Pondering over some old (last weeks) news over lunch…

…

If a soldier serving overseas kills a prisoner, he / she is going to end up in a whole heap of trouble – either as a common murderer if acting alone, or as a war crime if the killing occured as a result of the actions or omissions of the chain of command. The "executiuon" might even be quick and "clean" with little pain or suffering, but the end result is still going to be the same.

But, what is the situation if the Governemt / Minister of Justice of a Country decides to formalise a certain punishment, however bad, by writing it down on that country's penal code??? – Does "International Law" then have to accept that, however despicable, that is the legally sanctioned judicial punishment??

eg, the most brutal, drawn out, painful, humiliating form of execution known, for perhaps, posting nonsense on an internet bicycle forum.

I ask in relation to last week's "stoning" story for a widow accused of adultery in Iran… presumambly it is a case of barbaric, but legal?

I don't think there's much one country can do re another country's sentencing, ECHR aside.

Who cares if its legal, it effing wrong.

Iran is a signatory to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 6.2 provides:

In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes…

Article 7 provides:

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

Article 2 provides:

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

In the case of imposing the death penalty by stoning on adulterers, Iran is certainly in breach of its obligations under the Convention (it may well also be signatory to other agreements of a similar import).

However, international law recognises all nation states as equally sovereign. While Iran is in breach of its obligations, the only sanction against it is that the UN Human Rights Committee can issue reports to that effect. There is therefore a record that Iran is not living up to the commitments it signed up to by carrying on as if the dark ages never went away. There is no basis in international law for compelling the Iranian government to do anything about the situation. As they are a difficult bunch to embarrass, the effect of reports on this sort of thing is limited. Pretty much everywhere where torture is widespread is also a signatory of conventions against torture etc. These things work well against states which are disposed to behave themselves and are mindful of international opinion, and not at all against states which are not.

If you think about it, it is difficult to see how it could be any other way without creating near-limitless justification for "regime-change" which would not be conducive to peace.

The other aspect is sovereign immunity in domestic law. This means that, if you are tortured in Saudi Arabia, say, you cannot sue the Saudi government for damages in the English courts. (BBC on the Jones case Sovereign immunity is an extension of the principle of equal sovereignty.

Does that help as a starting point?

Well, that shut 'em up. 🙂

Well, that shut 'em up.

BD – Thanks for the legal background. Puts some legal context to my layman's musings.

Good to know that such barbarism is legally regarded as outside appropriate behaviour, rather than just straightforward abhorrent