Singapore: Malaysian Man Hanged In Unlawful Drug-Related Execution As Rights Of Those On Death Row Violated

February 19, 2026February 19, 2026communications34b384bb2c

Singapore: Malaysian Man Hanged In Unlawful Drug-Related Execution As Rights Of Those On Death Row Violated

Joint Press Statement
18 February 2026, Statements

The undersigned organizations condemn in the strongest terms the execution of Malaysian Lingkesvaran Rajendaren in Singapore on 11 February 2026. In violation of international human rights law and standards, he was sentenced to the mandatory death penalty for a drug related offence; and his execution proceeded after the Supreme Court rejected two appeals, as he sought judicial review of his claims of unfair proceedings at trial and ill-treatment while on death row, among other concerns. We renew our call on the government of Singapore to urgently establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards full abolition of this cruel punishment.

In 2018 Lingkesvaran Rajendaren was convicted under Singapore’s Misuse of Drugs Act of trafficking 52.77g of diamorphine (heroin). His execution was the fourth of five carried out in Singapore in 2026, all involving men convicted of drug-related offences, following on from a record-high number of executions – 17– in 2025.

On 10 and 11 February, the Court of Appeal rejected – without considering the substantive claims– two appeals on behalf of Lingkesvaran Rajendaren. The appeals, one submitted by him in a self-represented capacity and the other by his lawyer, sought a review of his claims of unfair proceedings at trial and ill-treatment while on death row. The Court adduced delays with the filing of the appeal, on one hand, and the irrelevance for his conviction and sentence of the outcome of the review of his treatment in detention, on the other, as main reasons to reject the appeals. Importantly, in one of the two judgments, Court of Appeal Justice Woo Bih Li JAD stated:

“Though the carrying into effect of [a death] sentence will necessarily prevent a [prisoner awaiting capital punishment, PACP] from seeing through any pending proceedings which he may be interested (including proceedings which are brought by him and may require his testimony), this is not intrinsically objectionable, as PACPs stand in a very different position from other persons who have not lost their right to life by reason of a lawfully imposed death sentence. In short, PACPs have their rights lawfully attenuated and any proceeding which does not affect the legality of the conviction or sentence or come within a limited exception of State-brought proceedings is not a relevant pending proceeding to obtain a stay of execution.”

The reasoning in this paragraph is a chilling indication of the determination of the authorities of Singapore to pursue executions at all costs, and a disregard of international human rights law and standards. It also reflects the cumulative impact of legislative and policy steps taken by the government since 2024 to curtail execution notice periods, as well as to further restrict the grounds for applications to stay executions. It is gravely concerning in its denial of the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” recognized in the first line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It violates the principle of “equality of arms” – a fundamental principle of fairness and rule of law that guarantees the equal powers of prosecution and defence before the courts – by giving exceptional status to “State-brought proceedings” in applications to determine matters with life or death implications.

Our organizations are further concerned that several other alarming human rights violations affected Lingkesvaran Rajendaren’s case, driven by the continued disregard on the part of the Government of Singapore of international safeguards set out under international law and standards to protect people against the arbitrary deprivation of life. We reiterate that, as it was for several other cases before his, these violations render the deprivation of life in his case unlawful and arbitrary under international human rights law and standards. The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life is recognized as a peremptory norm of customary international law and non-derogable. The imposition of the death penalty following trials and appeals that do not fully meet international standards for a fair trial violates the right to life.

The use of the death penalty for drug-related offences violates international human rights law and standards, which restrict its use to the “most serious crimes”, most recently interpreted as referring to “crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing”. Several UN bodies, including the International Narcotics Control Board, have repeatedly clarified that drug-related offences do not meet this threshold. The imposition of the mandatory death penalty, which removes judges’ power to consider the particular circumstances of the offence and the background of the convicted person, also violates international law and standards.

The High Court found Lingkesvaran Rajendaren to have been involved only in transporting drugs, meeting the “courier” requirement under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, the prosecution did not provide him with a certificate confirming that he substantively assisted investigations to disrupt further drug trafficking activities – a second condition to qualify for sentencing discretion in these cases – leaving no option to the judge but to impose the mandatory death penalty. This certificate requirement effectively shifts the sentencing decision to the prosecution in violation of the right to a fair trial, as it effectively places the decision between a life-or-death sentence in the hands of an official who is not a neutral party in the trial and should not have such powers. It further undermines the independence of the judiciary, breaking down the separation that must exist between prosecution and court; and violates the principle of “equality of arms”.

Lingkesvaran Rajendaren’s conviction also relied on the unfair presumption of guilt under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which the prosecution can invoke at trial to infer knowledge or possession of the drugs, shifting the burden of proof on to the defendant to be rebutted to the reversed –and therefore higher – legal standard of “on balance of probabilities”. Legal presumptions of guilt violate the right to be presumed innocent – a peremptory norm of customary international law – and other fair trial guarantees under international human rights law that mandate that the burden of proving all charges rests on the prosecution. In addition, presumptions of guilt have also had the effect of lowering the threshold of evidence needed to secure a conviction in capital cases.

The international community must not remain silent and take action to hold the Singapore government accountable for the repeated breaches of international safeguards and restrictions carried out in capital cases, including in the name of flawed drug control and security narratives. We oppose the death penalty unconditionally and renew our call on the Government of Singapore to immediately establish a moratorium on all executions; commute all death sentences; and review national legislation to bring it in line with international human rights law and standards, pending full abolition of the death penalty.

