}t'}:PLTBI,IC (}}:'TTTIi P}{ II,IPI"INTiS COMI,IISSION ON HUNIAN RIGHTS
ADVISORY ON OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORI(ERS ON DEATH ROW CHR (V) Azor8-oo4
Overview
The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines (hereafterthe'Commission') issues this advisory to bring the Philippines' attention to the plight of overseas Filipino workers ('OFWs') who are at risk of execution abroad. This advisory highlights the vulnerable situation many OFWs find themselves in, including poor working conditions and maltreatment. Subsequently, this advisory lists reasons why foreign nationals are disadvantaged abroad, when interacting with foreign justice systems, particularly in death penalty jurisdictions. The Philippines must retain its position as a leading abolitionist state and in doing so, will retain its ability to protect OFWs, including those facing the death penalty.
This advisory reminds the Philippines that it is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Second Optional Protocol. The ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocol were ratified by the Philippines, and these contain express provisions defending the right to life and precluding reinstatement of the death penalty. As previous advisories issued by the Commission have stressed, the responsibility to promote, protect and fulfill human rights, and the promotion of a restorative justice system should be the agenda of the State. Modern human rights emphasize individual rights irrespective of state sovereignty.t
This advisory complements the previous advisories issued by the Commission that have concerned advocacy against the death penalty and challenges to the proposed legislation to reimpose capital punishment.2
[For more details about the global trend toward the abolition of t]re death penalty, see Appendix.l
l Matthew D. Mathias,'The Sacralization of the lndividual: Human Rights and theAbolition of the Death Penalty' (2013) 118(51 American Journal of Sociology 1246, L257. 2 An Act lmposing the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Repealing for the Purpose Republic Act No.9346, Entitled "An Act Prohibiting the lmposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines", And Furtlrer Amending Act No. 3815, As Amended, Otherwise Known as the "Revised Penal Code", rrnd Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" , House Bill No. 4724, House of Representatives, 17th Congress (2017).
1. Cammonovca/t/r frvcnac, U'P' Comp/e.r, Dr/iman //O/ Queeoo City P/tilrppnes Background
The Philippines' ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, r966)s in 1986 signalled its commitment to protecting and upholding civil and political rights, including the right to life, outlined underArticle 6.+ This was followed by the Philippines abolishing the death penalty through the adoption of the Constitution in r987.s As a result, the Philippines became the first country in Asia to abolish the death penalty.o
The death penaltywas reintroduced in the Philippines in 1993 and executions were carried out as recently as tggg.T In zoo6, the Philippines abolished the death penalty for the second time which was followedbythe ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 2,d OP, r98g)B.Article r of the Second Optional Protocol prohibits states from introducing the death penalty and Article 6 prevents states from withdrawing from the Protocol.s There is therefore no mechanism by which the Philippines can withdraw from the Protocol; as such, the Philippines cannot introduce the death penalty as this would be inconsistent with its obligations under international law.lo
The Death Penalty as a Form of Torture,
Traditionally, states have justified continued practice of capital punishment on the basis that this is provided for as a narrow exception to the right to life, on the condition that specific safeguards are uphelfl.tt Despite this, there is growing acceptance that the death penalty as currently practiced is irreconcilable with the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.l2 This prohibition forms international customary law and must be respected by all states, regardless of whether they have ratified instruments that contain the norm.rs The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture argues that there is no "categorical evidence that any method of execution in use today complies with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in every case."r4 This proposition is also supported by the recognition that being placed on death row involves significant delay, poor prison conditions and extreme mental distress which can be equated with cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.ls There is therefore evidence of an evolving standard within international law that views the death
3 1966 lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec 19. 1966, 999 and 1057 U.N.T.S. 77L and 407 (entered into force March 23, 1976) [hereinafter ICCPR]. a Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, 'On the Denunciation of and Withdrawal from lnternational Treaties to Reimpose the Death Penalty,' CHR A2017-. s lbid citing Art. lll, S 6, which states: Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. 6 tbid 2. 7 tbid. 8 1989 Second Optional Protocol to the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, opened for signature Dec 15, L989,L642 U.N.T.S. (entered into forceJuly 11 1991) [hereinafter Second Optional Protocol]. e Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, above n 4;-2 10 Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines and Dr. Christur,:her Ward, SC, Australian Bar Adjunct Professor, Australian National University, "ln Defense of the Right to Life: lnternational Law and Death Penalty in the Philippines,' 7 March 2017.
