The death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 2012, para. 59
Párrafo- Paragraph text
- Accordingly, the mandatory death penalty, a legal regime under which judges have no discretion to consider aggravating or mitigating circumstances with respect to the crime or the offender, violates due process and constitutes inhumane treatment. Starting with the case of Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago (2002), there have been remarkable developments within the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court, leading to the conclusion that the automatic imposition of the death penalty without consideration of the individual's circumstances is incompatible with the rights to life, humane treatment and due process. National courts have re-examined the constitutionality of the mandatory death penalty and, with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados, considered it as a violation of the prohibition of inhumane treatment. In Woodson v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court held the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional and in violation of the fundamental respect for humanity. In Africa, the Supreme Courts of Malawi and of Uganda and, more recently in July 2010, the Court of Appeal of Kenya, rendered the mandatory death penalty unconstitutional. In all of those cases, the courts held that it violated protection against subjection to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.
- Condicón jurídica
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Organismo
- Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
- Tipo de documento
- Special Procedures' report
- Medio de adopción
- N.A.
- Temas
- Civil & Political Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Personas afectadas
- All
- Año
- 2012
- Tipo de párrafo
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 59
ordenados por
Date added
62 conexiones, 62 Entidades