This statement is co-signed by:

Amnesty International
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network
Capital Punishment Justice Project
Harm Reduction International
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

Calling Urgent Attention to Proposals for the Death Penalty in Israel

February 19, 2026February 23, 2026communications34b384bb2c

Calling Urgent Attention to Proposals for the Death Penalty in Israel

World Coalition Against the Death Penalty – Joint Statement
16 February 2026, Statements

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP) is alarmed by the content of two bills that are presently before Israel’s Knesset, in which it is proposed to expand the scope of the death penalty for terrorism offences, and permit resort to the death penalty in ad hoc military courts for trials related to the attacks of 7 October 2023.

In effect, these bills are intended to expose Palestinians to the death penalty. We express the utmost concern in relation to these measures, and we call for their withdrawal. The WCADP reiterates our unequivocal opposition to the death penalty, in all circumstances, for all people, without exception.

Israel has not carried out judicial executions for more than sixty years. In fact, Israel is an enduring co-sponsor of United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, in which it is expressly acknowledged that ‘a moratorium on the use of the death penalty contributes to respect for human dignity and to the enhancement and progressive development of human rights.’

Having voluntarily taken up the option to co-sponsor the resolution on every occasion, 2007-2024, Israel has unambiguously demonstrated that restraint from resort to the death penalty is a principle of national, and international importance. In this context, Israel has welcomed ‘the considerable movement towards the abolition of the death penalty globally and the fact that many States with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious backgrounds are applying a moratorium, including longstanding moratoriums, either in law or in practice, on the use of the death penalty.’

This assessment, limited to the death penalty in its strict legal sense, cannot be separated from a broader context marked by the acceleration of annexation and settlement policies, widespread violations of the right to life, the generalized practice of torture and ill-treatment against Palestinian prisoners, and the increasing number of Palestinians who are victims of extrajudicial executions carried out by the Israeli military and settlers.

The WCADP notes that Israel has also, inter alia, welcomed ‘initiatives and political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic decision-making’. The current proposals before the National Security Committee, and the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee, are directly at odds with Israel’s consistent stance on this issue. We fully expect Israel to refrain from adopting any legislation that expands the scope of the death penalty.

Additionally, the discriminatory nature of the proposals before the Knesset is a matter of grave concern. The proposed amendments to the military laws would prescribe the death penalty for offences carried out by residents of the area, with explicit exclusion of “ Israeli citizens or residents.” Effectively, this amendment applies only to Palestinian civilians as they are the only people tried in military courts, while Israeli citizens are not subject to military jurisdiction and are tried in civilian courts. The other amendment, modifying Israel’s penal law, applies to those accused of intentionally causing “the death of a person with the purpose of harming an Israeli citizen or resident”, thereby establishing a discriminatory distinction based on the identity of the victim. This, for example, excludes instances in which Israeli citizens kill Palestinian residents of the occupied territory, even where the conduct might otherwise meet the legal threshold for terrorist acts. Furthermore, the proposed ad hoc mechanisms for trials concerning the events of 7 October could only foreseeably apply to Palestinian accused. Overall, these constitute proposals for the use of the death penalty that deliberately target Palestinians, add to ongoing discrimination against Palestinians, and should be read in the context of public narratives that seek to dehumanize Palestinians.

It is also starkly apparent that many features of the legislation under review fail to satisfy basic requirements of the right to life, and minimum fair trial guarantees. The proceedings that are envisaged have included provisions for mandatory death sentences, the prohibition of applications for clemency or pardon, restricted access to those on death row, limitations on information concerning the implementation of the death penalty, and even a requirement for executions to be carried out no longer than 90 days after the original sentence has been imposed. A group of UN Special Rapporteurs, including the UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, have characterised the proposed legislation as ‘a deeply regressive step’, bearing in mind that significant due process, and fair trial violations must not result in the arbitrary deprivation of life.

The WCADP strongly emphasises that provisions to expand the scope of the death penalty in Israel, in any manner, are fundamentally flawed. The adoption of these amendments would further reinforce a body of laws, policies, practices and public discourse that has enabled the genocide committed by Israel against the Palestinian population in the occupied Gaza Strip and perpetuates its system of apartheid against all Palestinians. The death penalty irreconcilably undermines human dignity, exposes all legal systems to irreversible miscarriages of justice, has inherently disproportionate and discriminatory effects, and perpetuates cycles of violence. Any death sentence imposed under these legislative amendments would constitute a violation of the right to life and, if handed down by a military court, could also amount to a war crime. Adopting new measures for the death penalty, of any kind, would be a manifestly retrograde action by the Knesset, and one that the WCADP calls for Israel to immediately, and unreservedly resile from.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty is the peak body for anti-death penalty advocacy worldwide, being an alliance of more than 190 member organisations, many of whom are representative networks of national, regional, and international human rights groups. The World Coalition acts to reinforce the international dimension of the movement to abolish the death penalty, with a view to realising the universal eradication, and prohibition of this punishment in the immediate future. The World Coalition is wholly committed to amplifying the core principles of the abolitionist movement, and the experience of our global membership.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS GROUPS OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY FOR FORMER SOUTH KOREAN PRESIDENT YOON SUK-YEOL WHO IS ON TRIAL FOR INSURGENCY

January 30, 2026January 30, 2026communications34b384bb2c

International Human Rights Groups Oppose the Death Penalty for Former South Korean President Yoon Suk-Yeol Who is on Trial for Insurgency

Joint Press Statement
29 January 2026, Statements

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) and partner civil society organizations oppose the decision of South Korean prosecutors to seek the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk-Yeol during the final hearing of his trial for insurgency on 13 January 2026. ADPAN and partners oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. Pending full abolition, states have a duty to uphold their international commitments. South Korea is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in which the death penalty is an exception to the right to life in very specific terms for intentional killing. Insurgency, as such, does not fall into this category.

