A number of States were behind the creation of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) which follow extremely varied models. They are hybrid institutions, somewhere between the State and civil society, and are not always easy to understand. Although no one NHRI is like another and although their independence vis-à-vis the authorities varies, one thing is clear: by working with these actors too, abolition can make progress across the world.
During this plenary session, the first to tackle the role of NHRIs within the framework of the World Congress Against the Death Penalty, several examples were evoked, demonstrating the importance of working with this actor which is still too often neglected by the abolitionist movement.
NHRIs can make an important contribution to the work of the abolitionist community. For example, in the case of Malawi, which has been de facto abolitionist since 1994, the Human Rights Commission has participated in several abolition-related initiatives.

They are hybrid institutions, somewhere between the State and civil society, and are not always easy to understand.

In particular, the Malawi Commission participated as an amicus curiae (friend of the court⁹¹) in a judicial review on the constitutionality of mandatory application of the death penalty in the case of Kafantayeni and others vs. the Malawi Public Prosecutor. In its judgement made in 2007, the High Court of Malawi declared mandatory application of the death penalty to be unconstitutional. Following this decision, anyone sentenced to a mandatory death penalty, 192 people in total, had their sentences cancelled and new hearings were arranged to determine their sentences⁹². The Commission took part in the project to re-examine sentences (Kafantayeni Sentence Rehearing Project). Between the start of the new hearings in February 2015 and June 2016 (Oslo Congress), 73 prisoners previously sentenced to death were released, either because the Court considered that they had been wrongly sentenced or because they had already served their sentences.

The Malawi Commission has also participated in a number of initiatives demanding abolition of the death penalty. In particular, it used the opportunity of the examination of Malawi’s initial report by the UN Human Rights Commission in 2014 to recommend that the Malawi authorities abolish the death penalty. It also initiated and participated in training for judges, lawyers and social workers on abolition of the death penalty, in collaboration with non-governmental organisations (NGOs). These examples of direct commitment by the Commission illustrate the key role which a NHRI can play in the struggle against the death penalty. It reminds us that abolition is a process; in other words, a series of actions into which it is important to integrate different actors in order to maximise the possibility of definitively doing away with this inhuman and degrading punishment.

This positive example should not be seen as an exception by abolitionist NGOs. Other initiatives illustrate the added value of work with NHRIs, even those which are least active on the issue of the death penalty. In those instances, the approach of NGOs should be more pragmatic and NHRIs should be solicited more often, something borne out by the case of the Nigerian NHRI which was not very active on the issue of abolition before.
Within the framework of its SALI project (Saving Lives project)⁹³, the Lawyers Without Borders office in Nigeria decided to involve the National Human Rights Commission in order to encourage it to support abolition. This decision was a result of, amongst other things, the fact that the NHRI’s statutes had just been revised by the Nigerian Parliament in order to extend its mandate and reinforce its independence⁹⁴. Between 17 January 2011 and 16 July 2014, this collaboration led to the release of 35 prisoners charged with offences punishable by death and seven pardons by state governments thanks to the introduction of free legal aid in seven states (Nigeria is a federal republic). These releases and pardons would not have been possible without the assistance of the Nigerian NHRI which facilitated the field work carried out by the legal aid team trained by ASF and contact with the authorities on the cases in question. As a real stakeholder in this project, the NHRI essentially ensured better acceptance of the project by the authorities, including at state level. During the period under consideration, the NHRI also took a position by calling on the Governor of the state of Edo not to carry out four executions. It then condemned the hasty executions approved by the Governor even though the prisoners had applied to the Federal High Court for a reprieve⁹⁵.
This example illustrates the fact that closer collaboration between civil society and NHRIs is an opportunity to change the course of any dialogue, to change the dynamics of the NGO/authorities relationship into an NGO/authorities/NHRI format. By collaborating with NHRIs, NGOs can benefit from the strengths and influence of these key actors in order to advocate more effectively against the death penalty. Finally, in Nigeria the project has led to more effective advocacy with the authorities of the target states through the presence of NHRI offices in several states and by bringing the abolition message to regions where the issue remains controversial, such as the North of the country. The project also enabled NHRI staff to receive training in mobilisation and capacity strengthening both in the capital, Abuja, and the Institution’s offices across the whole country.

As regards Asia, although the question of the independence of NHRIs was evoked as an obstacle to collaboration on the subject of abolition, a pragmatic approach must be envisaged⁹⁶. To this end, a 3-point strategy was proposed:
• In retentionist States without an NHRI, NGOs should strengthen their advocacy in favour of the establishment of independent national institutions, such as for example in Japan, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam;
• In retentionist States with NHRIs which are passive on the issue of the death penalty, their ability to work on abolition could and should be developed, such as for example in Sri Lanka and Indonesia;
• In retentionist States with active NHRIs, the latter, if they are supported by NGOs, could act as a catalyst for reforms, including abolition. This is the case, for example, of Suhakam (NHRI) in Malaysia or Komnas-Ham in Indonesia which collaborate with NGOs (ECPM, DPP, etc.).

The process for reform in the Maghreb-Middle East region was also highlighted. In Morocco, where the draft Criminal Code reduces the scope of capital crimes, this process is steered through close collaboration between the various actors, such as the National Human Rights Council, parliamentarians, civil society grouped around the Moroccan Coalition Against the Death Penalty and international actors such as ECPM. In the months to come, there will therefore be an opportunity to take action. The Chairman of the National Human Rights Council of Morocco also emphasised the need to broaden alliances between actors for abolition in the region. These alliances should integrate the following factors in order to refine advocacy against the death penalty:
• Political changes which should be taken into account by the abolitionist movement. For example, the effects of terrorism on public opinion should not be put to one side;
• The need not to underestimate the religious argument;
• The issue of priorities as, for some NHRIs, it is not easy to connect the fundamental battle of abolition with other issues which are just as fundamental;
• The importance of connecting abolition and an underestimated social dimension related to poverty.