Thus, there is strong authority for the proposition that as currently practiced, the death penaltyviolates international law as its application amounts to a form of torture or can be considered cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment. As a state party to the ICCPR and the Second Optional Protocoi, the Philippines cannot introduce the death penalty due to its obligations under international law.r7
Situation of Overseas Filipino Workers
According to the Philippines Statistics Authority, the total number of Overseas Filipino Workers ('OFWs') at any time between April and September zot6 was estimated to be around z.z million.ts There are more female OFWs than male, and most OFWs come from the z5-39 age range.ts OFWs play an important role for the Philippines througn'the contribution of cash remittance inflows; in zot6, OFWs contributed $2r.3 billion to the Filipino economy.2o
Overwhelmingly, the leading destinations for OFWs are Gulf States in the Middle East - specifically, Saudi Arabia, United Ardb Emirates (.UAE), Kuwait and Qatar.2l At law, all of these states continue to apply the deatir penalty.r" The last reported execution in Qatar occurred in zoo3 however, there are still zo prisoners on death row in the country as of zot8.23 Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait all applied the death penalty in 2ot7, with Saudi Arabia carrying out 1{6 executions.24
A number of OFWs are also victims of human trafficking.zs Human Trafficking is defined in brief as the 'recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a person by means of threat or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or exploitation'.26 Recruitment agencies and placement firms arrange migrant workers' travel and employment, though not always legally.zz Trafficked OFWs include those who were legitimately recruited, but who are deceived on the nature of the work and conditions of employment in the destination country, particularly in the Gulf States.zs
rt
15 lbid 20, para74. 17 Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, above n 4, 5. 18 Philippine Statistics Authority, Totol Number of OFWs Estimoted ot 2.2 Million (Results from the 2076 Survey on overseos Filipinos) (April 27 2017) 3 Treatment of OFWs The treatment of OFWs can be dire. In 2011, an Investigating Mission of the Committee on Overseas Workers Affairs (COWA) of the House of Representatives published a report entitled 'The Condition of Overseas Filipino Workers in Saudi Arabia.''s This report detailed a number of systemic problems faced by OFWs. It was noted that a number of OFWs, particularly women, reported instances of abuse, poor working conditions, bullying and unpaid salaries.eo The report also explains that the threat of rape and sexual assault for OFWs in Saudi Arabia is an 'ever-present specter,' and can occur both within and outside the household.g, Based on the COWA report, it is clear that the treatment of OFWs is often unfair and exploitative, due in part to the lack of protectionsfor migrant workers under domestic law; this creates a situation where rights of OFWs cannot be guaranteed.ez Countries including Indonesia, India and Sri Lanka have all made attempts in the past to limit the number of citizens travelling to Saudi Arabia for work due to this issue.ss OFWs and the Death Penalty In April 2oL7, the DFA's Office of the Undersecretary for Migrant Workers'Affairs reported that 73 Filipinos were awaiting execution.34 The majority of these cases were in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia, with the alleged crimes including offences such as murder and drug trafficking.3s In light of the systematic exploitation of OFW rights, the fairness of these sentences comes into question. According to Amnesty International, migrant workers are disproportionately more likely to be executed in Saudi Arabia; between.Ianuary 1985 and June 2ot;, nearly half of all executions were foreign nationals.36 This occurs because migrant workers lack support in the country they are working and if accused of a crime, lack the language and cultural knowledge required to navigate the justice system; additionally, they are less likeh to receive a pardon.sz The trial process in receiving countries such as Saudi Arabia can also be problematic; forced confessions obtained through torture are frequent in Saudi Arabia while detainees may also have difficulty accessing lawyers.sa The inability to mount a strong defence is particularly worrying, considering the culture of exploitation of OFWs detailed above. Due to lack of rights and power, OFWs are vulnerable to being scapegoated for crimes, or may have committed a crime in retaliation or self-defence due to worries about their safety. Jakatia Pawa, an OFW in Kuwait, was executed in 2or7 after being accused of murdering her employers'daughter, despite a lack of DNA evidence or motive implicating her. Pawa argued that the employers 2s Committee on Overseas Workers' Affairs, The Condition of Overseos Workers in Soudi Arobio: Final Report on the lnvestigoting Mission of the Committee on Overseos Workers' Affoirs to Saudi Arabio, Jonuory 9-13 2011(2011) ('The COWA Report'). 