Archive: 31 March 2023

Why Governments Work to Discredit Country Condition Researchers

Why Governments Work to Discredit Country Condition Researchers

Why Governments Work to Discredit Country Condition Researchers.

Governments work to discredit Country Condition Researchers because researchers play an essential role in informing the international community about human rights and political conditions within countries.

First, Governments will work to undermine the researchers and their findings by claiming their research is biased, inaccurate or politicized. Second, Governments will work to rescind a Country Conditions Researcher’s findings by bribing groups who were previously studied. For example, a Government may ask the studied group to conduct themselves differently or to intentionally undermine the researcher’s findings. If they agree to cooperate, the Government may offer them an incentive.

The Government has tremendous influence on independent research. For instance, the Government can persuade those in the scholarly community not to publish findings that contradicts their propaganda. The Government can also persuade the scholarly community to reject the findings of the researcher. This makes it appear as if the researcher is inexperienced or ill-informed.

It cannot be denied that Country Conditions Researchers often expose human rights abuses, corruption, and social injustices within countries. These findings can be damaging to the government’s image and reputation, both nationally and internationally. As a result, Governments will work to protect their reputation and avoid any negative consequences—and that is by discrediting the researcher.

Researchers also expose issues that the Government wishes to conceal. We know that Governments seek to suppress or control the flow of information to maintain their power and control. Country Conditions Researchers work independently and objectively. Some Government will employ its own researchers to suppress the findings of independent researchers and to maintain their power.

We know that a researchers’ findings on human rights abuses, political repression, torture and social injustices can lead to international scrutiny and pressure for reforms. Therefore, Governments will work to undermine or prevent international scrutiny of their practices and policies. Even if the Governments’ policies violate human rights, the Government will work to discredit the researchers’ image to the public to justify its harmful policies to avoid or downplay this international pressure.

In conclusion, Governments work to discredit Country Condition Researchers to protect their reputation, suppress information, and avoid international scrutiny. However, these attempts to discredit researchers are often unjustified and serve to undermine the role if independent research in exposing human rights abuses and promoting transparency and accountability.

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are often at the forefront of advocating for asylum seekers, refugees, and the Traveller community in Ireland. Most have made significant strides in raising awareness about the mistreatment and injustices that occur in different parts of Ireland. However, there is an issue that has been largely ignored by many asylum advocate NGOs in Ireland, and that is the issue of torture in Direct Provision. Torture is a heinous crime that violates human rights and has devastating consequences for victims.

United Nations Definition of Torture

The United Nations defines torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person”. Torture is a violation of human rights and a crime under international law. It is a cruel and inhumane practice that has no place in Ireland or any society.

NGOs Must Break Their Silence on the Torturous Practices Authority Officials are Using Against Asylum Seekers in Direct Provision

Despite the unequivocal condemnation of torture by UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, authority figures in Ireland continue to use these practices to intimidate certain asylum seekers. Torture is being used by Irish officials to extract information, punish individuals for seeking asylum, and to intimidate populations. It is used as a tool of repression to silence dissent and maintain power.

Breaking the Silence: Shocking Treatment of Asylum Seekers in Ireland Demand Urgent Action from NGOs: Consequences of Torture

The consequences of torture are severe and long-lasting. Victims of torture often suffer from physical and mental health problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic pain, and serious ill-treatment. Many are left with permanent disabilities, and some even die as a result of their injuries.

NGOs Role in Ending Torture

NGOs in Ireland play a critical role in ending torture. For instance, NGOs have the expertise, resources, and networks to document cases of torture, provide legal assistance to victims, and advocate for changes in policy and practice. Further, NGOs can work with international bodies, such as the Committee Against Torture, to raise awareness about the use of torture and to pressure the Irish governments to take action to end this abhorrent practice.

