Statements

Maldives: Withdraw Proposed Death Penalty Bill

communications34b384bb2c


Maldives: Withdraw Proposed Death Penalty Bill

Proposed Law Could Result in Imminent Executions

Joint Press Statement
17 April 2026, Statements

(London, April 17, 2026) – The Maldives government should withdraw plans to introduce a bill to end the longstanding moratorium on the death penalty in the country, 10 Maldivian and international human rights organizations said today. The authorities should also seek to repeal recent amendments to the Drugs Act of 2011 that allow capital punishment for drug-related offenses, maintain the moratorium on executions, and move to fully abolish the death penalty.

The groups are Advocates for Human Rights, Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, Capital Punishment Justice Project, ECPM: Together Against the Death Penalty, International Federation for Human Rights, Harm Reduction International, Human Rights Watch, Maldivian Democracy Network, Parliamentarians for Global Action, and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

The proposed death penalty legislation would violate the Maldives’ international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Maldives acceded in 2006. It would also be contrary to United Nations General Assembly resolutions that call for respecting international standards that protect the rights of those facing the death penalty, progressively restricting its use, and reducing the number of offenses that are punishable by death. The human rights groups oppose the death penalty unconditionally, for all cases and under any circumstances.

During a media briefing on March 23, 2026, President Mohamed Muizzu announced that the government intended to submit a bill aimed at facilitating use of the death penalty to the national assembly, the People’s Majlis, during the current parliamentary session, scheduled to end in mid-May. The Attorney General’s Office is reportedly in the process of finalizing the draft legislation.

President Muizzu said that once the bill is ratified, capital punishment would be enforced without delay against convicted individuals who have already passed all stages of the judicial process in the Maldives.

These actions follow recent amendments to the Drugs Act, ratified on December 6, 2025, that expand capital punishment in the Maldives to include drug trafficking. Under the amendments, individuals convicted of trafficking large quantities of drugs, including more than 350 grams of cannabis, 250 grams of diamorphine, or 100 grams of any other Schedule 1 drug, into the country may now face capital punishment. The legislation also includes harsher penalties for trafficking smaller quantities of drugs, importing or exporting drugs, and facilitating the movement of controlled substances.

Prior to enacting new amendments to the Drugs Act, human rights groups in a joint letter urged the Maldives government and members of the People’s Majlis not to pursue such amendments or to expand provisions for the death penalty. The groups also said that the authorities should take prompt steps to abolish capital punishment and urgently commute all existing death sentences. 

Introducing the death penalty for a crime that was not previously punishable by death is contrary to the goal of abolishing the death penalty, as set out under article 6(6) of the ICCPR. Article 6 also states that countries that currently retain the death penalty in law should restrict its use to only “the most serious crimes,” which UN experts, including the 

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, widely agree do not include drug-related offenses.

Since President Muizzu’s government first announced plans to reinstate the death penalty at the beginning of his presidency in December 2023, international and domestic human rights organizations have raised serious concerns, including at the country review of the Maldives during the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review. The proposed law is of special concern due to the Maldivian judiciary’s history of corruption, politicization, and failure to provide justice and accountability for past crimes. 

The Maldives has had a moratorium on the death penalty since 1954. Carrying out executions would set the Maldives against regional and global trends that have seen 113 countries fully abolish the death penalty. When the UN General Assembly considered its most recent resolution on a death penalty moratorium in December 2024, 130 countries, more than two-thirds of all UN member states, voted in its favor.

Recent developments in several Asian countries suggest that there is momentum in the region to significantly decrease the resort to the death penalty. On June 25, 2025, Vietnam’s parliament voted to repeal the death penalty in the penal code for eight crimes, including drug transportation. In September 2024, Taiwan’s top court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but introduced greater restrictions, including strengthening due process rights.

In 2023, Pakistan repealed the death penalty for drug-related offenses. Malaysia, also in 2023, repealed the mandatory death penalty for all applicable offenses, including drug trafficking, murder, treason, and terrorism, and abolished the death penalty in full for seven others; these changes resulted in the commutation of more than 1,000 death sentences.

The Maldives government, recognizing the global goal of abolishing the death penalty and the violations of human rights inherently associated with its use, should withdraw plans to pursue the proposed death penalty law, the organizations said. Should the bill proceed to the People’s Majlis during this parliament session, lawmakers should reject the bill, take steps to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, and commute all existing death sentences.




