A/HRC/24/18 B. Persons with mental or intellectual disabilities 67. In accordance with international human rights norms and standards, the imposition of the death penalty is prohibited “for persons suffering from mental retardation or extremely limited mental competence, whether at the stage of sentence or execution”,67 as well as “for persons suffering from mental retardation or extremely limited mental competence”.68 68. In the Caribbean region, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and domestic courts continued to restrict the implementation of the death penalty, specifically in relation to those with mental illnesses or impairment. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has delivered judgments on appeal in two capital cases69 where prisoners were sentenced to the mandatory death penalty in Trinidad and Tobago. In each of these cases, fresh medical evidence (psychiatric and psychological) was admitted and the cases were remitted to the Court of Appeal in Trinidad and Tobago for further hearing. In another case,70 the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal also admitted new psychiatric evidence. The conviction for murder was quashed and substituted with manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and a life imprisonment was imposed. 69. According to the Death Penalty Information Centre, around a quarter of those executed or scheduled to be executed in 2012 in the United States of America showed signs of severe mental illness.71 Moreover, it is estimated that between 5 and 10 per cent of inmates on death row suffer from severe mental illness.72 In July 2012, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions urged the Government of the United States of America and relevant authorities to prevent the execution of two individuals with psychosocial disabilities. He emphasized that “it was a violation of death penalty safeguards to impose capital punishment on individuals suffering from psychosocial disabilities”.73 In August 2012, the State of Texas executed an individual with a significant intellectual disability. 70. The Committee against Torture expressed concerns about reports on the execution of individuals with mental illness in Japan, in contradiction with article 479(1) of its Code of Criminal Procedures which prohibits the execution of “a detainee in a state of insanity”. The Committee urged Japan to ensure that death row inmates were afforded all legal safeguards and protections, inter alia, by ensuring “an independent review of all cases when there is credible evidence that death row inmate is mentally ill”, and also to ensure that any “detainee with a mental illness is not executed, in accordance with article 479(1) of its Code of Criminal Procedures”.74 C. Discrimination in the imposition of the death penalty 71. In practice, the decision whether to sentence the convict to death or life imprisonment is often arbitrary and devoid of predictable rational criteria. The application 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 16 Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/64, paragraph 1 (d). Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/64; see also Commission on Human Rights 2005/59. Marcus Daniel v. The State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2012] UKPC 15; Marlon Taitt v. the State (Trinidad & Tobago) [2012] UKPC 38. Shorn Samuel v. The Queen, Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines). See http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2012YearEnd.pdf. See http://www.nmha.org/go/position-statements/54. See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12364&LangID=E. CAT/C/JPN/CO/2, para. 15.