NGOs Are Being Persuaded by Powerful Authority Figures Not to Act

Irish NGOs have been hesitant to break their silence on the torture that is occurring in Direct Provision because they are being persuaded by powerful authority figures not to act. Torture often occurs in secret, and sometimes, it is difficult to obtain evidence of its use. What is more, officials who are deploying torturous practices in Direct Provision are often repressive and unresponsive to criticism, making it difficult for asylum seekers to speak out and access their rights. Indeed, there is a history in Ireland of intimidating asylum seekers into silence over their poor treatment.

While NGOs may be concerned about the safety of their staff and the impact that speaking out against torture may have on their relationships with governments and other stakeholders in Ireland, one of the primary roles of NGOs is to foster a culture of accountability. In other words, NGOs in Ireland must hold government officials responsible for their actions.

Why Silence on Torture is Not an Option

NGOs must recognize that their silence on torture is not an option. NGOs have a moral obligation to speak out against all forms of human rights abuses, including torture. By remaining silent on torture in Ireland, NGOs are allowing this heinous practice to continue unchecked. Moreover, by failing to speak out against torture, NGOs are failing to fulfill their mandate to promote and protect human rights.

When NGOs speak out against torture, they expose torture and the International Community is more likely to take action to prevent future abuses. NGOs can demand Direct Provision centres follow international human rights standards, such as the Istanbul Protocol, which provides guidelines for the investigation and documentation of torture.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Must Investigate Ireland's Coercive Repatriation Practices

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Should Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Should Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices before its too late.

MARCH 24, 2023

To the esteemed members of the United Nations:
I, the undersigned, write to draw your attention to the pressing issue of coercive repatriation in Ireland, a practice that violates the fundamental rights of asylum seekers in the State. I urge the United Nations to undertake a comprehensive investigation into this practice in Ireland, and to take necessary steps to ensure that it is eliminated.

Coercive Repatriation in Ireland


Coercive repatriation refers to the forced return of asylum seekers to their home countries, often in violation of the principles of non-refoulement and the right to seek asylum. Despite the contentions of those involved, some asylum seekers in Ireland have fled their country due to police violence and brutality, gun violence, racism, or discrimination on the basis of their gender identity.  I further submit that some asylum seekers are at risk of real harm if they are returned. Despite the risks faced, the International Protection Office in Ireland and staff in Direct Provision continue to engage in this coercive practice, which disregards an asylum seekers basic human rights under international and human rights law. It is essential that the United Nations investigate this issue and take action to put an end to Ireland’s effort to coercively repatriate asylum seekers, on account that it has formed diplomatic relations with an asylum seeker’s country of origin. Moreover, it is settled law that any repatriation through coercive means is a breach of Art. 33 of the Refugee Convention.

Responsibility of the United Nations to Investigate


The United Nations has a responsibility to uphold human rights of all individuals, regardless of their nationality and race. By investigating this practice and working to eliminate it, the United Nations can help protect my rights, and the rights of other asylum seekers, ensuring that we are all treated with dignity and respect.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Must Investigate Ireland’s Coercive Repatriation Practices! Comprehensive Investigated Required.


In conclusion, I call on the United Nations to act without delay on this important matter. I also urge the United Nations to launch a comprehensive investigation into Ireland’s coercive repatriation and to take strong actions to ensure that this practice is stopped once and for all. I believe that this is a critical matter that demands immediate attention, and I stand ready to support the United Nations in any way possible, with any evidence and documentation I have complied over the last two years, to achieve a just and humane solution.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Quianna Canada

Coercive Repatriation: A Human Rights Crisis on the Rise in Ireland

Coercive Repatriation: A Human Rights Crisis on the Rise in Ireland

Coercive Repatriation: A Human Rights Crisis on the Rise in Ireland

Coercive repatriation, sometimes referred to as forced repatriation, is the practice of forcibly returning individuals to their country of origin, usually against their will. It is a phenomenon that has been on the rise in recent years, and one that is increasingly being recognized as a human rights crisis with potentially devastating consequences.