Read the full statement here.

Death Penalty is Not the Answer to Ensuring Road Safety in Malaysia

communications34b384bb2c

Singapore: Halt Imminent Execution for Cannabis Trafficking​

Presidential Clemency Would Avoid Irreversible Miscarriage of Justice

Joint Press Statement
15 April 2026, Statements

The Singaporean government should immediately halt the execution of Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj, scheduled for April 16, 2026, for trafficking cannabis, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP), and Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) said today.

Singaporean authorities arrested Omar, a Singaporean national, now 41, on July 12, 2018, and a court later convicted him of importing just over one kilogram of cannabis, considered a Class A controlled drug under the 1973 Misuse of Drugs Act. After Singapore’s highest court dismissed his appeal in October 2021, he was sentenced to death in February 2022.

“The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhumane, and degrading punishment,” said Rachel Chhoa-Howard, Southeast Asia researcher at Amnesty International. “Singapore’s continued use of the death penalty for drug-related offenses is a violation of international human rights law and standards and places the city-state increasingly out of step with the rest of the world on this issue.”

On April 2, 2026, Omar’s family received a notice from the Singapore Prison Service that he would be executed two weeks later. His wife, Alexandra Maria, a German national, wrote a letter to the office of President Tharman Shanmugaratnam on April 12, appealing for clemency.

On July 12, 2018, Omar was found in possession of 1,009 grams of cannabis during a routine check at the Woodlands Checkpoint border crossing between Singapore and Malaysia and was arrested.

At the time of his arrest, he was living in Germany and was no longer a resident of Singapore. In her plea, his wife said that her husband had returned to Singapore to spend the holy month of Ramadan with his extended family. His wife, daughter Amal, and son Naqeeb were in Germany at the time. Due to their son’s health conditions requiring specialized medical treatment and their financial situation, the family has not been able to visit Omar in prison. Naqeeb passed away in November 2025 at age 11.

“Omar and his family have already endured unimaginable suffering since his incarceration in 2018,” said Karen Gomez-Dumpit, convenor at ADPAN. “Executing him now would only compound that pain and leave his daughter without ever truly knowing her father.”

Singapore’s criminal justice system provides for the death penalty for a range of offenses, including trafficking, importing, or exporting quantities of drugs above a certain threshold. International human rights law and standards say that countries that have not abolished the death penalty should reserve its use “only for the most serious crimes,” which United Nations experts, including the UN high commissioner for human rights, agree do not include drug-related offenses.

The judge in Omar’s case found that his involvement was limited to transporting drugs, but the prosecution did not provide him with a certificate confirming that he substantively assisted investigations to disrupt further drug trafficking activities. These two conditions are required under the Misuse of Drugs Act for defendants to qualify for sentencing discretion in drug trafficking cases. So, the judge had no option but to impose the mandatory death penalty. 

Since January 1, 2026, Singapore has executed seven people, all for drug-related offenses. In 2025, the authorities executed fifteen people for drug-related offenses, seven more than the previous year.

The government also routinely uses overly broad and restrictive laws to silence anti-death penalty activists and human rights defenders, stifling informed public debate on the issue.

“While neighboring countries in Asia have taken important steps in recent years to reduce their reliance on capital punishment, Singapore appears committed to its continued use and ramping-up of executions, particularly for drug-related crimes,” said Jacinta Smith, chair at CPJP. “The Singaporean government’s stance on capital punishment reflects a total disregard for the right to life.”

There is precedent in Singapore for presidential clemency. On August 14, 2025, President Shanmugaratnam granted clemency to Tristan Tan Yi Rui, 33, who had been sentenced to death in 2023 for trafficking 337.6 grams of methamphetamine—also a Class A controlled drug—in 2018. His death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. 

At the time, the Home Affairs Ministry said that clemency had been recommended by Singapore’s Cabinet “because of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.”

In her letter to the president, Omar’s wife referred to the president’s decision in the Tan Yi Ru case as an “act of compassion and fairness [that] was seen by many around the world as a powerful sign of a justice system that is capable of recognising unique human circumstances and the possibility of redemption.” She also wrote: “Please give Amal, who is nine years old this year, the opportunity to experience the joy of reconnecting with her father, and not the irrevocable pain and regret of never having gotten to know him.” 

