General Comments by India during consideration of the resolution: Question of the death penalty at the 54th Session of Human Rights Council (11 September - 13 October 2023) delivered by Ambassador Indra Mani Pandey, Permanent Representative of India, Geneva, 13 October 2023
Mr. President,
We thank the core group for its efforts and constructive engagement.
2. We appreciate the thematic focus of the resolution on the relationship between articles 6 and 14 of ICCPR, in particular on the right to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence and the right to have to one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal.
Mr. President,
3. In India, death penalty is exercised in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases, where the crime committed is so heinous that it shocks the conscience of the society. There are requisite procedural safeguards under Indian law, including right to a fair hearing by an independent Court, presumption of innocence, guarantee for defence, and right to review by higher courts.
4. There is no mandatory death sentence for any offence, since it runs contrary to those statutory safeguards which give judiciary the discretion in the matter of imposing death penalty. Indian laws have specific provisions for commutation of death penalty in the case of pregnant women and judicial rulings that prohibit executions of persons with mental disabilities, while juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to death under any circumstance.
5. Death sentences in India must necessarily be confirmed by a superior court, whether challenged by the accused or not. The Supreme Court of India has adopted guidelines on clemency and the treatment of death row prisoners and that “poverty, socio-economic, psychic compulsions, undeserved adversities in life” constitute new mitigating factors to be considered by courts in commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. The President of India in all cases, and the Governors of States under their respective jurisdictions, have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or, to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of death penalty.
Mr. President,
6. The text before us fails to recognise the basic principle that each State has the sovereign right to determine its legal system and to punish criminals as per its laws. It does not reflect the different perspectives on the subject of death penalty, including the fact that article 6 of ICCPR permits the use of death penalty in certain cases. We do not agree with the assertion that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons. It also includes a narrow definition of ‘the most serious crimes’. It doesn’t acknowledge that there is no international consensus against the use of the death penalty, no international law prohibition against its use and no agreed definition of ‘the most serious crimes’.
7. For these reasons, we will oppose the resolution and support the tabled amendments.
I thank you.