According to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. Some Americans seek asylum in other countries due to government persecution, police violence or other threats to their safety and well-being. However, Ireland is using more aggressive tactics to try to repatriate Americans who seek asylum on their soil, regardless of the risks and dangers they may face upon their return to the United States.

The practice of coercive repatriation is a clear violation of international human rights law. Ireland is a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits it from forcing asylum seekers to return to their country of origin when they would face persecution or other serious threats to their life, freedom, or well-being. Further, under international law, all persons— including Americans—have the right to seek asylum and protection from persecution.

Despite these legal frameworks, Ireland is engaging in coercive repatriation or other practices that make it difficult or impossible for American asylum seekers to access their rights. This includes tactics like pitting asylum seekers, NGOs and other community members against them, all of which can leave American asylum seekers effectively stranded and at risk of harm.

The consequences of coercive repatriation can be dire. For instance, many Americans who are repatriated in this way face arrest, detention, torture, or even death upon their return, particularly where they have been previously attacked for their race, political opinions or other characteristics.

Additionally, the trauma and psychological harm that can result from being forcibly removed from one’s new home and returned to a situation of danger and uncertainty can have long-lasting effects on their well-being.

Despite the clear legal and moral imperatives to protect all asylum seekers from harm, the rising trend of coercive repatriation illustrates how far Ireland is from meeting its obligations under international law.

Advocates and policymakers around the world must work together to ensure that the rights of all asylum seekers are upheld and that they have access to timely and effective protection from persecution and other serious threats to their safety.

In conclusion, coercive repatriation is a deeply concerning phenomenon that poses a clear threat to the rights and safety of American asylum seekers. It is a problem that demands immediate attention from the international community, and one that must be addressed with urgency and compassion.

Coercive Repatriation: A Human Rights Crisis on the Rise in Ireland – If you know someone that is being coercively repatriated, please contact us.

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence

On March 14, 2023, the Biden Administration announced a new executive action to reduce gun violence and to make our communities safe. But Americans have seen this before, haven’t we? Our government proposes a solution that will prevent gun violence in the nation and gun violence continues. After reading the new action, I am saddened to say our government is exposing us to another “Groundhog Gun Day.”

Connecticut was one of the first states to enact red flag laws. Yet this “Provision State” has experienced one of the most horrific mass-shootings in history. What Connecticuter can forget Adam Peter Lanza, who shot and killed 28 children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School? I know I cannot.

America’s undivided attention on the purchaser’s background is a Gadarene decision to make it appear as if the U.S. is tackling the gun epidemic in the nation, when in reality, its action have little to no effect.

While red flag laws are beneficial in preventing gun-related suicide deaths, there is little evidence to show the efficacy against mass-shootings.

Another important point to make is how the Biden Administration has changed its language regarding domestic terrorism. For instance, the Biden Administration has now cleped these individuals: “domestic abusers.” However, it is important to call these acts what they are: domestic terrorism. What is more, many of these individuals have little to no criminal record. Indeed, Payton S. Gendron, Salvador Rolando Ramos, Adam Peter Lanza, DeWayne Antonio Craddock and Ahmad Al Aliwi Al-Issa all had little or no criminal record at the time they committed their shootings.

Why the Biden Administration’s New Executive Action Won’t Reduce Gun Violence: Because Red Flag Systems Are Triggered by Criminal Records

Another important point to make is that red flag systems are triggered by criminal records. If an individual wants to commit a mass-shooting but does not have a criminal record, their purchase will not be red flagged. This means an individual with no criminal record who seeks to commit a mass-shooting can purchase a gun. Therefore, red flag systems are ineffective.

Even if this method closes the loophole for people with felony convictions and domestic terrorists and prevents them from purchasing a firearm legally, it does not avert the illegal purchase of a firearm. In light of these facts, it’s safe to say—or unsafe to say depending on how you look at it—that the Biden Administration’s new executive action will not reduce gun violence.

