UnitedNations, June 29 (IANS) India has abstained from voting on a General Assemblyresolution on examining steps to restrict trade in materials used forexecutions and torture, saying that that it could infringe on the rights ofcountries that carry out capital punishments provided for under their law”after following the due process of law”.
India,however, unequivocally declared its opposition to torture, which is a crimeunder its laws.
Theresolution, which was adopted on Friday with 81 votes in favour, 20 against and44 abstentions, asks Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to look at “arange of options to establish common international standards for the import,export and transfer of goods used” for capital punishment, torture orinhuman punishments.
Speakingafter the vote on the resolution, a First Secretary in India’s UN Mission,Paulomi Tripathi, said that New Delhi was “firmly committed to preventtorture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment”.
“Actsof torture are punishable offence under various provisions of the Indian PenalCode,” she said.
“TheIndian judiciary also serves as a bulwark against any such violations of humanrights.
“Wefirmly believe that freedom from torture is a human right which must be respectedand protected under all circumstances,” she added.
ExplainingIndia’s decision to abstain from voting for the resolution, Tripathi said:”Every State has the sovereign right to determine its own legal system andappropriate legal penalties In States where Capital punishment is statutorilyprovided for, it is exercised after following the due process of law.”
Theresolution may be considered an attempt to equate torture, which is a crime,with capital punishment, which in India is “a statutory provision, eventhough it is used in the rarest of rare cases”, she said.
Tripathialso said that the resolution was an attempt at imposing “traderestrictions in a selective manner” by linking “trade in goods andthe criminal acts of torture” and has “implications on theinternational trading system”.
Therefore,”any implication that capital punishment is being treated on par withtorture is unacceptable”, she said.
The nextAssembly session is to consider the issue of torture, including the restrictingimport and export of items used solely for torture, so the resolution wasduplicating the work, Tripathi added.
Many of thecountries that opposed the resolution or abstained made similar arguments,raising the questions of national sovereignty over laws permitting capitalpunishment and impinging on trade issues.
Romania’sPermanent Representative Ion Jinga, who introduced the resolution, tried toassuage the reservations by saying that it did not prejudge what further stepsmay be taken.
It onlyseeks to provide “food for thought” on how to deal with the problemand see what “common international standards” can be formulated infuture, he said.
“It isunconscionable to turn a blind eye to the import and export of goods that canbe used to inflict torture, suffering and even death.”
The votingwas split between countries that have banned death penalty – which supportedthe resolution – and countries that had capital punishment in their laws.
BesidesIndia, some of the other countries that abstained included South Korea, Russia,Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia, that had reservations onlybecause of the capital punishment or trade provisions.
Those thatvoted against the resolution made strange bedfellows as they are at loggerheadson most issues. Nations like the US, Saudi Arabia and Japan lined up alongsidecountries like North Korea, Iran and China to cast negative votes.