UN Experts Condemn Executions of Singaporean Tamils: Call for Moratorium on Death Penalty

GENEVA – UN experts have condemned the recent execution in Singapore of Tangaraj s/o Spear, 46, a Tamil citizen of Singapore, for conspiring to smuggle 1,017.9 grams of cannabis. .

They urge the Singapore government to immediately stop the death penalty.

Thangaraju’s execution took place on 26 April despite allegations that a proper interpreter was not provided during police interrogation. Additionally, his family has filed an amnesty petition with the President of Singapore, demanding a retrial of his case.

UN experts say that the death penalty should only be carried out after a legal process with all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, legal representation at every stage, and the necessary interpretations at all oral hearings. said it can.

UN experts say that “the death penalty should be carried out after legal proceedings with all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial, including legal representation at all stages of the proceedings and the necessary interpretation in all oral proceedings.” can only be carried out,” he said.

Experts have expressed concern about the very alarming rate of enforcement notices for drug-related crimes in Singapore. They stressed that international law only allows the death penalty for “the most serious crimes,” including intentional murder.

“States that have not yet abolished the death penalty may impose it only for the ‘most serious crimes,'” the expert said.

“Under international law, only extremely serious crimes, including intentional killing, are considered ‘most serious’ crimes. Drug crimes clearly do not meet this standard.”

UN experts also expressed concern over reports of discriminatory treatment of minority individuals like Thangaraju, as well as retaliation against lawyers.

They criticized Singapore’s compulsory sentencing law, which removes judicial discretion and leads to arbitrary deprivation of life, because it does not account for the defendant’s personal circumstances or the context of the specific crime.

“We reiterate that the coercive use of the death penalty constitutes arbitrary deprivation of life, as the death penalty is imposed without regard to the personal circumstances of the defendant or the circumstances of the specific crime,” they said. Told.

Experts have sounded alarm bells about the Singapore government’s moratorium on the death penalty in 2019.

They called on the government to review the scope of the death penalty, especially for drug-related crimes, and to limit it strictly to cases involving intentional killing.

“Singapore must ensure that the application and implementation of the death penalty is strictly limited to cases involving intentional killing,” the expert said.

UN experts argue that abolishing the death penalty is a step toward realizing the right to life, and that resuming executions would undermine the protection of this fundamental right.

“Any step to abolish the death penalty should be seen as progress towards the realization of the right to life. In turn, resuming executions would weaken the protection of the right to life,” they said.

The condemnation of Thangaraju’s execution and the call for a moratorium on the death penalty come from a group of experts, including Morris Tidbor-Binns, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Priya Gopalan, Chair Rapporteur. Fernand de Varennes, Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues.

These experts are part of the Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures, an independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanism, addressing specific country situations or thematic issues around the world.

Thangaraju represented himself as lawyers were unwilling to take his case

live video of Facebookhuman rights lawyer Ravi said he was unable to consult a lawyer when Mr Thangaraju’s statement was taken.

He added that Thangaraju had to represent himself in court. did not.

“Last night (Sunday) I spoke with an attorney and he said he would be happy to take his case on. , he said he feared facing cost orders and disciplinary action.

The prospect is real, as Mr. Ravi himself has already experienced it. $70,000 individual fine From various complaints filed against him regarding his legal practices.

“So when an attorney fears taking a case, it brings dishonor to all attorneys, because we have pledged to advance fearless defense for our clients.”

“Second, without legal representation for someone like Thangaraju, the system is broken,” Ravi added.