Outlier: Iran and Its Use of the Death Penalty

For several years now the right to life has been under heavy assault in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The country has followed a familiar but troubling pattern regarding the use of the death penalty. It has consistently ranked second in the world in the number of executions carried out (behind China), and first in executions per capita. More recently, the upward trend in executions that began in 2010-11 has reached alarming levels not seen in more than two decades. In 2015, alone, human rights organisations tracking the number of executions in Iran documented at least 966 executions, with over 65 percent of these executions related to non-violent drug crimes. In that same year, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran accounted for around 90 percent of all executions in the world (excluding China), helping reverse a global trend that had seen a constant reduction of death penalty cases worldwide during the past 25 years. United Nations rights bodies have repeatedly called on authorities in Iran to curb their use of the death penalty, and urged officials to institute a moratorium on the death penalty. The latest such appeal came from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, in April 2016, when he called on Iranian authorities to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty altogether. Commissioner Zeid’s request, like many before him, centered on two particularly egregious aspects of the death penalty in Iran: 1) the execution of juvenile offenders, or individuals under 18 years of age when they committed an offense; and 2) use of the death penalty for crimes not considered “most serious.” Both types of executions are strictly prohibited under international law. Iran’s continuing and blatant disregard for the right to life of juvenile and non-violent drug offenders, combined with the sharp rise in the number of executions in recent years, makes it, in many ways, an international outlier when it comes to use of the death penalty. Behind the harrowing numbers are the countless faces and stories of the “other” victims, only a portion of which have been documented by human rights groups. The number of executions in Iran began to rise noticeably around 2010-11 during the second term of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This rise coincided with significant changes to the country’s Anti-Narcotics Law which expanded the list of drug-related crimes that carried the death penalty to include non-violent offenses, and severely limited the right of appeal for certain death sentences. The numbers have been equally troubling for juvenile offenders on death row, with at least 12 reportedly hanged in 2014-15—the highest such number at any time during the past five years. Today, Iran is the number one executor of juvenile offenders despite recent amendments made to its penal code to address this issue, and remains one of only a handful of countries that still carries out such executions

Outlier: Iran and Its Use of the Death Penalty

For several years now the right to life has been under heavy assault in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The country has followed a familiar but troubling pattern regarding the use of the death penalty. It has consistently ranked second in the world in the number of executions carried out (behind China), and first in executions per capita. More recently, the upward trend in executions that began in 2010-11 has reached alarming levels not seen in more than two decades. In 2015, alone, human rights organisations tracking the number of executions in Iran documented at least 966 executions, with over 65 percent of these executions related to non-violent drug crimes. In that same year, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran accounted for around 90 percent of all executions in the world (excluding China), helping reverse a global trend that had seen a constant reduction of death penalty cases worldwide during the past 25 years. United Nations rights bodies have repeatedly called on authorities in Iran to curb their use of the death penalty, and urged officials to institute a moratorium on the death penalty. The latest such appeal came from UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, in April 2016, when he called on Iranian authorities to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty altogether. Commissioner Zeid’s request, like many before him, centered on two particularly egregious aspects of the death penalty in Iran: 1) the execution of juvenile offenders, or individuals under 18 years of age when they committed an offense; and 2) use of the death penalty for crimes not considered “most serious.” Both types of executions are strictly prohibited under international law. Iran’s continuing and blatant disregard for the right to life of juvenile and non-violent drug offenders, combined with the sharp rise in the number of executions in recent years, makes it, in many ways, an international outlier when it comes to use of the death penalty. Behind the harrowing numbers are the countless faces and stories of the “other” victims, only a portion of which have been documented by human rights groups. The number of executions in Iran began to rise noticeably around 2010-11 during the second term of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This rise coincided with significant changes to the country’s Anti-Narcotics Law which expanded the list of drug-related crimes that carried the death penalty to include non-violent offenses, and severely limited the right of appeal for certain death sentences. The numbers have been equally troubling for juvenile offenders on death row, with at least 12 reportedly hanged in 2014-15—the highest such number at any time during the past five years. Today, Iran is the number one executor of juvenile offenders despite recent amendments made to its penal code to address this issue, and remains one of only a handful of countries that still carries out such executions

Minimum spanning tree (MST) analysis of published and Kuwaiti <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> strains using the MLVA-16 data.

