'The view that the right to life is 'inherent' suggested that this rights is not conferred on any individual by the society , but rather that society is obliged to protect the right to life of an individual.'
- Prof. William A. Schabas

It is an appalling fact that most of the armed outfits (non-State actors) both in hills and in valley of Manipur have been unscrupulously using the word 'Death Penalty/Capital Punishment' for many of the killings they carried out for whatever reason they cite.

Not only that such killing is empirically avoidable for the state which has a little more than 2 million populations but also it does more harm than good. According to contemporary international human rights movement, such killings are sheer violation to the 'Right to life' for any citizen as enshrined under Article 3 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is indeed a misnotion that capital punishment deters or prevents perpetrators from perpetrating their crimes. There are more than 60 countries in the world today that have absolutely abolished death penalty altogether.

But does this mean that these countries are free from crimes at all? No, these countries still suffers from various crimes perpetrated by various sets of perpetrators. However, to them respecting the sanctity of life is considered to be the utmost responsibility of a society.

For the past more than 20 years in Manipur, there has been many instances of eliminating people under the death penalty/capital punishment sentencing by the non-State entities, apparently in the name of social cleansing, in order to create a better society.

Now the question is: has all those killings/capital punishments brought any better change in our society so far? Is our society better off now than before? Are we sure that the only means of rooting out corruption/anti-social elements is by killing these people?

Is not it possible to root out corruption/anti-social elements through better education and training to the masses in general and to the youth in particular? Is not it better to create a mass awareness 'corruption is bad for society, for you and for me' among the youth.

Because youth ultimately will have to shoulder the responsibility for our society in the future. It is plausible to think introspectively now, whether sentencing some one to 'Death Penalty/Capital Punishment', having learnt from the past experience, will bring any good to the society or not.

People in Manipur have been subjected under various terms and conditions imposed by various non-State entities failure of which attracts various sever penal sanctions and punishments from these organisations, the most dreadful among all is the death penalty/capital punishment.

From the perspective of human rights and the sanctity of life, the people of Manipur should now seriously ponder on this issue and have a healthy debate on it. It is a topic of great importance today in our society.

Why not we debate on this issue of 'Capital Punishment' and 'the sanctity of life' in our present society? Or should we remain as silent spectators; who cares!

It may not be pertinent to mention though, today the world is making a great progress in abolishing death penalty from many countries. I am saying this because the target of this international movement is at the moment only the sovereign State recognised under international law inter alia members of UN. Nonetheless, we can have a look at it to help us think from the right perspective in regards to the sanctity of life in Manipur.

The first established death penalty law was found in 18 century B.C. in America. Americans have been fighting to abolish this kind of sentencing since 1700s. Many of American States have either abolished or restricted Death Penalty till date. But United State of America itself is not yet a signatory to the Optional Protocol II.

Indian constitution Article 21 (a) Protection of life and personal liberty say, 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law'.

This Article, in many of its interpretation by the Supreme Court of India has been referred to the Right to Life as oppose to Death Penalty proscribed in the optional protocol II of International Convention on Civil and Political Rights albeit India is not a signatory to this treaty. This is what the constitution of India guarantees for its citizens.

In 1948, the Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed the right to life. It says, 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.'

The true purpose of the Universal Declaration was to set goals for humanity and therefore it will not be too much to say that article 3 of Universal Declaration was aimed at eventual abolition of the Death Penalty. Universal Declaration is not a binding declaration, yet it is the most authoritative Human Rights documents today.

In fact, it can be called as mother of all the Human Rights Conventions we now have, be it European Convention or American Conventions or African Conventions. In the context of American Convention ' Death Penalty' is not fully abolished but restricted and it prohibits imposition of Death Penalty for political offence, juvenile and pregnant women.

The exception given in their protocol was state party may declare that it reserves the right to apply death penalty in wartime for serious military crimes, in accordance with international law.

According to common article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, 'Death Penalty' can only be imposed for the most serious crimes and such sentences can not be carried on pregnant women, on children under 15 years of age and on Insane.

In 1966, the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights established that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life.

Article 6 of the Covenant says,
'1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. It went to add that in countries where the death penalty has not been abolished, a death sentence can only be pronounced for the most serious crimes in accordance with law in force at the time of the commission of the crime.'

Article 6 of the covenant begins with the sentence: 'Every human being has the inherent right to life.' Surprisingly this phrase came not from so called civilised or developed western world but from two underdeveloped countries, Uruguay and Columbia. The amendment submitted by them says: 'Every human being has the inherent right to life. The death penalty shall not be imposed on any person.'

