Execution in the legal system of Iran is one of the punishments that results in the loss of life, but in the international human rights system, execution is generally considered equivalent to the death penalty. In this sense, intentionally taking the life of a human being is considered a form of punishment by law and court, and sometimes without either of these, whether under the title of retribution, punishment, or execution, it is classified as a form of capital punishment. Therefore, in the following sentences, the term “execution” will be used in a general sense to refer to the death penalty.

Execution has been one of the most commonly used punishments in the world for centuries. Many writers and thinkers of the past have prescribed it and even justified it, albeit with limitations; for example, prescribing it as a punishment for murder or political crimes. However, in our modern era, after many other advancements, execution is no longer seen as a normal and just punishment, at least in many countries around the world. This change in perspective has naturally also occurred in international human rights documents.

In Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1), the right to life is explicitly mentioned; however, there has been no discussion about its boundaries and limitations. According to proponents of capital punishment, execution is a significant exception to the right to life. From this perspective, governments can make exceptions to human rights, such as the exception of capital punishment. The complexity arises when proponents of abortion also use a similar argument to justify abortion.

Years later, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) implicitly accepts the death penalty: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” (Article 6, paragraph 1) In fact, it condemns arbitrary deprivation of life, not the death penalty. Other paragraphs of this article recognize the death penalty and only limit it to being used for serious crimes and in accordance with the principles of fair trial. It is clear that until 1966, international human rights documents still considered the death penalty as a legitimate punishment. This interpretation has also been accepted by the Human Rights Committee. (3) However, the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR directly addresses the death penalty and declares it prohibited (4): “No one within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the present Protocol shall be executed.” (Article 1, paragraph 1)

In regional systems, execution has also been banned since the 1980s. Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (5) in 1983 prohibits execution. This provision is also repeated in Article 1 of Protocol No. 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (6): “The death penalty must be abolished. No one shall be sentenced to such punishment or executed.” The Protocol on the Prohibition of Execution of the American Convention on Human Rights (7) also prohibits execution, with the exception that countries may impose the death penalty during times of war, provided that all other human rights are respected.

The subject of discussion is the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. According to a precise interpretation, execution cannot be considered as one of the prohibited acts in this convention: “…the term torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession from him or a third person, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind…” (Article 1) The lack of explicit mention of execution is likely to encourage more states to join the convention, but it leaves room for interpretation. In subsequent interpretations, which have mostly been based on human rights approaches, namely the broad interpretation, execution is considered the most prominent example of causing pain and suffering. Over time, the number of

In any case, nowadays, in one hundred and eight countries, the death penalty has been declared generally prohibited, and eight countries have also prohibited it for ordinary crimes. Twenty-eight countries, although not officially, have abolished the death penalty in practice, and fifty-five countries still impose the death penalty for ordinary crimes; (9) this means that seventy percent of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in some way, which opens a ray of hope; but we must not forget that until the death penalty is abolished in all countries, the movement to fight against it has not achieved its full result.

Notes:

1- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 10, 1948.

2- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 19, 1966.

3- Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36, September 3, 2019.

Protocol No. 2 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with the aim of abolishing the death penalty, December 15, 1989.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty, April 28, 1983.

6- Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances, 3 May 2002.

7- American Convention on Human Rights Protocol for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, 1990.

8- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, December 10, 1984.

9- Countries that abolish and retain [the death penalty], website.

Center for Death Penalty Information

من دوستت دارم

I love you.