Death sentence of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi

The Special Rapporteur has issued a press release in which he “called on the Government of Singapore not to proceed with the planned execution of Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi”. He explained that:

“It is a fundamental human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Alston said. “The standard accepted by the international community is that capital punishment may be imposed only when the guilt of the person charged is based upon clear and convincing evidence leaving no room for an alternative explanation of the facts.” Alston indicated that these rights are recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. “Singapore cannot reverse the burden and require a defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn’t know that he was carrying drugs,” Alston said.

The trial judge appears to have accepted that Mr Tochi might not have realized that the capsules he was carrying contained heroin, stating that “[t]here was no direct evidence that he knew the capsules contained diamorphine, or that he had found that out on his own” but that “ignorance did not exculpate him”. He was convicted and sentenced to death. (The death sentence is mandatory for the offence of trafficking more than 15 grammes of heroin.) The appeal court rejected the trial court’s suggestion that it was irrelevant whether Mr Tochi had knowledge of what he was carrying. Nevertheless, it upheld his conviction. The appeal court reasoned that under Singapore law such knowledge is presumed until the defendant rebuts that presumption “on a balance of probabilities”, concluding that, “It is not sufficient for [a defendant] merely to raise a reasonable doubt.” His appeals have been exhausted and, reportedly, his petition for clemency has been rejected.

. . .

Alston also said that Singapore law making the death penalty mandatory for drug trafficking was inconsistent with international human rights standards. “Singapore’s decision to make the death penalty mandatory keeps judges from considering all of the factors relevant to determining whether a death sentence would be permissible in a capital case,” Alston said.