committee on UN Drug Policy (HRI joint submission) noted that there are currently 34 countries with the death penalty for drug offences stipulated in their legislation. It was emphasised that to achieve global abolition, ongoing engagement on the death penalty and its use for drug offences is key, although the true number of executions for drug offences remains unknown due to a lack of transparency and censorship in some countries.
2.44The Amnesty International Global Report asserted that the increase in known executions globally was mainly due to an increase in executions in Iran, where drug related executions increased from 255 in 2022 to 481 in 2023. The CPJP joint submission reported figures that showed 467 executions for drug related offences took place in 2023, a 44 per cent rise from 2022. These drug related executions were stated to have been carried out in China, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabi and Singapore, with Iran being highlighted to have carried out 98 per cent of these.
2.45The CPJP joint submission strongly emphasised that:
…the submitting organisations do not accept any arguments that drug-related crimes can be considered among the ‘most serious crimes’ under the ICCPR. We reject assertions that the death penalty works as an effective deterrent to drug crimes, or that there is any credible evidence to support such assertions.
2.46Evidence given by Mr Atkinson asserted that the issue of the death penalty for drug related offences was one that had been overlooked in Australia’s Strategy for Abolition of the Death Penalty (the Strategy). It was argued that the ‘war on drugs’ had undermined the rights of millions of people globally and the zero-tolerance approach for crimes, including drugs, had implications for human rights, particularly for the poor and marginalised.
2.47On a positive note, it was stated that following legislative changes in Malaysia regarding the death penalty, their federal court was in the process of resentencing over 1000 people. The indication being that people convicted of drug offences will move off death row. Ms Kowal stated that:
In Malaysia, where 95 per cent of women on death row were there for drug offences, the expected outcome is that very few women will remain on death row at the end of this process. This contrast is important, as it demonstrates that, with an ongoing engagement, previously entrenched positions can change.
Sexuality, gender, ethnicity, nationality and socioeconomic factors
2.48Ms Robinson stated that since 2023, Australia has delivered five statements at the UN Human Rights Council, condemning the death penalty, ‘including on the basis of sexual orientation, or gender identity, religion, political views or against children.’ Ms Robinson noted DFAT’s concerns that some minority groups, including LGBTIQ groups in Uganda and Yemen, were at a ‘disproportionate risk’.
2.49Concerns for LGBTIQA+ people in countries that had the death sentence were expressed across the evidence received by the Subcommittee. STARTTS stated that:
In Yemen, in January 2024, nine men were sentenced to death, and then 13 further men in Yemen were sentenced to death for promotion of homosexuality in February 2024…. There has also been a recent report about Taliban treatment of people who are LGBTIQA+.
2.50Ms Moules gave evidence that there are still countries where homosexuality is a criminal offence, and a number of countries that have considered potentially applying the death penalty in relation to homosexuality. She stated that Australia advocated against this as soon as discussions around it begin to surface.
2.51Twelve countries were identified as having the death penalty for adultery and same-sex relations. Despite the small number of executions carried out for these offences the joint submission from CPJP asserted that:
…the state is declaring that people are deserving of death if they leave their religion, engage in consensual sexual relations outside of marriage or in same-sex sexual acts. Such declarations also have a chilling trickle-down effect within communities by legitimising vigilantism and honour killings.
2.52DFAT further advised that in Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Yemen as well as 12 northern states of Nigeria, the death penalty could be applied for ‘consensual same-sex relations’. However, in Brunei, Uganda and Mauritania, there are currently unofficial moratoriums on executions.
2.53The argument was put forward that the plight of female death row inmates is overlooked. Of the approximately 540 people on death row in Indonesia, 12 are women. Of these 12, it was stated that half had been convicted of drug trafficking.
2.54Evidence was given that ethnic minorities in Singapore were ‘disproportionately overrepresented on death row’. It was asserted that nationality was another factor that could result in an individual receiving a death sentence. In the case of Indonesia, 83 foreign nationals were reported to be on death row, accounting for 15 per cent of the total number of inmates on death row.
2.55This was also acknowledged by Mr Albert Wirya, Director, Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat, who gave evidence that foreign nationals, the poor, migrant workers, people with disabilities and people who use drugs were most likely to be sentenced to death in Indonesia.
2.56Amnesty Australia stated that the socioeconomic background of individuals can play a role in death sentences being imposed. It was asserted that that those from less well-off backgrounds, or from minority groups, were disproportionately affected by the death penalty.
