CentralCaliBike said:
Sticking a needle in someone's arm to execute them for the video taped sexual assault, torture and eventual murder of over a dozen people. Eventually Ng was convicted of the sexual assault, torture and murder of six men, three women and two baby boys. The "vague" definition of torture somehow can be argued applies to a needle stick (something that occurs in hospitals around the world on a second to second basis) which ended up resulting in a delay of his extradition for six years.
It is also not about 'sticking a needle in someone's arm'. It was rather about the specific method of execution in California (cyanide gas asphyxiation) that was deemed inconsistent with the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. Otherwise we might as well stone him to death.
In Mr Ng's case against Canada - were he to be extradited to the US while Canada would not have sought any remedy against his execution by means of cyanide gas asphyxiation - Canada would be found in violation of the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. So through its extradition, Canada violated Mr Ng's rights.
Furthermore, according to the Canadian Supreme Court:
"The United States sought to extradite Ng on counts of murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to murder, accessory after a murder, conspiracy to kidnap and burglary"
There is no mention of a charge of torture at all, but I have been unable to access the official documents listing the charges against him. (ie The people v Ng.)
And on the 'vague' definition of torture, an international norm which has been consolidated in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, enacted in 1994, the following was said in the case of Ng v. Canada:
16.3 In the present case, the author has provided detailed information that execution by gas asphyxiation may cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not result in death as swiftly as possible, as asphyxiation by cyanide gas may take over 10 minutes.
Source
More generally then:
16.4 In the instant case and on the basis of the information before it, the Committee concludes that execution by gas asphyxiation, should the death penalty be imposed on the author, would not meet the test of "least possible physical and mental suffering", and constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, Canada, which could reasonably foresee that Mr. Ng, if sentenced to death, would be executed in a way that amounts to a violation of article 7, failed to comply with its obligations under the Covenant, by extraditing Mr. Ng without having sought and received assurances that he would not be executed
Hence, executions are still allowed for those states that have not ratified the abolition of the DP (Second optional Protocol to ICCPR), such as the US, as long as they would meet the test of "least possible physical and mental suffering". Sticking needles in arms is still allowed, and therefore US sovereignty has not been jeopardized.
Fortunately, new progress is being made not in the field of 'sticking needles in arms' but the (mental) effects of 'being on death row' (see Soering v. UK), which could amount to a violation of the provision against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.
It is also interesting to note that his prosecution - who sought the death penalty - costed approximately $11.000.000 in 'tax payers money'.
CentralCaliBike said:
Six out of fifteen leaves 9 - 9 is more than 6, apparently you are saying that the 6 judges have more voting power with the ICJ than the remaining 9. Also, consider who you listed in the voting block of six 6 - France seldom agrees with the United States, Germany or England on any particular issue.
I highlighted that because your source mentioned the existence of 'blocks'. This was the largest block - those who share political, cultural and economic interests - to be found. The other 9 can not be lumped together, because they share none or less similarities and interests, by the standards of the article you mentioned.
6 is less than 9
but there is no coherent group '9'
so in that case, 6 only needs 2 for the majority vote.
Opposition to 6 would therefore require uniting 8.
and 8 is more than 2.
I only went by the source you used, and according to that it should be inferred that France, because of its socio/political/cultural make-up is biased towards the US, the UK, Germany etc.
The opinion that 'France seldom agrees' with the US, UK or Germany is rather unfound statement in this particular instance, first of all because we are talking within the context of the ICJ. I - nor you - have any specific information about France's voting record on the ICJ over the last 60 years.
Secondly, it is unqualified because it does not even refer to any theme or topic in general which could be a cause for (dis)agreement, nor stipulates a time frame. France seldom agrees with the US on what good wine and food tastes like? Or only the last 10 years? ...
The UK, Germany, France, Slovakia, New Zealand, Brazil, Mexico (all with current justices on the ICJ) all seem to agree on the abolition of the DP. Who would have thought the US would be in agreement with Russia and China on a 'right to life' issue.