“Concerned governments should urgently call on Singapore to immediately halt the execution of Omar bin Yacob Bamadhaj and commute his death sentence,” said Bryony Lau, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Singaporean government should commute death sentences for everyone convicted only of drug-related offenses as a first step toward full abolition.” 

Read the full statement here.

Death Penalty is Not the Answer to Ensuring Road Safety in Malaysia

communications34b384bb2c

Death Penalty is Not the Answer to Ensuring Road Safety in Malaysia

Press Statement
14 April 2026, Statements

Malaysia was recently shaken with two driving under the influence (DUI) related accidents that took place in Klang and Segamat, resulting in the deaths of four people: a father and three members of a family. The former was caused by a driver who was reportedly under the influence of drugs and alcohol, while the latter by a driver who tested positive for methamphetamine. Both have since been charged with murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code, which carries the death penalty or imprisonment.

While ADPAN strongly condemns the irresponsible act of driving under the influence as it has the foreseeable risk of death, we reiterate that the death penalty cannot be imposed for drunk driving or driving under the influence as it violates international human rights standards. In addition, the imposition of the death penalty is not a uniquely effective deterrent to crime. Evidence-based safety reforms must be prioritised over reactionary capital punishment sentencing. The charges for fatal DUI accidents must also proportionately reflect their nature as reckless and negligent acts rather than intentional. 

Not an Offence Punishable by Capital Punishment under International Human Rights Standards 

Without intentional killing, positioning the cases as capital offenses violates Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which limits the death penalty to the ‘most serious crimes’, which means crimes involving intentional killings.

Malaysia already has existing strict penalties for driving under the influence under the Road Transport Act 1987, with first-time offenders facing up to RM30,000 in fines and imprisonment up to two years . For cases resulting in death, Section 44 provides for imprisonment of between 10 and 15 years and fines of up to RM100,000, with significantly higher penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment and RM150,000 in fines for repeat offenders.

An approach that considers mitigating circumstances and explores severe alternative punishments such as permanent license revocation and intensive rehabilitation may offer a more proportionate and effective deterrent. The public outrage that is surrounding these cases must not only lead to temporary, reactive consequences like the death penalty. True accountability requires a focus on prevention and systemic reform.

A Regressive Step in Malaysia’s Death Penalty Reform

Malaysia’s 2023 reforms marked a significant step towards narrowing capital punishment, including abolishing the mandatory death penalty and expanding judicial discretion. While 27 offences remain punishable by death, the overall direction has clearly been towards restriction and reform. 

Malaysia has also maintained a de facto moratorium on executions since 2018 and has expressed support for the UN General Assembly moratorium on the death penalty. 

Any step backwards from this progress would undermine Malaysia’s ongoing reform efforts, and place Malaysia to be in contradiction with its international stance and commitment. 

Continuing Our Call for Road Safety Reform 

Road safety reform should remain a priority in Malaysia. The Malaysian government has introduced measures to reduce road accidents, including mandatory defensive driving courses for traffic offenders or drivers with suspended licenses, speed-limit enforcement, and Automated Awareness Safety Systems, guided by MIROS’ holistic approach to road safety. While these initiatives alone are not enough, road safety must go beyond government mandates and become a shared social responsibility, fostering a culture where every driver understands the consequences of reckless behaviour.

However, the death penalty is not the answer. The following global examples show that accountability, prevention, and proportionate sanctions, not extreme, reactionary measures, are what truly save lives. 

  • Japan reduced fatal DUI accidents from 1,276 to 216 per year between 2000 and 2016 through strict but proportionate penalties, proactive prevention, lowered BAC limits (0.03%), and holding passengers, businesses, and vehicle lenders accountable. Immediate license revocation, heavy fines, and social consequences serve as a visible deterrent.
  • Sweden limits BAC to 0.2 g/l and uses graduated sanctions, mandatory driver rehabilitation (SMADIT), and voluntary alcohol interlock programs. In 2025, Sweden reported just 208 road traffic deaths, one of the lowest annual totals in recent years, reflecting the impact of sustained road safety reforms and a culture of responsibility.
  • Canada has reduced alcohol-impaired driving incidents by over 15,000 between 2015 and 2022 through strict laws, mandatory screening, graduated sanctions, and interlock programs.