30 The CoWA Report 8-9. 31lbid 10. 32 tbid 15-16. 33 lbid. 34 ABS-CBN News, /n/ographic: Filipinos on deoth row overseos ABS-CBN News (online) (18 April 2017) 4 were responsible for the daughter's death but on arrest was not able to access a lawyer or translator, although at trial a lawyer was provided by the Philippine embassy.se OFWs who work in states which retain the death penalty are at a disproportionate risk of being placed on death row due to their lack of rights in a foreign system. In situations where a worker commits a crime because of self-defense, they may have difficulty mounting a defence due to problems navigating the justice system and they may be forced to confess. OFWs that are victims of trafficking may face criminal sanctions in foreign courts for unlawful acts that theywere coerced to commit. Reprieve London found that a number of migrant workers facing the death penalty for drug offences have been victims of human trafficking, exploited to work as drug mules.4o Further, vulnerable migrant workers compelled to commit crime in abusive employment conditions that amount to slavery are sentenced to death.qt It is widely recognized, under international human rights instruments,+z 11ru, victims of human trafficking should not be punished in any form for crimes that were committed by them as a direct consequence of their situation as trafficked persons.as The non-punishment principle recognizes that while a trafficking victim mayhave committed an offence, he or she did so without real autonomy because of the degree of control exercised over them.aa Case Studies of OFWs on Death Row Jennifer Dalquez Like many other OFWs, Jennifer Dalquez set out to work abroad to build a better life for her and her family. However, just one month before Dalquez was scheduled to return home, she was charged with killing her male employer and sentenced to death. Dalquez maintained her innocence throughout the process, arguing that she was defending herself from her employer's attempts to attack and rape her. Dalquez was subsequently declared innocent bythe Court of Appeals in Al Ain. Referring to Dalquez's case, Dinagat Islands Representative Kaka Bag-ao argued that were the Philippines government to re-introduce the death penalty, it would lose its leverage in efforts to save other OFWs on deatir ron, worldwide.qs Bag-ao highlights this underlying hypocrisy: if the Congress were to reimpose the death penalty, how can the government continue to defend the numerous Filipinos on death row abroad. 3s Toots Ople, 'The Jakatia Pawa Story,' The Manilo Times (online) (30 January 20L7ll 5 Sally Ordinario-Villanueva and Ramon Credo, Elizabeth Batain Sally Ordinario-Villanueva, Ramon Credo and Elizabeth Batain, three Filipino nationals, were each arrested separatd in zooci,.cariyirg packages of heroin into Cliina, a crime punishable by death.+6 The three were notified of their death sentence the day of execution, prior to which they were permitted to meet with their families for one hour. In reaction to the proposed executions, Philippine Vice President Jejomar Binay appealed to the Chinese government to keep the Filipinos alive whilst new evidence was investigated, which could have exonerated two of the three.az Further, President Benigno Aquino III attributed the three Filipino's crimes to being victims of 'scrupulous' recruiters and drug traffickers.+a Despite this, the Filipinos were executed. Mary Jane Veloso In zoto, Mary Jane Veloso was detained in Indonesia for smuggling drugs, a crime punishable by death. Veloso has consistently maintained her innocence, claiming that her recruiter, Maria Kristina Sergio, had deceived her into flying to Indonesia with a suitcase containing over two kilograms of heroin. Spanning from 2011 to 2oLS, the Philippine government made multiple appeals for clemency, all of which were denied. Veloso's story has attracted significant public outcry, with an online petition ranked in the top ro of the most signed petitions globally.