Introduction
In 1948, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- the first international covenant to proclaim that "everyone has the right to life"- only seven countries had abolished the death penalty. In 2003, the number of states that had de facto or de jure(1) abolished the death penalty had increased to 111 of the world’s 190 countries. No executions now take place in approximately two thirds of the world’s countries. Since the beginning of the 1990s, this trend is also true of the African continent, where it has coincided with the introduction of multi-party political systems and the consolidation of civil society. In this regard, the figures are rather impressive. In 1990, only one country, Cape Verde, made no provision for capital punishment in its legislation. By 2002, ten countries had de jure abolished the death penalty (South Africa, Angola, Cape Verde, Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia and São Tome and Principe). Ten others had de facto abolished the death penalty (Benin, Burkina Faso, the Republic of Congo, Gambia, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, the Central African Republic, Senegal and Togo). About half of Africa’s fifty countries, therefore, no longer execute condemned prisoners. The same trend is apparent in the countries of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Mauritania, the subject of this report.(2) In a little more than ten years, the number of de jure and de facto abolitionist countries has risen from one to ten. Consequently, two thirds of ECOWAS countries, of which there are 15, have taken the decisive step of recognizing the sanctity of the right to life. Supporters of the death penalty frequently argue that it acts as a deterrent to crime, an endemic problem in many of the sub-region’s countries. However, this argument does not tally with the facts and figures. In the United States, one of the four countries, along with China, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where most executions have taken place since 2000, criminology studies have not shown that the death penalty has a greater deterrent effect than other penalties. In September 2000, the United States daily newspaper, The New York Times, published a study that compared the crime rate in different states of the American federation and concluded that, during the last 20 years, the number of crimes committed in states that maintained the death penalty was greater than in the states that have abolished the death penalty.(3) This conclusion is even more striking when the overall crime rate in the United States is compared with that in European countries that abolished the death penalty years ago and where no execution has taken place for more than 35 years (see graph below). In Africa also, it has been observed that the facts do not demonstrate the supposedly deterrent effect of the death penalty. Moreover, some studies have indicated that the death penalty has not prevented an increase in the number of murders. For example, in Nigeria, a law and criminology professor conducted a comparative study of the statistics on murders and executions between 1967 and 1985, and observed that "the number of murders had regularly increased during most of this period", even though murder was punishable by the death penalty. The professor concluded that the studies conducted in Nigeria "had clearly demonstrated that the use of the death penalty was not effective" for murder and armed robbery in this country. In fact, the use of the death penalty demeans all those who have a role in it and only serves to make society more cruel rather than protecting it. Some African political and legal authorities also hold this opinion. For example, in South Africa, a country that experiences a very high number of violent crimes, in February 1995, the Constitutional Court rejected the argument that the death penalty has a deterrent effect and described it as a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Likewise, in June 2001, the State Governor of Oyo in Nigeria proposed that "Nigeria abolish the death penalty from its legislation (…) as death sentences have not reduced the number of innocent people murdered". Finally, we should remember that, at a meeting held in November 1999, in Kigali, Rwanda, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights- which is responsible for the implementation by members states of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights- adopted a resolution requesting member states to consider abolishing the death penalty. This resolution reflects the view of the international community, most of which campaigns for the abolition of the death penalty. Some of those who argue that the death penalty should be retained also put forward cultural and religious arguments. Amnesty International considers that the death penalty violates the inalienable rights of the individual as set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which recognizes the right of every individual to life and states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment". Consequently, the movement for the abolition of the death penalty cannot be separated from the struggle for human rights. This was confirmed by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted on 27 July 1982, in which it states that "all measures of abolition of the death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life". The need to strive for the universal abolition of the death penalty was emphasised by the UN’s adoption of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. This protocol, which came into force in 1991, provides for the abolition of the death penalty, while allowing states to make a reservation at the time of ratification that provides for the application of the death penalty in time of war or if faced with the imminent threat of war. By 1 July 2003, 49 states had ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. Of the 15 member countries of ECOWAS and Mauritania, this covenant has only been ratified by Cape Verde. Guinea-Bissau has signed but not ratified it. The aim of the present document is to summarize each of the 16 countries’ legislation on the death penalty, provide information on the most recent executions and convictions and note the view currently taken by the governments concerned. This document covers information known to the organization as of 1 October 2003. This document aims to support an action campaign aimed at making ECOWAS and each of the 16 countries concerned end the use of the death penalty in this region, notably through ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. Created in 1975, ECOWAS declared its aim to be "to promote cooperation and integration with the establishment of a West African economic union as an ultimate goal. It is aimed at improving the living standard of the people, ensuring economic growth and strengthening relations between Members States. In recent years, ECOWAS has continually broadened the scope of this dialogue and cooperation with a view to harmonizing the practices of member states in the legislative field. In 1992, member states adopted a convention aimed at promoting judicial cooperation in penal matters. Two years later, in August 1994, an extradition treaty was adopted, followed by several multilateral and bilateral instruments aimed at combating the trafficking of people, especially children. ECOWAS therefore owes it to itself to use the general mandate given to it by member states to promote respect for the dignity of human beings, including the right to life. By proceeding in this manner, ECOWAS will be following the general trend displayed by the majority of the international community, which aims for the abolition of the death penalty. Of the 16 countries that form the subject of the present report, only four have implemented the death penalty during the last ten years. The international trend towards the abolition of the death penalty is therefore reflected in these countries. It is time that this sub-regional group harmonized its position with regard to the most imprescriptible right of all, the right to life. This would constitute an essential step towards the implementation of a common judicial system that respects the universal standards recognized by the international community.
§ Organize pressure on the governments concerned to take concrete measures towards the definitive abolition of the death penalty. ******** (1) Amnesty International understands "de jure abolitionist" to mean states that have legally and definitively abolished the death penalty and "de facto abolitionist" to mean states that have not applied the death penalty for at least ten years and that demonstrate the political will to no longer have recourse to the death penalty. (2) Mauritania left ECOWAS in December 2000, reducing the number of member states to 15, but the possibility of its eventual return to the community is regularly mentioned. (3) Currently, the death penalty is provided for in 38 of the states of the United States as well as in federal legislation. Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton Street, WC1X 0DW, London, United Kingdom