We urge special counsel Cho Eun-suk to reconsider seeking the death penalty against former President Yoon prior to the delivery of the verdict and sentencing by the Seoul Central District Court on 19 February. If Yoon is sentenced to death by this court or on appeal, we urge the South Korean government to maintain the 28-year de facto moratorium on carrying out the death penalty.

Justice and Accountability for Former President Yoon’s Martial Law Proclamation and Attempt to Occupy the National Assembly by Force Must Be Pursued

Former President Yoon’s proclamation of martial law and deployment of military and police forces to occupy the National Assembly on the night of 3-4 December 2024 may be considered a grave assault on freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in South Korea. The precise motive for Yoon’s actions remains murky, but it is clear that there was no war, armed conflict or similar national emergency at the time that may justify the imposition of martial law under Article 77 of the South Korean Constitution.

Moreover, under Article 4 of the ICCPR, to which South Korea is a Party, derogations are permitted only in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation to the extent strictly required by situation and may never undermine non-derogable rights, including the right to life, protected under Article 6 of the ICCPR. The resort to emergency powers places fundamental rights at heightened risk and threatens democratic governance, particularly when exercised without strict necessity, proportionality, and effective oversight. It is also a context in which the use of capital punishment is especially dangerous, as legal safeguards are strained and the risk of irreversible injustice increases.

The last time that South Korea was under martial law from 1979 to 1981 ushered in a new military dictatorship led by General Chun Doo-hwan, accompanied by brutal killings and the arrest of hundreds of people demanding the return to democracy in the city of Gwangju and elsewhere. While the recent period of martial law ended after only five and a half hours without bloodshed, it brought back the specter of the authoritarian past. It could have resulted in the arbitrary deprivation of life and other violations and abuses and caused irreparable damage to democracy.

The National Assembly subsequently impeached former President Yoon and the Constitutional Court removed him from office in April 2025. Now, he and his accomplices are on trial for insurgency. Should they be found liable after due process, they must face stern justice for their unconstitutional, unlawful, and unjustified criminal acts.

The Death Penalty for Former President Yoon Will Not Advance Justice, But Undermine Human Rights

Accountability must be exercised in full compliance with international human rights law. Under Article 6 of the ICCPR, the death penalty is tolerated only as a narrowly confined exception and under the strictest conditions for the most serious crimes. International human rights bodies have consistently emphasized that States must move progressively toward abolition and refrain from steps that revive or normalize capital punishment.

Following the democratic transition, South Korea has maintained an undeclared moratorium on the carrying out of death sentences for more than 28 years. Legislative bills to abolish the death penalty have been proposed in every session of the South Korean National Assembly, including the current one, since 1999. Many sponsors were pro-democracy activists under military regimes, including those who had been sentenced to death for political offenses. The third challenge against the death penalty, which was filed in 2019, is pending before the Constitutional Court that previously upheld its constitutionality by a 7-2 vote in 1996 and by a 5-4 vote in 2010.

Seeking the death penalty against former President Yoon—after three decades of gradual progress towards abolition—represents a clear regression and risks re-legitimizing capital punishment in violation of South Korea’s international human rights commitments. These commitments are reinforced by successive UN General Assembly resolutions calling for a universal moratorium on executions, including Resolutions 75/183 (2020), 77/222 (2022), and 79/179 (2024), which South Korea has supported.

The UN Human Rights Committee has stressed that “the most serious crimes” in Article 6 of the ICCPR must be read restrictively as “crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing.” This interpretation has been endorsed by UN Human Rights Council resolutions on the death penalty, including Resolutions 48/9 (2021), 54/35 (2023), and 60/17 (2025), which South Korea has also supported.

The death penalty does not advance justice. It does not promote healing, restore trust in institutions, or strengthen democratic governance. Instead, it forecloses the possibility of remedy in cases of error and introduces irreversible state violence. The same will be the case for the death penalty against former President Yoon. It risks doing a disservice to justice and undermining the right to life, which is protected by South Korean constitutional law and international human rights law.

What Is Needed Instead of the Death Penalty

Abuses of emergency powers are addressed through strong institutional safeguards and rights-respecting accountability—not execution. Former President Yoon’s declaration of martial law exposed weaknesses that capital punishment cannot remedy. Clear legal limits on emergency powers, independent oversight, and the effective protection of fundamental freedoms are necessary to ensure accountability and prevent recurrence. The death penalty, if revived instead of abolished, may become a tool that aggravates future abuses of emergency powers.

We emphasize that opposing the death penalty does not mean opposing accountability or calling for impunity. Yoon’s actions must be addressed by penalties that are lawful, proportionate, and consistent with international human rights standards.

Accountability for abuses of power must reinforce the rule of law, not resurrect a punishment that may undermine the right to life and run counter to international human rights standards.

Our Call

ADPAN and the undersigned civil society organizations urge that:

Special counsel Cho Eun-suk withdraw the pursuit of the death penalty against former President Yoon in the present proceedings and to refrain from seeking capital punishment in this or in any other case; instead, he should seek penalties that are lawful, proportionate, and consistent with international human rights law;
The Seoul Central District Court exercise heightened restraint at sentencing, in line with South Korea’s international human rights obligations and its long-standing non-use of the death penalty; and
Authorities of the Republic of Korea to maintain the moratorium on executions as a concrete step toward abolition, commute all death sentences to prison terms, resubmit an opinion of the Minister of Justice to the Constitutional Court in relation to the pending death penalty case (2019 Hun-Ba 59) distancing the Minister from the previous opinions supporting the retention of the death penalty, and to commit to the full abolition of the death penalty, including by taking steps toward accession to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP)
The Advocates for Human Rights (TAHR)
Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM)
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP)
Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)

International Solidarity Protecting the Right to Protest: International Solidarity with Indonesia #StopPoliceBrutality!