+e Veloso was granted a reprieve by the Indonesian government a mere few hours before her scheduled execution. Mary Jane remains on death row in Indonesia. Veloso's case highlights that when presented with real people facing the death penalty, public opinion favours a less harsh sentence such as imprisonment. As to the current status of the case, Mary Jane was initially allowed by Indonesia to testify. However, the illegal recruiters, through Public Attorneys Office Chief Persida Acosta, filed for injunction in the Court of Appeals, on the ground that the illegal recruiters' right to meet the witness against them face-to-face will be violated. The aforementioned was granted by the Court of Appeals. Mary Jane's parents then filed a case, with the assistance of the National Union of People's Lawyers, with the Supreme Court to reverse the said order, which has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court.so Zaini Misrin In April 2018, Indonesian migrant worker Zaini Misrin was executed in Saudi Arabia, for allegedly murdering his employer, in spite of strong evidence suggesting otherwise.st Misrin maintained that he was forced to admit to the killing after extreme intimidation and pressure from Saudi authorities. According to the Ministry of Foreign a6 James Pomfret and John Mair, 'China executes 3 filipinos"despite Manila's pleas', Reuters (online), (30 March 2011) \1 Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, Saudi Arabian authorities failed to inform Indonesian representatives about the execution.s2 Contradiction in Proposed Policies While OFWs face significant risk of being subject to the death penalty abroad, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) advocates strongly for citizens in such situations;ss for example, the DFA provided support to Jennifer Dalquez through the provision of a lawyer and arranging for her family to travel to the UAE.54 However, the ability of the DFA and Philippine government to advocate The positions taken by the government which clearly indicate a desire to reimpose the death penalty in the Philippines vis-i-vis their wish to save the lives of OFWs facing the death penalty abroad are conflicted, if not hypocritical. This argument has been applied to other states that retain the death penalty while advocating for the rights of its citizens overseas, such as Indonesia.ss The government of the Philippines would have more legitimacy and success in protecting its citizenry abroad if it retained its global position as a country without the death penalty. Recommendations As previous advisories have demonstrated, the world is moving toward the abolition of the death penalty; having regard to the vulnerability of OFWs to death sentences and this growing trend, the Bill to reinstate the death penalty should not be passed,s0 The Commission calls on the State to recognize its obligations as a State ParV to the ICCPR and its Second Optional Protocol. The ramifications of reintroducing the death penalty in the country have the potential to expose the Philippines to international ridicule and criticism, as it breaches numerous international rules of law.sz Should the Philippines retain its abolitionist stance then the capacity to protect overseas Philippine workers will also be preserved. As OFWs continue to play a quintessential role in contributing to the nation's economy, it is of crucial importance that the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines ensure that the rights of OFWs are protected, and that sufficient legal aid is provided. As many OFWs are victims of huru.an trafficking, it is recommended that national mechanisms to identifi, and protect these victims are implemented. Furthermore, it is also recommended that the State should push for receiving countries to enunciate the non-punishment principle for victims of human trafficking, and work to introduce mechanisms to identify and protect said victims of human trafficking on a global scale. In addition, the State should likewise work more closelywith receiving countries to recognize the disproportionate application of the death penalty s2 Netral English, 'Migrant Care: Death Execution against Zaini Misrin in Saudi Arabia Violates Human Rights' Netrol English (online) (19 March 2018) 7 against migrant workers and take measures to protect those working within its borders equally. ISSUED this Bth day of October 2018,'Quezon City, Philippines. JOSE LUIS GASCON *7 e YN A Commissioner (On Leove) LEAH C. TANODRA.ARMAMENTO EUGENIO T. CADIZ Commissioner Commissioner 8 Global Trend Towards Abolition of the Death Penalty The tnternational covenant on civil and Political Rights (lccPR, 1966)1 and the second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (ICCPR 2nd OP, 1989)2 to which the Philippines is a state party, together confirm global movement toward abolition of the death penalty. Research suggests that international momentum is to curtail or abolish the death penalty, both at law and in practice. 