Timothy Charles Davis

The wording of the covenant is clear. Under no circumstances can any country that is a party to this treaty make a reservation to article 6, not even in a state of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation, and impose the sentence of death upon a child.

The Covenant established a Human Rights Committee whose duty is to monitor and report matters relating to the treaty.

The United States participated in the election of the officers to the committee, as the United States has done concerning basically every branch of the United Nations. The Committee monitors the implementation of, and non-compliance with, the treaty.

The Human Rights Committee in its 52nd session (1994) stated: Accordingly, provisions in the Covenant that represents customary international law may not be subject to reservations. Accordingly, a State may not reserve the right to execute pregnant women or children.

In the 53rd session the committee declared the reservation of the United States to be invalid and told the U.S. to refrain from imposing the death penalty on children.

In its 54th session the committee passed another resolution calling on States that maintained the death penalty to comply with the Covenant by not imposing the death penalty for crimes committed by persons below 18 years of age.

The United Nations Economic and Social Council has also adopted standards relating the death penalty which forbids the execution of children who committed their crimes when they were 18 years of age and those standards were endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders also endorsed those safeguards.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Extra Judicial, Summary on Arbitrary Executions in 1998 took the position that the implementation of the juvenile death penalty is per se a violation of the jus cogens norms.

Since 1990 only 6 countries have executed children who were under 18 years of age at the time of their crimes: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States (the highest number of executions).

In 1995 President Clinton signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention also prohibits the imposition of death sentences on persons who were below age 18 at the time of their crime and also prohibits life without the possibility of release as a sentence on those that were children. The United States is 1 of only 2 countries in the world, along with Somalia, that has not ratified this treaty. As of November 30, 1997, 191 countries have ratified or acceded to the Convention.

On December 10, 1998 (World Human Rights Day), President Clinton issued executive order No. 13107, C. F. R., which states in part:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and bearing in mind the obligations of the United States pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and other relevant treaties concerned with the protection and promotion of human rights to which the United States is now or may become a party in the future, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS

(A) It shall be the policy and practice of the Government of the United States, being committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, FULLY TO RESPECT AND IMPLEMENT ITS OBLIGATIONS under the International Human Rights treaties to which it is a Party, including the ICCPR, the CAT, and the CERD.

I can still vividly remember that day. Throughout death row the message was passed from cell to cell. The lives of those who were sentenced to death as children had just been spared by President Clinton. He had ordered that the U.S. obligations to the ICCPR would be implemented. Tears of joy and relief fell from my eyes. I waited patiently for my release from death row, for my sentence to change. Months passed by and nothing happened.

Then I heard that Michael Domingues, a Nevada death row prisoner, who was also a child when he was sentenced to die, had petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael claimed that his death sentence was illegal based on the U.S. being a party to the ICCPR.

Upon receiving his petition the Court issued a statement saying that it had sent to the Clinton Administration for a report on this issue and that when it received the report the Court would then decide if it would hear the issue. Once again my hopes were raised. My mind said surely the President will send the Court his executive order, telling the Court that he had ordered that the United States must fully respect and implement its obligations to the ICCPR.

Within days of the Court saying it was waiting on the report, Douglas Thomas, a Virginia death row prisoner (who also was a child at the time of his crime) was at the end of his appeals and within days of being executed by the state, petitioned the Court for a stay of execution. By American law Thomas could not present the ICCPR issue because he had not presented the issue in his earlier appeals. The Court knew that it held in its hands a issue that if decided could spare his life and the lives of the almost 80 others that were sentenced to death for crimes committed as children.

The Court denied Thomas a stay of execution and opened the door to the death chamber. Thomas was lucky. He received a stay of execution on unrelated issues in State Court, but this should not excuse the Court of its actions.

I began to study the issue, searching for answers. President Clinton had given me a hope I had not had before and I saw it being snatched away. I began to loose weight and became frail. Maybe it is just the 21 years of isolation finally taking its toll. My studies found that the United States, The U S Supreme Court, and the Courts of the States that allow children to be sentenced to death are in violation of American Law and International Law.

