Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

WHY MUST MARY JANE'S DEATH SENTENCE BE STOPPED OR STAYED Prepared by the Philippine private lawyers of Mary Jane Veloso family from NUPL and in consultation with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and foreign consultants and experts 20 April 2015 ===============================

1. Due Process:

a. Mary Jane was not assisted by an interpreter and a lawyer when she was investigated after her arrest. The interpreter provided by the Court to assist her during the trial was not a licensed and/or competent interpreter.

b. The trial was swift. The entire process of criminal prosecution, which includes the initial investigation, the preparation

of the Bill of Indictment, the pre-trial, trial and judgment, was concluded in just six months.

c. The Indonesian court tried and convicted Mary Jane on the basis of their anti-drug trafficking law, and apparently did not consider or applied the provisions of the Indonesian Law on the Eradication of the Criminal Act on Tafficking in Persons which contains a "non-punishment" provision for criminal acts committed by "trafficked persons".

2. Grounds against the imposition of the death penalty:

a. Primacy of gravity: The seriousness or gravity of the crime is a crucial sentencing consideration, and should determine

the severity of the sentence. The imposition of the death penalty should be limited to the "most serious crimes", that is, "intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences". As a "trafficked person" Mary Jane did not intentionally commit any crime in Indonesia.

b. Proportionality: The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the crime (both the harmfulness of the offence

and, crucially, the offender's culpability). The principle of the primacy of gravity requires that the offender's culpability should be taken into account. The reservation of the death penalty for only the "most serious crimes", necessarily means that the death penalty should not be imposed where the offender's culpability - i.e. level of participation - was anything short of maximal.

There appears also inconsistencies in imposition of sentences and disposition of legal appeals of substantially similar


c. Individualization: The court must consider and assess the personal circumstances of the defendant - that is,

aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Central to the principle of an individualized sentencing is the consideration of mitigating evidence. The Prosecutor might have considered the existence of these mitigating circumstances when it recommended life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

3. Humanitarian:

a. Mary Jane is a young single mother of 2 little boys who was forced to migrate due to economic reasons even if she

was the youngest in her family.

b. She comes from a very poor family of practically hand-to-mouth subsistence.

c. She left her former job in Dubai because of attempted rape and physical harm.

d. Due to her family's dire financial needs, she was forced to seek employment abroad. She accepted the offer of her

recruiter whom she totally trusted being her godsister, not knowing that she will be duped.

e. She went to Malaysia relying on her godsister's promise that she has a job waiting for her, and was totally clueless when she was sent to Indonesia on the pretext that she would go there on vacation before she will start working.

f. Her own government only actively intervened when judgment of conviction was rendered. Their only assistance was

to provide her with a lawyer when the case was already on appeal, and by submitting passive pleas for clemency. They did not even provide her with an interpreter during the investigation or trial.

g. Her family was not adequately assisted or notified by her own government until only recently.

h. Presently, she is reportedly the only woman, and the only Filipino on death row in Indonesia.