3 ln 1988, only 35 nations had completely abolished the death penalty;a as at 31 December 201-7, that number had risen to 106 countries, with a further seven countries abolitionist for ordinary (non-military) crimes.s 29 countries are considered abolitionist in practice, that is, they have not executed for at least ten years.6 The Asia-Pacific region reflects the global abolitionist trend through moratoriums and legal reform. Of the 4l countries in Asia and the Pacific, L7 are abolitionist for all crimes, one for ordinary crimes only, and a further ten are abolitionist in practice.T The following countries retain capital punishment and continue to conduct executions: Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Botswana, Chad, China, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guyana, lndia, lndonesia, lran, lraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Nigeria, North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), Oman, Pakistan, Palestine (State of), Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, USA, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.s Four of these countries account for 84% btf all recorded executions, making them an isolated minority.e 1 t96O lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature Dec. 19, 1966, 999 and 1057 U.N"T.S. 171 and 407 (entered into force March 23, L976). 2 tggg Second Optional Protocol to the lnternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, opened for signature Dec. 15, 7989, L642 U.N.T>S 414 (entered into force July 11). 3 Amnesty lnternational , Amnesty lnternational Globol Report: Deoth Sentences ond Executions 2017 (2018),5. a Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle 'Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide: The lmpact of a "New Dynamic"' (2009) 38(r.) Crime and Justice t. s Amnesty lnternational, above n 4,40. 6 tbid. 7 Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, Stote of Abolition in the Asia-Pocific Region (2018) (7) Retribution Support for the death penalty is grounded in strong cultural notions of retribution, which consider some crimes to be so brutal that death is the only proportionate punishment.lo By providing a retributive outcome, the criminaljustice system is perceived to have corrected an imbalance in society.ll However, retribution as revenge has the result of combining private vengeance and punishment through the criminal justice system.12 Offenders are denied the opportunity to correct mistakes and demonstrate to society that they can participate in the rehabilitation process.l3 (2) Deterrence Governments who impose the death penalty argue that it is a crime deterrent.l4 lf the punishment is great enough, it is argued, people will choose not to partake in illegal activity. Despite these frequent claims, no statistical evidence has been forthcoming to support this contention.ls lndeed, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Human Rights recently expounded on the empirical facts which demonstrate that there is 'no evidence [the] death penalty deters any crime'.10 This is the case even when executions are frequent and well publicised.lT During the re-instatement of the death penalty in the Philippines in 1999, statistics indicate that overall crime rates increased by more than 15%, while in2OO7, when the death penalty was abolished, 10 Todung Mulya Lubis, 'Death Penalty and the Road Ahead: A Case study of lndonesia' (Policy Paper 9, Centre for lndonesian Law, lslam and Society, Briefing Paper 4, Asian Law Centre) 10. 11 Kristian Javier,'VACC: Death Penalty about Retribution, not just Deterrence' Philstor Global (online) 7 February 2Ot7 < https://www.philstar.com/nation/20L7 /02/07/ 1669955/vacc-death-penalty-about- retri bution-not-j ust-deterren ce>. 12 Susan Jacoby, Wild Justice: The Evolution of Revenge (HarperCollins Publishing, 1983). 13 Lubis, above n 10, 19. 14 lnternational Federation for Human Rights and World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, The Death Penolty for Drug Crimes in Asio Report (2015) 11. 15 See Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle, The Deoth Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (Oxford University Press, 2008) 139. 16 United Nations, No Evidence Death Penolty Deters Any Crin;e, Senior UN Officiol Tells Rights Council United Nations News Centre (online) 201-5 lmposing the death penalty is not only unhelpful in deterring crime, but it is sending a message that government permits violence as an acceptable means for resolving disputes and righting wrongs.20 Hood and Hoyle argue that the only way the death penalty could deter crime would be to consistently maintain high rates of executions. This would lead to death penalty cases being speedily pushed through the system, increasing the likelihood of innocent and wrongfully convicted individuals, or those with mitigating circumstances, to be executed.2l These problems would undercut the legitimacy on which all criminaljustice systems depend. The deterrence argument also fails to acknowledge the complex structural conditions that lead people to engage in crime. The Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) demonstrate that the lowest socioeconomic classes comprised more than half of inmates on death row in the Philippines in2OO4, who had experienced unemployment, little education and poverty from a young age.22 The benefit that would be gained from committing an offence might be considered as outweighing the risk or threat of the death penalty, given that the individual