December 10th - World Human Rights Day

On the occasion of the World Human Rights Day, the international community renews its commitment to guarantee common standards of protection, starting from the fundamental right to life.

As an attempt to distance themselves from the atrocities committed during the Second World War, among some States the idea arose that the protection of human rights could no longer be entrusted only to national legislation, but had to be guaranteed through common standards at an international level. Treaties were created precisely for this: to be both a legal instrument for harmonizing rights among member States, and an instrument that assigns certain powers to community bodies, removing them from national authority. At a universal level, the United Nations marked a turning point with the adoption of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights in 1966: a legal instrument representing a set of non- derogable rights and freedoms recognized to human beings, which States are obliged to promote in terms of universal respect and observance. Article 6 recognizes the right to life as “inherent to the human person”, while still leaving, for States that had not yet abolished the death penalty, the possibility to adopt capital punishment in cases of the most serious crimes, always respecting the obligations deriving from the Genocide Convention. This opening led in 1989 to the adoption of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR: it imposes an absolute prohibition for ratifying States on reintroducing the death penalty. Italy ratified this protocol in 1994, committing itself actively to the global fight against capital punishment. In Europe, the abolition of the death penalty became even more incisive thanks to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a treaty of the Council of Europe that introduced a unique judicial mechanism: for the first time, legal issues between private individuals concerning fundamental human rights could be resolved by a supranational court: the European Court of Human Rights. Its rulings are binding for the adhering States, which are required to modify any national provisions not conforming to the rights in the Convention, in order to ensure that fundamental rights are guaranteed and recognized throughout the European territory. Alongside the ECHR, an additional protection system is guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which acquired legal value equal to the two Treaties of the European Union with the Lisbon Treaty of 2009: it expands and strengthens fundamental rights, including social, digital, and dignity principles that reflect the evolution of contemporary society. The institutions of the European Union itself, together with national courts, are called to interpret domestic law in a way compatible with the Charter, which constitutes a sort of “constitution of rights” of the European Union. To guarantee the recognition of the rights present within these charters, we still find today numerous debates centered on the death penalty. It represents one of the most complex themes of contemporary criminal law, as it brings into comparison two fundamental principles: on one side, the punitive power of the State; on the other, the inviolable right to life. In the various legal systems of the world, capital punishment takes on heterogeneous forms, revealing how each system interprets differently the limit within which criminal sanctions may extend. In Europe, abolition is total: the ECHR, with Protocols No. 6 and No. 13, bans the death penalty in all circumstances, expressing a conception of punishment as a rehabilitative and not retributive tool. In Latin America, the prohibition is almost universal. Conversely, in the United States, the rules vary from State to State: some maintain it, others have abolished it, showing an internal pluralism that reflects different visions of justice and public safety. In many countries of Asia and the Middle East, capital punishment continues to be applied even for political, religious, or morality- related crimes, revealing evident tensions with international standards of human rights protection. Philosophers and jurists of all eras have questioned the legitimacy of the State to take life. Among the most influential, Cesare Beccaria, in the 18th century, in the treatise “On Crimes and Punishments”, denounced the uselessness and immorality of capital punishment, arguing that the State cannot commit what it forbids its citizens to do. Since then, the issue has become central in the philosophy of law: if punishment must be proportionate, rational, and preventive, can the physical elimination of the offender truly be justified? Or does the death penalty contradict the essential core of the social contract and the modern conception of human dignity? Despite the various universal and international interventions, the death penalty is still present in many civilized countries, including 27 States of the USA. In 2024 alone, 25 executions were carried out, a figure already surpassed this year, with 30 executions. A legalized crime that often results in the death of innocent people. An emblematic case is that of Cameron Todd Willingham, which caused a stir in the city of Corsicana, Texas. A married man with three little daughters, who were taken away by a fire that broke out in their home on December 23, 1991. The wife was not at home, while Cameron managed to escape. Despite the absence of solid evidence, he was convicted of having started the fire to cover up abuse against the daughters and the wife. The fire evidence was based on the discovery of charred areas on the floor, multiple ignition points, and the behavior of the flames. Investigators believed the fire had been caused by a liquid accelerant, detected near the entrance area. The prosecution also portrayed the suspect as an antisocial person, with little empathy, withdrawn and mysterious. A depiction confirmed by some neighbors. A key testimony came from an inmate, who claimed that Willingham had confessed the crime in prison; a claim that later proved false. The defendant always professed his innocence, even refusing the judge’s offer of life imprisonment. He was convicted on January 8, 1992, and although there was evidence supporting his innocence, appeals and attempts at review were denied. In 2004, shortly before his death, independent investigator Gerald Hurst raised persistent doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence, stating the absence of intentional wrongdoing. Nonetheless, Willingham was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 at the Huntsville State Penitentiary, Texas. In the following years, numerous experts and investigators, including Grann in the New Yorker, Dr. Beyler, and an article from the Chicago Tribune, argued that the original investigators’ conclusions were based on outdated and weak theories to justify the determination of arson. These claims were also confirmed by a four-member panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission in 2010. This case, therefore, demonstrates the brutality and injustice of the death penalty, especially when the process does not respect Art. 10 on “fair trial”.

by A. Pansini, D. Ancona, D. Contiguglia,  S. Figlios