ADPAN stands in solidarity with the grieving families. We urge authorities in Malaysia to hold the offenders accountable with proportionate punishment, while calling for victim-centered justice through timely compensation, immediate support and accessible processes. Drunk driving kills, but the death penalty does not save lives. When we rely solely on harsh punishments like the death penalty, we are treating the symptom rather than the cause. 

True justice honours the victims by preventing further tragedies, holding offenders accountable in proportionate ways, and strengthening the systems that protect us all. 

Download PDF

ADPAN Condemns Acid Attack against Indonesian Human Rights Defender Andrie Yunus

communications34b384bb2c

ADPAN Condemns Acid Attack against Indonesian Human Rights Defender Andrie Yunus

PRESS STATEMENT

15 March 2026,  Statements

The Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) condemns in the strongest sense possible the acid attack against human rights defender Andrie Yunus, the Deputy Coordinator for External Affairs of KontraS (Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Korban Tindak Kekerasan), that took place on 12 March 2026 in Central Jakarta, Indonesia. KontraS is a member of ADPAN and one of Indonesia’s leading human rights organisations. ADPAN stands in solidarity with Andrie, KontraS, our members in Indonesia, and Indonesian civil society. We extend our deepest support to Andrie and his family during this incredibly difficult time.

According to information received by ADPAN, Andrie was the victim of a targeted acid attack shortly after taping a podcast episode discussing the rise of militarism in Indonesia. Medical reports indicate the severity of the assault, with burns covering approximately 24% of his body. This act of violence has left him in critical condition, requiring extensive medical intervention and long-term recovery. KontraS has also reported that surveillance was observed at their office in Jakarta prior to the incident.

International law recognizes the vital role played by human rights defenders in promoting and protecting fundamental freedoms. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders affirms that everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Declaration further requires states to take all necessary measures to ensure the protection of individuals against violence, threats, retaliation, discrimination, pressure, or any other arbitrary action arising from their legitimate human rights work.

We call on Indonesia to abide by its international legal obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These obligations include the duty to ensure effective protection for individuals exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful advocacy. Indonesia must conduct a prompt, impartial, and effective investigation, hold the perpetrators accountable for the attack, and take appropriate measures to prevent similar acts of violence from recurring. 

We also calls on Indonesian authorities to:

  • Ensure that Andrie Yunus receives appropriate medical treatment and all necessary support for his recovery;
  • Investigate the case thoroughly and bring the perpetrators to justice;
  • Take effective measures to protect human rights defenders and guarantee a safe environment for civil society in Indonesia to operate without fear of violence or intimidation; and
  • Demonstrate a clear commitment to transparency, accountability, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

ADPAN urges the international community to closely monitor the developments and to support efforts to ensure accountability and protection for human rights defenders. Attacks against those who peacefully advocate for human rights must never be tolerated. The protection of human rights defenders is essential to safeguarding democratic institutions and ensuring that justice and accountability remain possible.

Contact:

Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)

communications@adpan.org 

Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c

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
Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c


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:

  1. 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;
  2. 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
  3. 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:

  1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
  2. Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP)
  3. The Advocates for Human Rights (TAHR)
  4. Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM)
  5. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP)
  6. Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
  7. Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c