may already be in a situation of life and death.23 (j) Public Support for the Death Penalty It has been argued that the use of the deah penalty is justified on the basis of strong public support. For example, the Japanese government's official justification for preserving the death penalty is that the majority of the public is overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty. A study conducted by Mai Sato and Paul Bacon found that although 80% of Japanese citizens considered the death penalty to be 'unavoidable', when asked for their opinion on the possibility of abolition in the future, almost half of them (41%) supported future abolition. A similar survey conducted the following year confirmed that while 83% maintained that the death penalty was unavoidable, less than a third (27%l answered that it 'should definitely be kept'. 2a These results indicate that public trust in the justice system was not founded upon 19 Australian Broadcasting Corporation, above n 17. 20 National Policy Committee, 'The Use of the Death Penalty' (Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, November 2001). 21 Hood and Hoyle, above n 4. 22 Free Legal Assistance Group, Socio-Economic Profile of Capitol Offenders in the Philipplnes (2006). 23 lnternational Federation for Human Rights above n t4,12. 2a Mai Sato and Paul Bacon, The Public Opinion Myth: Why Japan Retains the Deqth Penolty (The Death Penalty Project 2015). ., , retention of the death penalty. Rather, the government had failed to take steps to understand the true nature of public opinion on the death penalty. Similarly, a study into Malaysian public opinion on mandatory death sentences indicated that the level of support decreased significantly when participants were faced with individual cases.2s The extent to which a society encourages freedom of expression influences citizen's capacity to engage meaningfully in political debate and have views that diverge from those of their government.26 ln any case, the retention of a policy based on public opinion is not a sufficient justification to violate international law and hurnan rights standards. ln Asia and elsewhere, jurisdictions that have abolished the death penalty have done so despite majority support.2T It is also difficult to obtain reliable information on the death penalty globally upon which public opinion can be based. This is because many countries now regard death penalty statistics as protected 'state secrets', or because the information coming out of some countries is unreliable or false.28 (4) Protecting the Population from the Horm Caused by Drugs Retentionist countries often justify the use.of the, death penalty for offences seen as less serious by other member states, such as drug possession, on cultural grounds.2e Not only is issuing the death penalty for drug crimes disproportionate, drug offences do not meet the threshold of most serious crime for which the death penalty may apply under article 6 of the lccP.30 Harsh drug laws disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals, rather than protect them, since they form the majority of people committing low-level crimes. The death penalty for drug crimes is most often imposed on drug carriers at the bottom of the hierarchy who play no 25 Roger Hood, Ihe Deoth Penolty in Moloysio: Publit Opinion'on the Mandotory Deoth Penolty for Drug Trofficking, Murder and Fireorms Offences (Death Penalty Project, 2Ot3).' 26 lnternational Federation for Human Rights, above n t4, L2. 27 David Johnson 'Asia's Declining Death Penalty' (2010) 69(2) The Journal of Asion Studies 340. 28 lnternational Federation for Human Rights, above n 14, t2. 2e M Ravi, 'The Abolition of the Death Penalty in Southeast Asia: The Arduous March Forward' in J. Gomez and R. Ramcharan (eds), Ihe Universal Periodic Review of Southeost Asra (Palgrave Macmillan 2018). 30 Utrt High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'Study on the impoct of the world drug problem on the enioyment of humon rights: Report of the UN High Commissioner for Humon Rights', (2015) (5) Fairness of the Deoth PenoltY The death penalty is an irreversible punishment. There is no guarantee that the death penalty is imposed on the real perpetrator and the finality of execution does not allow for any redress in the event of a miscarriage of justice resulting from human error, bias or discrimination. 32 This is highlighted by the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in the USA in 2004, after which further evidence revealed that he was indisputably innocent.33 31 Human Rights watch, 'Letter the philippines congress on the Death Penalty Re: 17th Philippines congress - House Bill No. 1 on the Death Penalty' (2016) < https://www.hrw.orglnews/2076/L2102/letter-philippines-congress-death-penaltp' 32 Johnson, above n 27,344. ,Cameron (13 September 33 lnnocence project, Todd willingham: wrongfully Convicted and Executed in Texas' 2010)