December 21, 2025December 21, 2025communications34b384bb2c

International Solidarity Protecting the Right to Protest: International Solidarity with Indonesia #StopPoliceBrutality!

Joint Press Statement
31 August 2025, Statements

On 28th and 29th August 2025, tens of thousands of Indonesian workers protested across provinces and sub districts such as Manokwari, Semarang, Solo, Magelang, Medan, Bengkulu, and Tegal with the epicenter of protest in front of the House of Representatives (DPR) in Jakarta. Protesters demanded a minimum wage increase of 8.5 – 10% for 2026, a halt to mass layoffs, the abolition of outsourcing, comprehensive tax reform, the enactment of a new labor law in line with Constitutional Court Decision No. 168/2024, as well as the passage of the Asset Confiscation Bill and revision of the Election Law. These demands reflect workers’ fundamental rights to decent work, social protection, and democratic participation.

Three days earlier, 25th August 2025, hundreds of students and civilians were protesting in front of the DPR building after the recent report that lawmakers had received several upgrades on allowances, one of which regarding monthly housing allowance for 50 million rupiah ($3,000 per person), which makes 10 times the minimum wage in Jakarta, while a period of massive layoffs for more than 80,000 labours, influx of more than 100% to property tax, as well as budget cuts for education and universities occurred in the same timeline. The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) documented that the demonstration ended with 12 injured civilians and 351 arbitrarily detained – of whom 196 were minors – and the use of water cannon as well as expired tear gas which indiscriminately affected residential areas.

The state apparatus’ responses to the 28th and 29th August protest raised deeper grave concerns. KontraS documented a series of excessive use of force practices from the Indonesian National Police (Polri) which include acts of live bullet shootings, torture, assaults, arbitrary arrests, forced dispersals, and the uncontrolled use of crowd-control weapons. Hence, resulting in more or less 113 severely injured civilians, 3 deaths, and 734 arrests. These figures illustrate an alarming pattern of systematic violence against civilians exercising their constitutional rights.

One of the most tragic incidents occurred in Jakarta on 28 August 2025, when Affan Kurniawan, a young online ride-hailing driver and sole breadwinner for his family, was killed after being run over by a tactical vehicle of the Mobile Brigade (Brimob) during the protest. His death not only represents an arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), but also illustrates the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force by Indonesian security forces against civilians. The killing of Affan underscores how state violence directly targets ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was exercising their right to be present in a public protest space.

The use of excessive force, arbitrary arrests, and acts amounting to torture not only contravene Indonesia’s obligations under international human rights law including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture (CAT), but also directly violate Indonesia’s own national legal framework. In particular, Indonesian Regulation of the National Police Chief (Perkap) No. 1 of 2009 on the Use of Force and Perkap

No. 16 of 2006 on Crowd Control explicitly require law enforcement officers to adhere to the principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, and accountability. The current practices reveal systemic breaches of these standards, undermining the rule of law and eroding public trust in state institutions.

For the worse, former Chief of State Intelligence Agency A.M Hendropriyono narrates that an actor outside Indonesia orchestrated the demonstration. It has been a stigmatization pattern that one of the main narratives set up by the state apparatus is CSOs’ involvement with international entities and how the organizations are perceived as the henchmen of foreign or western entities (antek asing).

The mentioned incidents are not isolated. Instead, they reflect a recurring pattern of police violence against peaceful assemblies in Indonesia, from past protests such as the Reformasi Dikorupsi in 2019, Omnibus Law in 2020, Peringatan Darurat in 2024, to demonstrations against National Strategic Projects such as Rempang in 2023 and Papuan protests. Each cycle of repression, characterized by excessive force, mass arrests, and impunity further entrenches a culture of fear and silences legitimate dissent. Such systemic abuse represents not only a failure to uphold democratic principles but also a deliberate attempt to delegitimize civic movements that demand accountability and justice.

A disturbing and recurring practice within this systemic violence is the pattern of enforced disappearances where demonstrators, especially students and young activists, are forcibly taken by state agents without acknowledgment of their whereabouts for hours or even days, often without concrete legal justification or due process. This tactic instills and mirrors the legacy of enforced disappearances from the 1998 authoritarian regime.

The lack of Indonesia’s accession to the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (ICPPED) has created a legal vacuum, allowing such practices to persist with impunity. The state’s failure to ratify this international human rights standard eliminates critical safeguards to prevent recurrence, ensuring legal accountability, as well as protection from arbitrary state-led abductions.

Simultaneously, there are alarming efforts to suppress press freedom, also a form of mirroring from the past authoritarian regime. During the recent protests, the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPID) on 28th August 2025 was documented to actively pressure media outlets to refrain from covering scenes of police brutality or other scenes from the protests as this state-led information blackout further impedes transparency. Thus, the state is combining forced disappearances with media censorship, replicating a dangerous 1998 pattern.

Thus, we civil society urge the Indonesian Government the following:

1.) The National Police (Polri) is to immediately end the use of excessive force, ensure all crowd-control operations comply with Perkap No. 1 of 2009 and international human rights standards such as the UN Guidance of Less-Lethal Weapons and UN Code of

Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, and impartially investigate officers responsible for abuses.

2.) The National Police Commission (Kompolnas) is to exercise independent oversight by launching an urgent inquiry into police violence on 28th August 2025 and recommend disciplinary and criminal sanctions.

3.) Police Institutions (Polri and Kompolnas) and Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) must cease all practices of enforced disappearances as well as short-term enforced disappearances and ensure prompt release and protection of all arbitrarily detained civilians.