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim 

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim

In 2015, the American Broadcasting Company aired an anthology crime drama called American Crime. The second season takes place in Indianapolis, Indiana, where the co-captains of a private school’s basketball team are accused of sexually assaulting a male classmate and posting photographs of the incident online. In the beginning of episode four, we hear Kevin Kantor, a non-binary rape survivor delivering “I Am Sure,” in which they speak poetically about their treatment as a non-ideal rape victim in the United States.

The central theme of “I Am Sure” is the critical victimology of the “ideal victim.” According to Nils Christie’s concept, the ideal victim is a young female who is perceived by Society as being weak. She is further perceived as being in the “right place” at the “wrong time” of her victimization. A female jogger who is overpowered by an unknown male victim on a trail at night and raped is an example of the ideal victim. One should note here that biological women who find themselves in these scenarios are more likely to receive sympathetic responses from law enforcement officers and Society as a whole.

Kantor is clearly excluded from this typology because (1) they are not a biological female, and (2) they do not remember how much they had to drink. What Kantor does remember is how Society downplayed their vulnerability based on the stereotype that biological males are not weak. One should not forget that American law enforcement officers have a history of holding trans and non-binary victims in low regard, and disregard the rape complaints they make. Society has also shown an intolerance for people who get drunk. Indeed, Kantor divulged when they reported being raped the responding officers rolled their eyes. A journalist also asked them if they were sure about being raped (Kantor 0:35-0:45). The officers’ non-verbal actions and the journalists’ insensitivity to Kantor’s experience is often thought of as “secondary rape” because the victim is disbelieved rather than treated as a human who was injured. As can be seen, Kantor is the non-ideal victim.

Although Kantor does not say to us “they didn’t believe me,” their disclosure “Remember how busy you were trying to figure out how they got in…” leads us into the psyche of a rape survivor. It also illustrates how law enforcement officers’ style their investigations around the inconsistencies and mistakes trans and non-binary victims made before their attacker raped them. By doing this, law enforcement officers can justify their hostility and lack of support for trans and non-binary rape victims.

It is quite likely there is a sub-theme in “I Am Sure,” one I found nestled in the following paragraph:

 “I am sure I remember it feeling like every room of my home being broken into at the same time…remember how I told you that it felt like every room of my home being broken into at the same time? Remember how busy you were trying to figure out how they got in that you forgot all about the person living there” (Kantor).

The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim – Robbery of the Body

I get the sense that Kantor felt as if their body was robbed, as they disclosed that “every room of [their] home being broken into at the same time.” The breaking into their rooms is an allegory for the stealing of consent. This is discernible from Kantor’s “the trauma of someone trying to take their body from them.” I would even go so far as to say this disclosure reveals how trans and non-binary victims are robbed of their autonomy and the authority of their body. This is what I refer to as “Robbery of the Body.”

Kantor’s soliloquy that law enforcement “forgot all about the person living there” is the bleak emptiness one feels after sexual trauma. This soliloquy also reveals how law enforcement officers raid the non-ideal victim’s thoughts by manufacturing a case against them in order to discredit them. This is done by re-creating the crime scene and fabricating a narrative that harms victims like Kantor. A narrative that individuals like Kantor cannot be raped disregards the traumatic experience, which frequently turns the non-ideal victim’s body against them. This piece screams: trans and non-binary individuals must approach all of their physical or sexual experiences with apprehension! When these human experiences are approached with apprehension, they are snavelled of their enjoyment. This invasion of the human body and self is undoubtedly an experience of emptiness that robs one of bodily autonomy. It is clear from the poem that Kantor was unable to protect those boundaries to secure their bodily integrity (Bernstein 144).

As attested by Bernstein, being raped is traumatic and devastating for victims like Kantor because it means the rape remains imprinted on the body-psyche of the survivor. If we refer back to the soliloquy that law enforcement “forgot all about the person living there,” we hear an immeasurable void within Kantor. We also see how Kantor may be unable to replace what has been taken from the rooms in their home. This replacement would be obsolete for Kantor, had they never been raped.

