STATEMENT BY MR MARK NEO, CHARGE D'AFFAIRES ON AGENDA ITEMS 69 (A) and (D) HUMAN RIGHTS, THIRD COMMITTEE, 23 OCTOBER 2012

Mr Chairman,

1                Thank you for giving me the floor.  I thank Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Mr Ivan Šimonović for his remarks and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr Juan Mendez for his presentation.

Singapore’s Position on Torture

2                Singapore wishes to reaffirm our unwavering commitment in condemning and preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in its various forms.  Singapore is known today as a safe country with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.  Singapore’s post-independence first-generation leaders, many of whom personally experienced the traumas of the Second World War, emphasised the importance of the rule of law, and made building a sound criminal justice framework a key priority.   These principles remain today.  Our society does not condone torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Singapore’s domestic legislation strictly prohibits causing harm to the body with criminal intent.  Our security agencies have strict guidelines governing the conduct of their officers.  We have worked with the international community to condemn and prevent torture, and have supported past General Assembly resolutions on “Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” in the Third Committee, which have traditionally been adopted by consensus.    

Response to the Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture

3                Mr Chairman, it is precisely because Singapore takes a strong stance against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment that our delegation wishes to express our strong reservations over Mr Mendez’s interim report A/67/279.  Mr Mendez has tried to draw a link between the death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  He does this by attempting to show us that there has been an “evolving standard” among states that consider the death penalty as running afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  He has thus suggested that a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty per se is emerging. 

4                However, my delegation’s view is that Mr Mendez’s reliance on the supposed “evolving standard” to suggest such an emerging customary norm is deeply flawed.  In his report, Mr Mendez listed some instances where states disapprove of specific applications of the death penalty to suggest that state conduct has evolved.  But the state conduct he identified manifestly demonstrates that these states have reviewed and studied the death penalty, and proceeded on that basis to make the considered decision to retain the death penalty.  Therefore, the state conduct in Mr Mendez’s report in fact supports the view that the death penalty per se is not contrary to international human rights law and demonstrates that no customary norm regarding the death penalty per se has emerged.       

5                The Singapore delegation also finds Mr Mendez’s approach of analysing individual methods of executions to assess whether they are or could be violations of the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment similarly flawed.  First, Mr Mendez’s approach assumes that a given method of execution can categorically violate the prohibition.  This precludes any contextual analysis.  Yet surely, specific conditions in each state must be taken into account given that similar methods of execution will be practiced differently in different states.  Second, the examples that Mr Mendez relies on to conclude that a particular method of execution is frowned upon do not aid his analysis as he does not demonstrate that this method is rejected by all states on the basis of the belief that it violates the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Further, there is no evidence that the decisions Mr Mendez has referred to have been accepted by all states as having the status of binding rules of international law.  Singapore certainly has not accepted them as such.

6                Mr Chairman, it is clear that there is no international consensus that the death penalty, when applied in accordance with due process of law and judicial safeguards, violates the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.  Under international law, every country has the sovereign right to decide on its own criminal justice system.  Any decision to maintain or abolish the death penalty or any particular method of execution is a question for each country to decide for itself.  Thank you.

.    .    .    .    .