4.) The National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) to conduct a prompt, impartial, and transparent investigation into all cases of torture, arbitrary arrest, and extrajudicial killings related to recent protests, and provide protection for victims and witnesses. The Institution should also intensify monitoring to specific components in the incidents such as the excessive use of crowd-control weapons including tear gas, batons, and rubber bullets, to tactical vehicles particularly in the incident where a ride-hailing driver was run over by a Brimob tactical vehicle during the demonstration.

5.) The Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) to ensure genuine legislative oversight by summoning the Chief of Police for public accountability hearings, demanding explanations for the unlawful repression, and guaranteeing that all future crowd-control operations strictly comply with national law and international standards. The DPR must also immediately expedite the deliberation and passage of laws safeguarding labor rights, social protection, and civic freedoms. As the very institution being protested by the people, the DPR cannot hide behind repression, it must face Indonesian civil society directly, listen to their grievances, and act responsibly to restore public trust. As the main actor being protested by civilians, the parliament should also directly face Indonesian civil society elements as the protest

6.) The Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) must immediately ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances (ICPPED) and adopt necessary domestic legislation to prevent recurring practices of enforced disappearances, ensure timely and impartial investigations, and to hold all perpetrators accountable

7.) The President of Indonesia publicly condemned police violence, guaranteed the protection of the right to peaceful assembly, and ensured Indonesia’s full compliance with its international human rights obligations, including the requirement that any trials related to the police violence during demonstrations be conducted in a transparent and open manner. The police should conduct evaluation in handling demonstrations by prioritizing a non-violent approach.

