[JURIST] Two independent human rights experts from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) [official website] on Friday offered support for recent measures [press release; UN backgrounder] by India and China to limit the use of the death penalty. In August, the Law Commission of India [official website] issued a report [official document, PDF] that concluded the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to limit crime. The report recommends the abolishment of the death penalty in India, except for very limited circumstances including terrorism-related offenses and waging war. The People’s Republic of China has taken steps to limit the use of the death penalty as well. Following a recent session of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee [official website], China amended a number of provisions of its criminal law and replaced the death penalty with life imprisonment for several offenses, including: the smuggling of weapons, ammunition, nuclear materials and counterfeit currency, arranging for a person or forcing a person to carry out prostitution, the obstruction of duty of a police officer and creating rumors during wartime to mislead people. The UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Christof Heyns [official profile], praised the recent activity in these two nations, stating: “[t]hese new developments in India and China are in line with the general trend towards the abolition of the death penalty at a global level.”

The death penalty remains a controversial legal issue worldwide. In August, a spokesperson for the OHCHR spoke against the execution of an Iraqi man and his two wives [JURIST report] in the Kurdistan region. Human rights officials feared that the hanging could mark a move back towards greater use of the death penalty despite a 2008 “informal moratorium” in Kurdistan. Also in August, the highest court of the US state of Connecticut ruled [JURIST report] that a state law banning executions for future sentences, but allowing them for past sentences is unconstitutional. Writing for the court, Justice Richard Palmer said imposing the sentence on existing inmates when it has been outlawed for future use constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Connecticut State Constitution. Two weeks ago, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued a temporary restraining order [JURIST report], effecitvely blocking the use of two drugs for lethal injections. In July, the US Supreme Court [official website] ruled [JURIST report] 5-4 in that Oklahoma’s use of the sedative midazolam as part of its lethal injection protocol does not violate the Eighth Amendment [LII backgrounder] ban on cruel and unusual punishment