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 

  1. The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS), Indonesia 2. Indonesia Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Indonesia 
  2. Asia Justice and Rights (AJAR)
  3. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) 5. Public Association “Dignity”, Kazakhstan 
  4. IMPARSIAL, the Indonesian Human Rights Monitor, Indonesia 
  5. The Peoples Participation, Initiative and Partnership Strengthening Foundation (YAPPIKA), Indonesia 
  6. Indonesia Justice and Peace Foundation (YKPI), Indonesia 
  7. Indonesia Judicial Research Society (IJRS), Indonesia 
  8. BarengWarga, Indonesia 
  9. 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) 
  10. Colors Rainbow (Myanmar) 
  11. Peoples of Longing, Timor Leste 
  12. 2030 Youth Force Indonesia (Yayasan 2030 Prapta Nusa), Indonesia 17. Asosiasaun Chega! Ba Ita (ACbit), Timor Leste 
  13. Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), Indonesia 
  14. LBH APIK Jakarta 
  15. Kuala Lumpur Debate 
  16. Indonesia Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) 
  17. Asian Cultural Forum on Development (ACFOD) 
  18. KOMPAKS (Anti Sexual Violence Civil Society Coalition) 
  19. Support Group and Resource Center on Sexuality Studies (SGRC) Indonesia 25. Women’s March Jakarta 2025 Committee 
  20. International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID) 
  21. Yayasan Tifa (Tifa Foundation) 
  22. Activate Rights ( Bangladesh) 
  23. WITNESS 
  24. kotakhitam Forum 
  25. PERIN+1S – C2O library & collaborative 
  26. PIKAT Demokrasi 
  27. Public Virtue Research Institute 
  28. Humanis 
  29. SINDIKASI (Serikat Pekerja Media & Industri Kreatif untuk Demokrasi) Jawa Timur 36. Suara Muda Kelas Pekerja Partai Buruh (SMKP) 
  30. Trend Asia (Indonesia) 
  31. Solidarity Collective TH (Thailand) 
  32. Progresip.id 
  33. Emancipate Indonesia 
  34. ILGA Asia 
  35. Perkumpulan Untuk Pemilu dan Demokrasi (Perludem), Indonesia 43. ASEAN SOGIE Caucus 
  36. Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) 
  37. TAPOL (UK) 
  38. MilkTeaAlliance Calendar Team (Regional)
  39. Asia Floor Wage Alliance (AFWA) Indonesia 
  40. Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM), Malaysia 
  41. Partai Rakyat Pekerja (PRP), Indonesia 
  42. Lembaga Informasi Perburuhan Sedane (LIPS) Indonesia 
  43. Konfederasi Serikat Nasional (KSN), Indonesia 
  44. Konfederasi Pergerakan Rakyat Indonesia (KPRI), Indonesia 
  45. Transnational Palm Oil Labour Solidarity (TPOLS)
  46. Human Rights Alert Manipur, India
  47. Numun Fund
  48. National Union of Workers in Hospital Support and Allied Services (NUWHSAS), Malaysia
  49. Studio Batu 
  50. Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet)
  51. Kelompok Jaya Bersama (KJB) Indonesia
  52. Lingkaran Advokasi dan Riset (Link-AR Borneo)
  53. Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)
  54. Social Justice Indonesia
  55. Legal Dignity, Malaysia 
  56. Open Net (Korea) 
  57. Ruang Independen Community, Indonesia
  58. Spring Revolution Security (Myanmar) 
  59. ICT Watch, Indonesia 
  60. Kolektif Bengkel Kabel Bandung, Indonesia 
  61. End Female Genital Cutting Singapore 
  62. Rohingya Maìyafuìnor Collaborative Network 
  63. Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia/The Union of Indonesian Migrants Worker (SBMI) 72. Sigaw ng Kabataan Coalition (SKC) Philippines 
  64. Serve the People Association (SPA), Taiwan 
  65. Foundation for Media Alternatives (Philippines) 
  66. Human Rights Online Philippines (HRonlinePH) 
  67. Arus Pelangi (Indonesia) 
  68. ALTSEAN-Burma 
  69. Asia Feminist LBQ Network (AFLN) 
  70. Korean House for International Solidarity (South Korea) 
  71. International Peoples Assembly 
  72. Partido Lakas ng Masa (PLM), Philippines 
  73. Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA) 
  74. FIAN Indonesia 
  75. Watch Indonesia! e.V 
  76. Bumi Setara 
  77. 18+ Coalition (Koalisi 18+), Indonesia 
  78. Perempuan Mahardhika (Indonesia) 
  79. Serbuk Kalbar 
  80. Warisan Ingatan
  81. New Bloom (Taiwan) 
  82. Cita Tanah Mahardika, Indonesia 
  83. Proklamasi Anak Indonesia 
  84. Advocacy Forum (Nepal) 
  85. Suriya Women’s Development Centre (Sri Lanka) 
  86. Asia Democracy Network (ADN) 
  87. Indorelawan, Indonesia 
  88. Kait Nusantara, Indonesia 
  89. Beyond Borders Malaysia 
  90. Movement for Alternatives and Solidarity in Southeast Asia 100. KontraS Aceh 