Sunday, 31 August 2025

Organizations

The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), Indonesia 2. Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Indonesia
Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) 5. Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan
IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, Indonesia
The Peoples Participation, Initiative and Partnership Strengthening Foundation (YAPPIKA), Indonesia
Indonesia Justice and Peace Foundation (YKPI), Indonesia
Indonesia Judicial Research Society (IJRS), Indonesia
BarengWarga, Indonesia
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law 12. the Civil Society Coalition against Transnational Organized Crime /CATOC 13. Manushya Foundation (Laos/Thailand)
Colors Rainbow (Myanmar)
Peoples of Longing, Timor Leste
2030 Youth Force Indonesia (Yayasan 2030 Prapta Nusa), Indonesia 17. Asosiasaun Chega! Ba Ita (ACbit), Timor Leste
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Indonesia
LBH APIK Jakarta
Kuala Lumpur Debate
Indonesia Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI)
Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD)
KOMPAKS (Anti Sexual Violence Civil Society Coalition)
Support Group and Resource Center on Sexuality Studies (SGRC) Indonesia 25. Women’s March Jakarta 2025 Committee
International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID)
Yayasan Tifa (Tifa Foundation)
Activate Rights ( Bangladesh)
WITNESS
kotakhitam Forum
PERIN+1S – C2O library & collaborative
PIKAT Demokrasi
Public Virtue Research Institute
Humanis
SINDIKASI (Serikat Pekerja Media & Industri Kreatif untuk Demokrasi) Jawa Timur 36. Suara Muda Kelas Pekerja Partai Buruh (SMKP)
Trend Asia (Indonesia)
Solidarity Collective TH (Thailand)
Progresip.id
Emancipate Indonesia
ILGA Asia
Perkumpulan Untuk Pemilu dan Demokrasi (Perludem), Indonesia 43. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus
Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI)
TAPOL (UK)
MilkTeaAlliance Calendar Team (Regional)
Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) Indonesia
Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), Malaysia
Partai Rakyat Pekerja (PRP), Indonesia
Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane (LIPS) Indonesia
Konfederasi Serikat Nasional (KSN), Indonesia
Konfederasi Pergerakan Rakyat Indonesia (KPRI), Indonesia
Transnational Palm Oil Labour Solidarity (TPOLS)
Human Rights Alert Manipur, India
Numun Fund
National Union of Workers in Hospital Support and Allied Services (NUWHSAS), Malaysia
Studio Batu
Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet)
Kelompok Jaya Bersama (KJB) Indonesia
Lingkaran Advokasi dan Riset (Link-AR Borneo)
Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
Social Justice Indonesia
Legal Dignity, Malaysia
Open Net (Korea)
Ruang Independen Community, Indonesia
Spring Revolution Security (Myanmar)
ICT Watch, Indonesia
Kolektif Bengkel Kabel Bandung, Indonesia
End Female Genital Cutting Singapore
Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network
Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia/The Union of Indonesian Migrants Worker (SBMI) 72. Sigaw ng Kabataan Coalition (SKC) Philippines
Serve the People Association (SPA), Taiwan
Foundation for Media Alternatives (Philippines)
Human Rights Online Philippines (HRonlinePH)
Arus Pelangi (Indonesia)
ALTSEAN-Burma
Asia Feminist LBQ Network (AFLN)
Korean House for International Solidarity (South Korea)
International Peoples Assembly
Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM), Philippines
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
FIAN Indonesia
Watch Indonesia! e.V
Bumi Setara
18+ Coalition (Koalisi 18+), Indonesia
Perempuan Mahardhika (Indonesia)
Serbuk Kalbar
Warisan Ingatan
New Bloom (Taiwan)
Cita Tanah Mahardika, Indonesia
Proklamasi Anak Indonesia
Advocacy Forum (Nepal)
Suriya Women’s Development Centre (Sri Lanka)
Asia Democracy Network (ADN)
Indorelawan, Indonesia
Kait Nusantara, Indonesia
Beyond Borders Malaysia
Movement for Alternatives and Solidarity in Southeast Asia 100. KontraS Aceh
Greater Equitable Measures (GEM)
Strength For Queer – Myanmar
A New Burma
Action Committee for Democracy Development (ACDD) 105. Association of Human Rights Defenders and Promoters (HRDP) 106. Athan – Freedom of Expression Activist Organization 107. Blood Money Campaign
Creative Home
Equality Myanmar (EQMM)
Generation Wave
Generations’ Solidarity Coalition of Nationalities- GSCN 112. Justice & Equality Focus
Kyae Lak Myae
Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma (ND-Burma) 115. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytical
New Step Women Empowerment Group/Network 117. Progressive Muslim Youth Association (PMYA) 118. Progressive Voice (PV)
Queers of Burma Alternative
Sitt Nyein Pann Foundation
Southern Initiatives
Women Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar (WAC-M) 123. Women’s League of Burma (WLB)
Yangon Medical Network
Volunteers in Myanmar
MyaYar Knowledge Tree
Kyauktada Strike Committee (KSC)
Defend Myanmar Democracy
ယိမ်းနပွဲ့ါး – Yain Nweh Par (Rainbow Win The Storm – RIS) 130. ASR-ASSOCIATION of SPRING RAINBOW
Yangon Deaf Group
Muslim Youth Network
Sisters2Sisters
In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement (iDEFEND) – Philippines 135. ProyekDekolonial
Vuka! Coalition for Civic Action
Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) – Philippines
Saribuhay UP Diliman (Philippines)
Defence of Human Rights, Pakistan
Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), Maldives
NGO: Environment and humanitarian actions for well-being 142. Salam for Democracy and Human Rights (SALAM DHR)
Association for Democracy in the Maldives (ADM), Maldives 144. Solidaritas Aktivis Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Diaspora 145. Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA)
Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)
SILAKA-CAMBODIA
Southeast Asian Human Rights and Peace Studies Network (SEAHRN) 149. Yayasan Keadilan Untuk Rakyat Marginal (Kurama Foundation) 150. Kapatiran sa Dalawang Gulong (KAGULONG), Philippines 151. Himpunan Advokasi Rakyat Malaysia (HARAM), Malaysia 152. Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (BERSIH), Malaysia 153. Cross-Cultural Foundation (CrCF) Thailand
Jeunesse Innovante et Restauration du Bien-être (JERESTAURE BIEN ETRE) 155. North South Initiative, Malaysia
KontraS Tanah Papua
True Colors Coalition (Philippines)
Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc. (PMPI)
The Biodiversity Project, Sri Lanka
Mayday Multimedia, Philippines
Philippine Labor Movement Archive (PLMA)
Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia
MY World Mexico: Hub of Action for Sustainable Development, Mexico 164. Asia Monitor Resource Centre
Youth and young Journalist peace and Democracy cultural 166. Center Timor-Leste
Milk Tea Alliance Thailand
Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), Philippines 169. Asia Democracy Network (ADN)
Indonesia untuk Kemanusiaan (IKa)
Bytes for All (B4A), Pakistan
Weaving Women’s Voices in Southeast Asia (WEAVE)
Beyond the Hijab, Singapore
ALIANSI GERAKAN REFORMA AGRARIA (AGRA), Indonesia 175. Odhikar, Bangladesh
SEAPIL (Southeast Asia Public Lawyers Interest), Southeast Asia Region 177. Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), Philippines
Agham Youth UP Diliman (Philippines)
Global Citizen Society, Maldives
Kemban Kolektif, Malaysia
Women’s March, Malaysia
Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), Malaysia 183. Initiative for International Dialogue (IID), Philippines
Kalyanamitra, Indonesia
BeWithYou Indonesia
Bright Future, Thailand
Fat Liberation London, UK
Vajpayee Research Foundation, India
Serikat Pekerja Angkutan Indonesia (SPAI)
Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Ireland
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Labor Kommunity
Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Argentina 194. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR)
EngageMedia Collective
Youth Initiative (YI), Nepal
Nepal Development Initiative (NEDI), Nepal
Defence of Human Rights Pakistan
Capital Punishment Justice Project, Australia
Psychological Responsiveness NGO, Mongolia
People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), South Korea 202. Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), Philippines 203. Sekolah Pemikiran Perempuan (SPP/ The School of Women’s Thought) 204. Ch.nrw.flinta
N.C.F.H.Collective (SEA)
QueerPunch (SEA)
Can Yalcinkaya, Australia
Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
Kenya Human Rights Commission, Kenya
Legal Resources Center, South Africa
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network

Individual

Taufiq Hanafi, Indonesia
Safina Maulida, Indonesia
Shoeb Abdullah
Ganies Oktaviana, Indonesia
Achmad Assifa
Cyprianus Lilik Kridmantoro Putro
Mathurin K
Xun-ling Au
James
Choo Chon Kai
Vox
RESI- TIMOR LESTE
Saza Faradilla
Reihana Mohideen
Bima Arthayuda, Indonesia
Raffy Oktavian, Indonesia
Ni Putu Candra Dewi, Indonesia
Syahar Banu, Indonesia
Federico Fuentes, editor LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Australia. 20. Nurashikin Binte A Rahim, Singapore
Gloria Truly Estrelita, Indonesia
Mamik Sri Supatmi, Indonesia
Syahmi Zulfadhli Abdullah, Brunei
Bikash Basnet, Nepal
Eko Waluyo, Indonesian solidarity
Atmaezer Hariara Simanjuntak
Cho
Megan Steven, Malaysia
Bernard Vijayabalan, Singapore
Ja Fuentes, Philippines
Lea Pamungkas, Amsterdam
Adhiraaj AnandNATWA HINDINA Pierre
Reichele Corona, Philippines
Rahmat Muhamad, Medan, Sumatera Utara
Madalena Timor Leste
Thomas Rieger, Jerman
Charles Zander Deluna, Philippines
Betty Yolanda, Indonesia
Ellirie Aviles, Philippines
Peter Boyle, Australia
Etienne ZOUNDE
Jhay de Jesus, Philippines
Dulanjaya Mahagamage, Sri Lanka
Kasumi Ranasinghe Arachchige, Sri Lanka
Wildan Siregar, Indonesia
OTOLORIN Adandé Barthélémy
Cristiana Ximenes Belo, Timor-Leste
Prints para sa Bayan /for the People
Celia L. Sevilla, Philippines
Attitaya, Thailand
Fiza Awan, Thailand
Maya Kornelia Musa, Indonesia
Kanhaiya Kumar, India
Myriam Selhi, Canada
Lulu Keng, Taiwan
Erin McConnell, USA
Lisabona Rahman, Germany
Alejandra Rojas Giraldo, Colombia
Christine Holike, Germany
Semjidmaa Choijil, Mongolia
Ganga Bahadur Gautam, Nepal
Di Wu, Belgium