If you enjoyed reading The Poetic Injustice of the Non-Ideal Victim, subscribe!


References

Bernstein, J. M. “The Harm of Rape, the Harm of Torture.” Bernstein, J. M. Torture and Dignity: An Essay on Moral Injury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 116-172. Print.

Christie, Nils. “The Ideal Victim.” Duggan, Marian. Revisiting the Ideal Victim: Developments in Critical Victimology. Bristol University Press, 2018. 11-24. Print.

Kantor, Kevin. I Am Sure. Ed. Stanley Thai. 29 January 2016. Web. 02 February 2023.

Kantor, Kevin. I Am Sure. Ed. Button Poetry. 15 March 2020. Web. 22 February 2023.

Wikipedia. “American Crime (TV series).” n.d. Wikipedia. Web. 22 February 2023.

Direct Provision Manager Calls Gardai on Asylum Seeker After Served With Environmental Complaint

Direct Provision Manager Calls Gardai on Asylum Seeker After Served With Environmental Complaint

Direct Provision Manager Calls Gardai on Asylum Seeker After Served With Environmental Complaint.

Breda Keane Shortt, the manager at a Direct Provision centre in Cork, called the Gardai on an asylum seeker after they served her with a complaint for a violation of the Environmental Protection Act 1992, on 06 March 2023.

The Complaint alleges “Despite several attempts to resolve the dispute with Keane Shortt, she failed to take adequate measures to remedy the situation,” which has rendered their space at night “virtually uninhabitable.” When the Complainant made attempts to hand the Complaint to Keane Shortt, she refused. The Complainant then politely asked Keane Shortt’s son, who works at the Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre, if he would accept service for her on her behalf, and he refused. When this failed, the Complainant gently placed the Complaint on Keane Shortt’s car. Keane Shortt then demanded that security remove the Complaint. When the Complainant removed the Complaint from Keane Shortt’s car, she called the Gardai. She later retaliated against the Complainant—using her authoritative position with International Protection Accommodation Service—to issue them a disciplinary notice.

Direct Provision Manager Calls Gardai on Asylum Seeker After Served With Environmental Complaint. Asylum seekers are afraid of Breda Keane.
Courtesy of the Irish Examiner

Toxic Management at Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre

A group of asylum seekers further allege Keane Shortt’s management style is toxic. A few months ago, asylum seekers gathered together to complain about the lack of parking space at Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre, and requested to have a meeting with Keane Shortt. Asylum seekers allege Keane Shortt intercepted the petition and refused to have discussion. Some of those whose names were on the petition were evicted from Kinsale Road Accommodation Centre under mysterious circumstances.

Direct Provision Manager Calls Gardai on Asylum Seeker After Served With Environmental Complaint. Other Asylum Seekers Are Afriad of Keane Shortt’s Toxic Leadership.

I interviewed a group of female asylum seekers who said, “We are afraid of her.” When asked to come forward, they said “We are afraid she will evict us. She has done it to our friends. We have children. We need to keep them safe.” Asylum seekers in the past have alleged that Keane Shortt opened private letters and shared their content with the International Protection Office.

Repatriation through coercive means is a breach of Art. 33 of the Refugee Convention. In MSS v. Belgium and Greece, the Belgian authorities engaged in coercive repatriation efforts to force the applicant back to Greece, where he lived in permanent fear of being attacked and robbed.  The ECtHR found State’s efforts amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The District Court will hear the case on 24 March 2023.

Shoplifting Now Punishable By Death in the U.S.?

Shoplifting Now Punishable By Death in the U.S.?

Is shoplifting now punishable by death in the U.S.?

Shoplifting is the act of knowingly taking goods from an establishment in which they are displayed for sale, without paying for them.[1] In the U.S., store employees have certain powers of arrest. For instance, store employees may detain suspects outside of and inside the store premises if they believe an individual is attempting to take or, has unlawfully taken merchandise.[2]

Store employees also have a certain level of citizen’s arrest powers. However, this power only extends to felony offenses and not misdemeanors.[3] In the U.S., shoplifting is a misdemeanor not a felony. Therefore, the crime should not be punishable by death.