During the drafting of the covenant, a large number of possible exceptions to the right to life were discussed. These included, suppression of rebellion or riot, self defence, killing to effect arrest, killing by accident, killing by medical or surgical operation or experiment and killing during war.

Protocol no. 6, Article 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty says: 'Death Penalty shall be abolished and no one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed'

Michael L. Radlet and Ronald L. Akers noted in their article , 'Policy and Perspectives Deterrence and the Death Penalty: The views of experts' that '[T]here is a wide consensus among America's top criminologists that scholarly research has demonstrated that the death penalty does , and can do , little to reduce rates of criminal violence.'

In 1989, under UN General Assembly Resolution 44/128 adopted the second optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the abolition of death penalty.

(Refer Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, G.A. res. 44/128, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49) at 207, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989), entered into force July 11, 1991.)

The protocol declares that, 'The States Parties to the present Protocol,

Believing that abolition of the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human dignity and progressive development of human rights,

Recalling article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, and article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on 16 December 1966,

Noting that article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers to abolition of the death penalty in terms that strongly suggest that abolition is desirable,

Convinced that all measures of abolition of the death penalty should be considered as progress in the enjoyment of the right to life,

Desirous to undertake hereby an international commitment to abolish the death penalty,

The argument of the drafting committee in the protocol was that the abolition of 'Death Penalty' enhances the enjoyment to rights to life.

Now, the international law against death penalty is slowly gaining its ground and sooner or later it is going to become a customary international law. It will mean then, 'teeth for teeth; eye for eye' is no longer acceptable in civilised society. Reformation of the convicts with the help of alternative sentencing will be the only acceptable international norm in the future to come.

So far 129 countries world wide have either abolished or restricted 'Death Penalty' and the latest one was Rwanda, few months ago. Majority of EU countries have abolished death penalty. In fact abolishing DP is considered a grand step forward to up held the values of Human Rights. Perhaps, any country aspires to join EU now need to abolish DP as a compelling indicator of good human rights respecting country.

Many from the third world countries too had joined the club. Countries such as, Bhutan, Nepal, Rwanda, Philippine, Cambodia etc. Mostly totalitarian regimes and Islamic states are now the ones who have not either joined or taken any steps further towards abolishing Death Penalty.

The absolute abolitionist countries at the moment are:
ALBANIA, ANDORRA, ANGOLA, ARMENIA, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, AZERBAIJAN, BELGIUM, BHUTAN, BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA, CANADA, CAPE VERDE, COLOMBIA, COSTA RICA, COTE D'IVOIRE, CROATIA, CYPRUS, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK, DJIBOUTI, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, ECUADOR, ESTONIA, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY, GREECE, GUINEA-BISSAU, HAITI, HONDURAS, HUNGARY, ICELAND, IRELAND, ITALY, KIRIBATI, LIBERIA, LIECHTENSTEIN, LITHUANIA, LUXEMBOURG, MACEDONIA (former Yugoslav Republic), MALTA, MARSHALL ISLANDS, MAURITIUS, MEXICO, MICRONESIA (Federated States), MOLDOVA, MONACO, MONTENEGRO, MOZAMBIQUE, NAMIBIA, NEPAL, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NIUE, NORWAY, PALAU, PANAMA, PARAGUAY, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL, ROMANIA, SAMOA, SAN MARINO, SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE, SENEGAL, SERBIA, SEYCHELLES, SLOVAKIA, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SOUTH AFRICA, SPAIN, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, TIMOR-LESTE, TURKEY, TURKMENISTAN, TUVALU, UKRAINE, UNITED KINGDOM, URUGUAY, VANUATU, VATICAN CITY STATE, VENEZUELA to add RWANDA.

And the non abolitionist are:
AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZIMBABWE

Countries whose name does not appear here are partial abolitionist.

The only reason why some civil societies are still retaining Death Penalty is the deterrent factor. They think Death Penalty will deter criminals from commissioning crimes in the society. But according to a survey conducted by Gallup in USA, the conclusion was this theory was wrong and fallacy.

Whether Death Penalty is a State matter according to international law or not, many of the non-State entities in the world are also using death penalty as a means to gain recognition of their power and control over the local populace. It will not be preposterous to say that the numbers of Capital Punishment executed by the non- State entities is at any time much higher than the capital punishment executed by the State entity.

Man is mortal- says an old adage, then, why not let it happens of its own!