U. S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI states:

All treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

In 1992 when the U. S. became a Party to the treaty, the treaty became the Supreme law of the land.

Article 2, Paragraph 3, of the ICCPR states:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose right or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his right determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 5 of the ICCPR states:

(1) Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any state, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

(2) There shall be no restrictions upon or any derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any state party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, Conventions, regulations or customs on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent. Article 6, Paragraph 1, of the ICCPR states:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

During the last week of October, 1999, the U. S. Supreme Court met to talk about the issue of the ICCPR presented by Domingues. The Clinton administration gave its report. Once again my hopes were shattered. The Clinton administration told the Court that the issue should not be heard. They stated that the issue should be decided by the lower Courts, not the highest Court in our nation.

On November 1, 1999, the Court denied Domingues’ petition without comment, taking away his right to ever present the issue to any other Court in America.

In 1995 the Clinton Administration created the Anti-terrorism and effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). America had suffered the Oklahoma City bombing. The nation was in an uproar, demanding that the persons responsible be tried, convicted and swiftly executed. America was not concerned with fairness. It wanted blood. The law-makers knew that an effective death penalty act would not pass to law by itself, so by attaching it to the Anti-terrorism Act, they could ride on the emotions of the devastating bombing.

The Act changed the appeals process for those under a sentence of death. It placed procedural barriers on the issues a person could raise and bound the hands of the Federal Judges reviewing the cases. This Act prevented Douglas Thomas from presenting the ICCPR issue. The AEDPA was a direct hit aimed with precision to destroy the rights granted by the treaty.

My attorneys, like Thomas’ were unaware of this treaty and did not raise the ICCPR issue in my early appeals. The American Judicial System will bar me from presenting this issue to the Courts.

The ICCPR places no procedural barriers on the rights granted. The ICCPR promises that any person whose rights are violated shall have an effective remedy. It promises to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. Not allowing a person to present a claim to show that their death sentence is illegal is arbitrarily depriving him of his life.

By the time this letter reaches you the General Assembly of the United Nations will vote on a worldwide moratorium on executions. I believe the vote will be a majority vote in favour of a moratorium, but I believe with all of my heart that the U. S. will not adhere to the moratorium.

The U. S. has been given every chance to comply with its obligations to this treaty. When a Presidential order is issued and not adhered to, when the highest Court in our nation refuses to enforce the law, it becomes clear that the U. S. has no intentions of honouring the treaty. It is also clear that letters to the President, letters to the Governors of the states protesting these actions will not bring resolution to this issue.

It is my understanding that none of us who were sentenced to death as children can appeal to the United Nations. The U. N. will only accept an action that is filed on our behalf by another country that is also a party to the ICCPR asserting that the U. S. is in violation of the treaty. Until this is done, all the Human Rights Committee can do is issue advisory opinions, advising the U.S. to comply, thus allowing the U. S. to continue to intentionally, premeditatedly commit acts of murder on those who were children. Just as South Africa could not overcome the prohibition against apartheid, the United States should not be able to overcome the prohibition against killing children.

At the very least, President Clinton should explain to the world and the United Nations why he signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child which prohibits children being sentenced to death. President Clinton should also explain why he issued the executive order on World Human Rights Day and why this order has not been implemented and obeyed.

I beg of you to come to our aid. I seek refuge and protection. Can and will the United Nations protect us? Or is the United States too powerful and above the law of the world? I fear for my life and the lives of all of those that were children when sentenced to die. Promises are to be Kept! Will the United Nations enforce a moratorium on executions of those who were sentenced to death for crimes committed as children until this matter is resolved? Should not the United Nations place the almost 80 of us in a place of imprisonment in a neutral zone while this matter is decided? To leave us where we are ensures that many of us will be murdered before the issue ever comes close to resolution.

In isolation I await your reply.