The Penalty for Shoplifting in the U.S.

In 2012, an off duty police officer shot a woman who he suspected was shoplifting at Wal-Mart. At the time he shot her, two children were seated in the back of the car. Six years after this particular incident, a security guard opened fire on a homeless man that he suspected was shoplifting at a Hollywood Walgreens.

Then in 2019, reports surfaced that four individuals rushed into a Pine Hills Wal-Mart and attempted to steal baby diapers. A Wal-Mart employee approached the suspected shoplifters, while they were loading the merchandise in the back of a car. After he approached the suspected shoplifters, an armed customer shot one of them with a gun. During the same year, a Walgreens’ clerk suspected a woman of shoplifting and called a friend for assistance. The friend arrived with a gun—confronted the woman—and shot her.

There is more. In 2022, a sergeant shot and killed a man who Dollar General employees suspected was shoplifting. While law enforcement officers contend the man had a criminal history, witnesses assert the man was a friendly regular in the neighborhood who should not have been shot.

The most recent shoplifting case that appears to be punishable by death in the U.S. is the Tysons Corner Mall incident. Employees at the Tysons Corner Mall suspected a Virginia man of shoplifting designer sunglasses. Loss prevention staff then called Virginia police officers, who chased the man into the forest. The policer officers shot and killed him. Despite conflicting reports, Chief Kevin Davis admits that officers found no weapon at the scene.

Should a Suspected Shoplifter be Shot Based on their Criminal Background?

According to Davis, the suspect in the February 2023 incident was well known to police in Virginia and had a “significant violent criminal history.” With this statement, Davis seems to be suggesting that law enforcement’s shooting of the suspect was justified.

The first thing that needs to be said is that I do not condone criminality despite the argument I will now present. The suspect’s alleged criminal record does not justify the shooting. First, it is unlikely that Macy’s Department store employees knew the suspect’s identity at the time of the incident or had access to his criminal history. Second, it is unlikely that law enforcement knew or had access to the same. To identify an individual, law enforcement officers would need to ask for the individual’s government vitals and then run it through their police system. It is unlikely Virginia police carried out this step before the suspect fled the scene. Indeed, Davis admits that when officers approached the suspect he fled.

Third, the suspect was running away from police officers. This is an indication that the suspect was in flight not fight mode. During the flight response to threat, the brain signals to the individual that there is danger. It then alerts the body to escape and flee to safety. This response is quite different from the fight response, where the body may experience a rush of adrenaline. In this response, an individual may resort to physical violence and aggression, which we can agree, did not happen during this incident. To reiterate, law enforcement officers found no weapon at the scene. Even if they thought the suspect would become violent, it was clear that he was out-numbered by two police officers. In other words, the police officers had the potential to overpower the suspect. This leads me to believe the shooting was not justified.

Shoplifting now punishable by death in the U.S.? Are We Following in the Footsteps of Non-democratic Regimes?

Afghanistan, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and North Korea impose a death penalty for theft, which leads me to believe we are following in the footsteps of these non-democratic regimes.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. It also provides for specific conditions for the imposition of the death penalty with respect to countries that have not yet abolished it. Although the U.S. ratified the Covenant on June 08, 1992, individual citizens cannot bring a complaint under the protocol.

The Human Rights Committee has articulated that countries such as the U.S.—that have not abolished the death penalty—only may impose the death penalty for the most serious crimes.[4] This means the U.S. must interpret the term “most serious crimes” restrictively and should appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing.[5] Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as economic crimes, can never serve as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty under Article 6.[6]


References

[1] Wikipedia. (n.d.). Shoplifting. Wikipedia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoplifting

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] HRC (2019). Capital punishment and the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. A/HRC/42/28, at para. 8. Available at: https://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/42/28

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

Skip to content