ADPAN And Partner Human Rights Organizations Denounce The Expansion Of The Death Penalty For Drug Offenses In The Maldives

December 10, 2025December 10, 2025communications34b384bb2c

ADPAN And Partner Human Rights Organizations Denounce The Expansion Of The Death Penalty For Drug Offenses In The Maldives

Joint Press Statement
9 December 2025, Statements

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) and partner human rights organizations denounce the decision of the People’s Majlis (Parliament of the Maldives) to expand the scope of the death penalty to drug-trafficking offenses through amendments to the Drugs Act.

On 3 December 2025, the Parliament approved amendments which introduced capital punishment — subject to a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court bench — for the importation of more than 350 grams of cannabis, 250 grams of diamorphine (heroin), or 100 grams of other specified drugs. The amendments, which were ratified by the President on 6 December, also removed the possibility of commuting such sentences through clemency and barred plea agreements.

Drug Offenses are Not ‘Most Serious Crimes’ — Making Maldives’ Death Penalty Expansion Unlawful under International Law

The amendments are plainly incompatible with the Maldives’ obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which it acceded on 19 September 2006. Article 6(2) of the ICCPR provides that, where the death penalty remains, it may be imposed only for the “most serious crimes” — a phrase consistently interpreted as limited to offenses

involving intentional killing. Several UN bodies have found that drug offenses do not fall within this category.

By widening capital punishment to drug trafficking, the Maldives is also acting against the stated goal of abolition of the death penalty enshrined in paragraph 6 of the same article of the ICCPR, steps outside accepted international norms, weakens its human rights standing, and embraces a policy with no demonstrated unique deterrent effect. It also heightens the risk of irreversible injustice, including in cases involving vulnerable individuals and flawed investigations.

The Amendments Do Not Address Actual Drug Policy Challenges

We recognize the serious challenges that the Maldives faces in relation to drug control. However, in addition to violating international restrictions to the use of the death penalty, the amendments do not respond to what Maldivian communities, public health professionals, and rights advocates repeatedly identify as the real root causes of those challenges.

For years, civil society groups and health practitioners have stressed that the country lacks a comprehensive harm reduction framework, including basic health-based interventions and overdose prevention measures. Access to rehabilitation and community-based treatment remains limited, leaving many people without meaningful pathways to recovery. Reintegration support for young people emerging from the justice system is similarly inadequate, contributing to cycles of vulnerability and relapse.

At the same time, the social and economic factors that contribute to people engaging in the drug market — such as marginalization, unemployment, and poverty — remain insufficiently addressed despite being central to long-term solutions. These gaps, rather than the absence of the death penalty, are what sustain the country’s drug control challenges.

Experience across the region shows that effective drug control depends far more on addressing the root causes that increase the risks for people who use drugs or that lead people to engage in the drug trade, and not on the death penalty. Executions add nothing to the Maldives’ ability to dismantle drug trafficking networks.

A Step Backwards for the Maldives

This legislative shift also isolates the Maldives from its own constitutional aspirations and global practice. The country has not executed a person for decades, even though a regulation aimed at facilitating executions was adopted in 2014 and officials repeatedly declared their intentions to resume executions, including last year. The government has long justified the use of capital punishment on the basis that Islamic Shariah prescribes it, but only for a narrow category of crimes – a category that does not include drug offenses. This expansion therefore also breaks the very rationale that the government has repeatedly invoked to defend its retention of the death penalty.

Expanding capital punishment for non-lethal offenses undermines its human rights commitments and further diminishes its international credibility.

What the Maldives needs is a public health oriented and community centered response that supports people instead of punishing them irreversibly through the death penalty. ADPAN stands ready to support the Maldives in building such a response.

ADPAN calls on the Government of the Maldives to:

Repeal the amendment introducing the death penalty for drug-related offenses;
Repeal the Regulation on Conducting Investigations Into and the Implementation of Penalties Arising from the Offense of Intentional Murder (2014/R-33);
Maintain the moratorium on executions and adopt a clear plan towards full abolition;
Invest in and implement comprehensive harm reduction programs, treatment services, and health and rights-based drug policies; and
Engage openly with civil society, public health experts, and international partners on sustainable and humane approaches to drug control.

Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
Capital Punishment Justice Project
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat
Harm Reduction International
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
World Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Justice Project Pakistan
Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
Redemption Pakistan
Amnesty International
Transformative Justice Collective
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
Human Rights Watch
The Advocates for Human Rights
Freedoms Collective Trust
Coalition Against the Death Penalty

ADPAN Condemns The Imposition Of The Death Penalty In Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal

December 4, 2025December 4, 2025communications34b384bb2c

ADPAN Condemns The Imposition Of The Death Penalty In Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal

Joint Press Statement
3 December 2025, Statements

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) strongly condemns the imposition of the death penalty by the International Crimes Tribunal‑1 (ICT-1) of Bangladesh in the case of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina following her conviction for crimes against humanity in relation to the lethal crackdown on the student-led protests that commenced in June 2024.