  91. Greater Equitable Measures (GEM) 
  92. Strength For Queer – Myanmar 
  93. A New Burma 
  94. 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 
  95. Creative Home 
  96. Equality Myanmar (EQMM) 
  97. Generation Wave 
  98. Generations’ Solidarity Coalition of Nationalities- GSCN 112. Justice & Equality Focus 
  99. Kyae Lak Myae 
  100. Network for Human Rights Documentation – Burma (ND-Burma) 115. Nyan Lynn Thit Analytical 
  101. New Step Women Empowerment Group/Network 117. Progressive Muslim Youth Association (PMYA) 118. Progressive Voice (PV) 
  102. Queers of Burma Alternative 
  103. Sitt Nyein Pann Foundation 
  104. Southern Initiatives 
  105. Women Advocacy Coalition – Myanmar (WAC-M) 123. Women’s League of Burma (WLB) 
  106. Yangon Medical Network 
  107. Volunteers in Myanmar 
  108. MyaYar Knowledge Tree 
  109. Kyauktada Strike Committee (KSC) 
  110. Defend Myanmar Democracy 
  111. ယိမ်းနပွဲ့ါး – Yain Nweh Par (Rainbow Win The Storm – RIS) 130. ASR-ASSOCIATION of SPRING RAINBOW 
  112. Yangon Deaf Group 
  113. Muslim Youth Network 
  114. Sisters2Sisters
  115. In Defense of Human Rights and Dignity Movement (iDEFEND) – Philippines 135. ProyekDekolonial 
  116. Vuka! Coalition for Civic Action 
  117. Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM) – Philippines 
  118. Saribuhay UP Diliman (Philippines) 
  119. Defence of Human Rights, Pakistan 
  120. Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), Maldives 
  121. NGO: Environment and humanitarian actions for well-being 142. Salam for Democracy and Human Rights (SALAM DHR) 
  122. Association for Democracy in the Maldives (ADM), Maldives 144. Solidaritas Aktivis Aliansi Jurnalis Independen (AJI) Diaspora 145. Asia Citizen Future Association (ACFA) 
  123. Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR) 
  124. SILAKA-CAMBODIA 
  125. 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 
  126. Jeunesse Innovante et Restauration du Bien-être (JERESTAURE BIEN ETRE) 155. North South Initiative, Malaysia 
  127. KontraS Tanah Papua 
  128. True Colors Coalition (Philippines) 
  129. Philippine Misereor Partnership Inc. (PMPI) 
  130. The Biodiversity Project, Sri Lanka 
  131. Mayday Multimedia, Philippines 
  132. Philippine Labor Movement Archive (PLMA) 
  133. Pusat KOMAS, Malaysia 
  134. MY World Mexico: Hub of Action for Sustainable Development, Mexico 164. Asia Monitor Resource Centre 
  135. Youth and young Journalist peace and Democracy cultural 166. Center Timor-Leste 
  136. Milk Tea Alliance Thailand 
  137. Families of Victims of Involuntary Disappearance (FIND), Philippines 169. Asia Democracy Network (ADN) 
  138. Indonesia untuk Kemanusiaan (IKa) 
  139. Bytes for All (B4A), Pakistan 
  140. Weaving Women’s Voices in Southeast Asia (WEAVE) 
  141. Beyond the Hijab, Singapore 
  142. ALIANSI GERAKAN REFORMA AGRARIA (AGRA), Indonesia 175. Odhikar, Bangladesh 
  143. SEAPIL (Southeast Asia Public Lawyers Interest), Southeast Asia Region 177. Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), Philippines
  144. Agham Youth UP Diliman (Philippines) 
  145. Global Citizen Society, Maldives 
  146. Kemban Kolektif, Malaysia 
  147. Women’s March, Malaysia 
  148. Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism (C4 Center), Malaysia 183. Initiative for International Dialogue (IID), Philippines 
  149. Kalyanamitra, Indonesia 
  150. BeWithYou Indonesia 
  151. Bright Future, Thailand 
  152. Fat Liberation London, UK 
  153. Vajpayee Research Foundation, India 
  154. Serikat Pekerja Angkutan Indonesia (SPAI) 
  155. Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Ireland 
  156. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation 
  157. Labor Kommunity 
  158. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Argentina 194. Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) 
  159. EngageMedia Collective 
  160. Youth Initiative (YI), Nepal 
  161. Nepal Development Initiative (NEDI), Nepal 
  162. Defence of Human Rights Pakistan 
  163. Capital Punishment Justice Project, Australia 
  164. Psychological Responsiveness NGO, Mongolia
  165. 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
  166. N.C.F.H.Collective (SEA)
  167. QueerPunch (SEA)
  168. Can Yalcinkaya, Australia
  169. Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM)
  170. Kenya Human Rights Commission, Kenya
  171. Legal Resources Center, South Africa
  172. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network