<p>The published data of 827 strains were downloaded from the MLVA.net database along with the MLVA types of 75 Kuwaiti Strains (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182111#pone.0182111.s005" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>). The MST was constructed using BioNumerics 7.5 software. The same color codes, as given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182111#pone.0182111.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5</a>, were used to differentiate between the strains isolated from Kuwait and other parts of the world.</p

Allele frequencies and diversity indices of MLVA-16 primers for 75 <i>Brucella</i> strains isolated in Kuwait.

<p>Allele frequencies and diversity indices of MLVA-16 primers for 75 <i>Brucella</i> strains isolated in Kuwait.</p

Minimum spanning tree (MST) analysis of published and Kuwaiti <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> strains using the MLVA-11 data.

<p>The published data of 827 strains were downloaded from the MLVA.net database along with the MLVA types of 75 Kuwaiti Strains (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182111#pone.0182111.s005" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>). The MST was constructed using BioNumerics 7.5 software. The same color codes, as given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182111#pone.0182111.g005" target="_blank">Fig 5</a>, were used to differentiate between the strains isolated from Kuwait and other parts of the world.</p

Cluster analysis of ERIC fingerprints of 75 strains of <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> isolated in Kuwait.

<p>Band profiles of each strain are shown corresponding with the lines of the dendrogram. Two major clusters A and B (diverging ~ 25%) are demarcated by shades of grey. The ERIC genotype, strain Id, country and host are represented in the columns.</p

Cluster analysis of <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> strains based on MLVA-16 assay.

<p>The VNTR copy numbers derived on the basis of MLVA-16 dataset of each strain is shown corresponding with the lines of the dendrogram. None of the MLVA-16 genotypes found in the present study were published previously.</p

Minimum spanning tree (MST) analysis of published and Kuwaiti <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> strains using the MLVA-8 data.

<p>The published data of 827 strains were downloaded from the MLVA.net database along with the MLVA types of 75 Kuwaiti Strains (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0182111#pone.0182111.s005" target="_blank">S2 Table</a>). The MST was constructed using BioNumerics 7.5 software. The strains were categorized on the basis of their geographic location and differentiated through color codes.</p

Species identification and molecular typing of human <i>Brucella</i> isolates from Kuwait

<div><p>Brucellosis is a zoonotic disease of major concern in Kuwait and the Middle East. Human brucellosis can be caused by several <i>Brucella</i> species with varying degree of pathogenesis, and relapses are common after apparently successful therapy. The classical biochemical methods for identification of <i>Brucella</i> are time-consuming, cumbersome, and provide information limited to the species level only. In contrast, molecular methods are rapid and provide differentiation at intra-species level. In this study, four molecular methods [16S rRNA gene sequencing, real-time PCR, enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus (ERIC)-PCR and multilocus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis (MLVA)-8, MLVA-11 and MLVA-16 were evaluated for the identification and typing of 75 strains of <i>Brucella</i> isolated in Kuwait. 16S rRNA gene sequencing of all isolates showed 90–99% sequence identity with <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> and real-time PCR with genus- and species- specific primers identified all isolates as <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i>. The results of ERIC-PCR suggested the existence of 75 ERIC genotypes of <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i> with a discriminatory index of 0.997. Cluster classification of these genotypes divided them into two clusters, A and B, diverging at ~25%. The maximum number of genotypes (n = 51) were found in cluster B5. MLVA-8 analysis identified all isolates as <i>B</i>. <i>melitensis</i>, and MLVA-8, MLVA-11 and MLVA-16 typing divided the isolates into 10, 32 and 71 MLVA types, respectively. Furthermore, the combined minimum spanning tree analysis demonstrated that, compared to MLVA types discovered all over the world, the Kuwaiti isolates were a distinct group of MLVA-11 and MLVA-16 types in the East Mediterranean Region.</p></div