As the regional network of civil society organizations and individuals working for the abolition of the death penalty across the Asia Pacific, we reiterate our firm position that justice must never be equated with executions. The death penalty does not enhance accountability, nor does it strengthen the rule of law. On the contrary, it undermines the legitimacy of justice processes by perpetuating a form of state-sanctioned killing.

A Landmark Trial Undermined by Flawed Punishment

While the trial marked a significant moment in Bangladesh’s efforts to reckon with the grave events of 2024, as witnesses came forward voluntarily and a robust evidentiary base was built, the inclusion and imposition of the death penalty at the ICT-1 seriously compromises the legitimacy of its proceedings.

The imposition of the death penalty remains incompatible with Bangladesh’s obligations under international human rights law, particularly in light of the mounting global consensus towards abolition and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which calls for the restrictive application of the death penalty.

The imposition of the death penalty sends the wrong message at this critical juncture in Bangladesh — that the death penalty is necessary to signal moral outrage, deliver closure, and ensure that the system is ‘tough enough’ on grave crimes. These are dangerous misconceptions. Capital punishment is not an expression of justice. It is its failure.

Trial in Absentia: Exceptional Punishment Demand Exceptional Safeguards

The trial of Sheikh Hasina was conducted in absentia following her flight from Bangladesh to India on 5 August 2024. While trial in absentia may be permitted in exceptional cases, such trials bear a corresponding obligation to uphold the highest guarantees of a fair trial — precisely because a central pillar of justice, the participation of the accused, is absent.

This concern is not about mere technicalities; it goes into the heart of whether the process meets the threshold of fairness required in international law — particularly when the punishment is grave and irreversible, such as the death penalty.

In transitional settings, the appearance of fairness matters as much as fairness itself. A verdict that risks being perceived as politically motivated or procedurally questionable, especially one that ends in a sentence of death, can fracture public trust rather than rebuild it.

The Deeper Problem: Misconceptions About What Delivers Justice

The sentence of the death penalty underscores a deeper flaw in Bangladesh’s criminal justice landscape: the belief that the death penalty delivers justice, offers closure to victims, and signals moral condemnation. These assumptions are profoundly misguided. Capital punishment is state-sanctioned violence masquerading as accountability. It entrenches retribution over reform and renders any miscarriage of justice permanent.

Accountability for grave crimes demands seriousness of commitment, but not brutality. It must be pursued through penalties that reflect the gravity of the crimes while remaining consistent with human rights norms. The death penalty has no place in a justice system that seeks restoration and nation rebuilding.

ADPAN, therefore, urges the Bangladesh Interim Government to take a principled and rights‑based path forward: abandon capital punishment and cultivate a justice system that does not mirror the violence that it seeks to condemn. Work towards a justice system that rebuilds and restores, rather than one which replicates the violence of the past.

Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP)
Redemption Pakistan
Freedoms Collective Trust (FCT)

ADPAN Urges Bangladesh to Reconsider Death Penalty Clause in New Enforced Disappearance Ordinance

November 20, 2025November 20, 2025communications34b384bb2c

ADPAN Urges Bangladesh to Reconsider Death Penalty Clause in New Enforced Disappearance Ordinance

Joint Press Statement
18 Nov 2025, Statements

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) expresses serious concern over the recent passage by the Bangladesh Interim Government of an Ordinance that permits the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of enforced disappearance. We agree that the objectives of “The Prevention, Remedy, and Protection against Enforced Disappearance Ordinance” are legitimate to address past violations and prevent them from reoccurring. We also note that it seeks to prohibit the operation of secret detention centers such as the so-called Aynaghar, a long-standing concern for victims and human rights groups.

However, the protection of human rights must never come at the expense of other human rights. The pursuit of justice for one violation cannot justify the creation of another. Legal measures must comply with international human rights obligations. By prescribing capital punishment, the Ordinance violates Bangladesh’s obligations under international law and undermines the very ideals it seeks to advance. The death penalty is an inhumane punishment that violates the right to life.

As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED), Bangladesh is bound to ensure that criminal penalties and procedures respect the inherent dignity of all persons. The UN Human Rights

Committee has long clarified that the death penalty may only be imposed for the “most serious crimes,” meaning crimes involving intentional killing. Extending capital punishment to enforced disappearance, which does not necessarily entail such intent, contravenes Article 6 of the ICCPR and distorts the protective purpose of the ICPPED. Procedural elements of the Ordinance further risk undermining the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 14 of the ICCPR. The establishment of special tribunals and a rigid 120-day trial deadline may jeopardize the rights to adequate defense – safeguards that are indispensable to justice, especially in cases of grave human rights violations. We have advocated the reality that capital punishment is an ineffective measure to address crime. Penalizing the crime of enforced disappearance, the Ordinance need not include a death penalty provision to enable victims and their families to access justice and demand accountability from perpetrators.

We appeal to the Interim Government of Bangladesh to reflect on its position and comply with their international human rights obligations. We urge the Interim Government to consider the repeal of those sections of the Ordinance and continue to pursue more effective alternative solutions and appropriate punishments for the crime of enforced disappearance together with civil society, victims’ groups, human rights organizations, and other stakeholders.

The global trend is clearly towards a world without the death penalty. ADPAN calls on the Interim Government of Bangladesh to focus on taking steps towards the abolition of the death penalty.

Signatories:

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Capital Punishment Justice Project
Redemption Pakistan
Maldivian Democracy Network
Odhikar (Bangladesh)
Justice Project Pakistan
Coalition Against the Death Penalty

ADPAN

Author: communications34b384bb2c