Individual 

  1. Taufiq Hanafi, Indonesia 
  2. Safina Maulida, Indonesia 
  3. Shoeb Abdullah 
  4. Ganies Oktaviana, Indonesia 
  5. Achmad Assifa 
  6. Cyprianus Lilik Kridmantoro Putro 
  7. Mathurin K 
  8. Xun-ling Au
  9. James 
  10. Choo Chon Kai 
  11. Vox 
  12. RESI- TIMOR LESTE 
  13. Saza Faradilla 
  14. Reihana Mohideen 
  15. Bima Arthayuda, Indonesia 
  16. Raffy Oktavian, Indonesia 
  17. Ni Putu Candra Dewi, Indonesia 
  18. Syahar Banu, Indonesia 
  19. Federico Fuentes, editor LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Australia. 20. Nurashikin Binte A Rahim, Singapore 
  20. Gloria Truly Estrelita, Indonesia 
  21. Mamik Sri Supatmi, Indonesia 
  22. Syahmi Zulfadhli Abdullah, Brunei 
  23. Bikash Basnet, Nepal 
  24. Eko Waluyo, Indonesian solidarity 
  25. Atmaezer Hariara Simanjuntak 
  26. Cho 
  27. Megan Steven, Malaysia 
  28. Bernard Vijayabalan, Singapore 
  29. Ja Fuentes, Philippines 
  30. Lea Pamungkas, Amsterdam 
  31. Adhiraaj AnandNATWA HINDINA Pierre 
  32. Reichele Corona, Philippines 
  33. Rahmat Muhamad, Medan, Sumatera Utara 
  34. Madalena Timor Leste 
  35. Thomas Rieger, Jerman 
  36. Charles Zander Deluna, Philippines 
  37. Betty Yolanda, Indonesia 
  38. Ellirie Aviles, Philippines 
  39. Peter Boyle, Australia 
  40. Etienne ZOUNDE 
  41. Jhay de Jesus, Philippines 
  42. Dulanjaya Mahagamage, Sri Lanka 
  43. Kasumi Ranasinghe Arachchige, Sri Lanka 
  44. Wildan Siregar, Indonesia 
  45. OTOLORIN Adandé Barthélémy 
  46. Cristiana Ximenes Belo, Timor-Leste 
  47. Prints para sa Bayan /for the People 
  48. Celia L. Sevilla, Philippines 
  49. Attitaya, Thailand 
  50. Fiza Awan, Thailand 
  51. Maya Kornelia Musa, Indonesia
  52. Kanhaiya Kumar, India 
  53. Myriam Selhi, Canada 
  54. Lulu Keng, Taiwan 
  55. Erin McConnell, USA 
  56. Lisabona Rahman, Germany
  57. Alejandra Rojas Giraldo, Colombia
  58. Christine Holike, Germany
  59. Semjidmaa Choijil, Mongolia 
  60. Ganga Bahadur Gautam, Nepal 
  61. Di Wu, Belgium
Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c

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:

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

Signatories:

  1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
  2. Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN)
  3. Capital Punishment Justice Project
  4. Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Masyarakat
  5. Harm Reduction International
  6. Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
  7. World Coalition Against the Death Penalty
  8. Justice Project Pakistan
  9. Odhikar (Bangladesh)
  10. Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA)
  11. Redemption Pakistan
  12. Amnesty International
  13. Transformative Justice Collective
  14. International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
  15. Human Rights Watch
  16. The Advocates for Human Rights
  17. Freedoms Collective Trust 
  18. Coalition Against the Death Penalty
Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c


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:

  1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
  2. Capital Punishment Justice Project (CPJP)
  3. Redemption Pakistan
  4. Freedoms Collective Trust (FCT)
Download PDF

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

communications34b384bb2c

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: 

  1. Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) 
  2. Capital Punishment Justice Project 
  3. Redemption Pakistan 
  4. Maldivian Democracy Network 
  5. Odhikar (Bangladesh) 
  6. Justice Project Pakistan 
  7. Coalition Against the Death Penalty 
Download PDF