Violations of international law and ongoing concerns
2.57The Law Council highlighted some ongoing and emerging areas of concern which included the death penalty being used for offences that did not meet the ‘most serious crimes’ threshold. Concerns were also expressed with regards to:
- Efforts to weaken United Nations resolutions on the death penalty;
- Laws and policies that restrict the right to appeal;
- Laws, policies and practices that reduce access to legal representation and penalise capital defence lawyers;
- The introduction of new methods to carry out executions; and
- State-sanctioned extra-judicial killings.
- Ms Moules warned that working on human rights in the current environment has become more challenging for a variety of reasons and that in many countries civil society space is ‘shrinking’. Ms Moules remarked that:
Our commitment remains unwavering, of course, but, in our work on death penalty abolition advocacy, it requires our work with civil society to be even more nuanced and carefully thought through. That's because in many contexts, sadly, it is becoming tougher for civil society to operate.
Asylum seekers in Australia
2.59Not all concerns raised were in relation to countries that carried out or imposed death sentences. Concerns were also expressed for asylum seekers in Australia, who due to what was noted as flaws in Australia’s processes, could result in individuals being returned to countries that retain capital punishment. Concerns were expressed that there were flaws in the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process, that could unintentionally lead to asylum seekers being deported to countries where they may be at risk of the death penalty with particular challenges facing the LGBTIQA+ asylum seekers being highlighted.
2.60The HRI joint submission noted that under human rights law, States have a duty to protect life, with abolitionists counties having particular obligations. These obligations include not deporting or extraditing individuals to countries where they may face charges that carry the death penalty unless there are strong guarantees that the death penalty will not be imposed.
2.61As Australia is a party to both the ICCPR and the Protocol, it has responsibilities to ensure that persons within its jurisdiction are not executed. Further, Australia has ‘non-refoulement obligations’, that is, an obligation not to deport or extradite individuals to counties where they may be at risk of the death penalty.
Committee comment
2.62The Subcommittee recognises and is encouraged to note that there has been progress towards the global abolition of the death penalty since its last inquiry into the issue in 2015 – 2016. It is encouraging to see more countries have either legislated against the use of the death penalty, reduced the number of crimes that are eligible for capital punishment, or in practice no longer use the death penalty. Despite progress, it is clear that it is not a linear process and that global abolition should not be taken for granted. Those who support and advocate for the abolition of capital punishment should remain vigilant.
2.63The Subcommittee notes that a small number of countries record the highest number of executions. The Subcommittee is concerned that while the trend appears to be towards abolition, there is an increase in executions by countries that remain abolitionist and an increase in executions for drug-related offences in some countries Drug-related offences do not meet the most serious crimes threshold and should not warrant a death sentence.
2.64The Subcommittee acknowledges that the highest number of global executions takes place in our region - the Asia Pacific. China is believed to have carried out more executions than the rest of the world combined, but there is no reliable data available to ascertain the true numbers. The Subcommittee also acknowledges that some of Australia’s key allies continue to legislate for capital punishment as well as carry out executions, including the USA and Singapore.
2.65The Subcommittee is also concerned about the use of capital punishment in relation to a person’s sexuality. In recent years, Uganda has legislated an anti-homosexuality act, and countries such as Yemen have been reported to have executed individuals based on their sexuality. The vulnerability of the LGBTIQA+ community to the death penalty is worrying and requires the Australian Government and governments in abolitionist countries to continue to advocate for the death penalty not to be used.
2.66There are currently areas of concern with regards to particular groups who may be at greater risk of the death penalty. Without reliable and accurate data, it remains difficult to see the true scale of the problem, but these areas of concern require that Australia and other abolitionist countries remain observant.
2.67The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government continues to advocate for the abolition of the death penalty in all retentionist countries through bilateral, multilateral and regional fora, and with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
This advocacy should consider canvassing support for a coalition of like-minded abolitionist countries in the Asia-Pacific region to work together on advocating for the abolition of the death penalty regionally.
2.68The Subcommittee recommends that the Australian Government, recognising that the path to abolition may be incremental, advocates for a reduction in the categories of crimes that carry the death penalty in retentionist countries and for discretion in sentencing. This should include the development of strategies to advocate for:
- the abolition of the death penalty for drug-related crimes, which the United Nations notes do not constitute ‘most serious crimes’, and
- the abolition of the mandatory death penalty for all crimes, in recognition that courts contemplating imposing death sentences should have the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances.
Mechanisms that could be utilised for such advocacy include United Nations fora, such as the Universal Periodic Review and the Commission on Narcotic Drugs.