The terrorism phenomenon, although not new, makes it difficult to advocate for abolition, all the more so as several countries, such as China, Egypt, Chad and Tunisia, have recently adopted new anti-terrorism legislation which includes the death penalty. This roundtable discussed arguments of non-deterrence of the death penalty to combat terrorism. Presented too were information and examples on how retentionist States misuse the fight against terror to silence the opposition, criminalise human rights activities and, more generally violate human rights.

• Since the 1960s, the UN has drawn up 19⁶⁷ international legal instruments within the framework of the struggle against terrorism. However, none of them provide a definition of terrorism itself. Despite various attempts, the international community has still not come to a consensus on an international legal definition of terrorism.
• 65 of the 94 retentionist countries or territories retain the death penalty for terrorism⁶⁸.
• 15 retentionist countries or territories executed at least one person for crimes related to terrorism between 2006 and 2016. 
• 24 retentionist countries or territories sentence people to death for terrorism⁶⁹.

It is also quite worrying to observe that death sentences for crimes related to terrorism are most often based on vague juridical provisions.

Although proportionally terrorism is not the crime for which most sentences/executions have taken place over the last ten years, the issue remains important for the abolitionist movement. Across the world, terrorism seems to cause our requirements in terms of human rights and the right to life to retreat. One can witness the erosion of the absolute prohibition on torture. As for arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial executions and the increase in vague anti-terrorism laws allowing for application of the death penalty after unfair trials, they seem to be increasingly accepted by people in the name of the right to security.
In the case of the death penalty, a number of States use the argument of the deterrent effect of this punishment against terrorism, a term which has not been internationally defined, to justify retaining it in their legal arsenal or reintroducing it. The speakers at this roundtable forcefully recalled the non-deterrent nature and ineffectiveness of the death penalty to fight terrorism with particularly striking topical examples.
Thus, in Chad the execution of ten presumed members of the Islamist group Boko Haram on 29 August 2015 did not have the effect expected by the authorities. Although it was a matter of dissuasion, since it concerned the first trial in Chad of presumed members of Boko Haram following a double suicide attack in June 2015 in the capital N’Djamena, the argument does not hold up. On the contrary, it was followed by a rise in terrorist acts by Boko Haram in the area of Lake Chad.
These executions followed sentences handed down in contravention of the right to a fair trial. Less than three weeks separated the arrest of the prisoners, the trial and execution of the sentence, leading Christopher Heyns, UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, to say that “these executions have taken place after a trial which allegedly was not organised according to the required international standards.” In effect, the executions took place after a non-definitive judgement by Ndjamena Criminal Court, not leaving the accused any possibility of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court or filing a plea for clemency⁷⁰ (contravening the right to a fair trial provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Chad has been party since 9 June 1995⁷¹).
It is also quite worrying to observe that death sentences for crimes related to terrorism are most often based on vague judicial provisions. The principle of legality of crimes and punishments is jeopardised as terrorism, often imprecisely defined, has become a catchall term enabling a number of countries to increase the number of death sentences and executions.
In Pakistan, a moratorium on executions was lifted in December 2014 following the terrorist attack on a school in Peshawar which killed nearly 140 people, included 132 children. The Taliban movement in Pakistan (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan- TTP) claimed responsibility.
Numerous death sentences and executions have been handed down on the basis of the vague definition of terrorism inscribed in Article 6 of the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (ATA)⁷². According to figures collected by Justice Project Pakistan and Reprieve, 86% of those charged with crimes under the 1997 Anti-Terrorism Act were so accused for offences not connected to terrorism⁷³.
One example of abusive use of the 1997 Anti-terrorist Act is the trial of Zafar Iqbal. Accused of murdering his father following an argument about inheritance, he was charged with terrorism. Declared guilty, he was sentenced to death in May 2003 in conformity with Articles 302(b) of the Criminal Code and 7(a) of the 1997 Anti-terrorist Act. The anti-terrorism court judge considered that the cold-blooded murder of a father by his son was itself sufficient to create a sense of insecurity and terror among local people, in line with the definition in Article 6 of the 1997 Anti-terrorist Act. Zafar was executed in March 2015 without any connection to terrorism or affiliation with a terrorist group being proven and despite a pardon by the victim’s heirs which, according to Pakistani law, could have led to a commutation of his death sentence⁷⁴.
Although executions in Pakistan only involved sentences connected to terrorism offences after the moratorium was lifted, they were then extended to include all common law crimes. According to Azam Nazeer Tarar, 405 executions took place between December 2014 and 10 June 2016.

In numerous countries, the anti-terrorism struggle is above all used to muzzle civil society and/or political opposition, as well as to justify human rights violations.
In Egypt, the fight against terrorism has become a pretext for the arrest of opponents and/or members of civil society (activists, journalists and trade union members in particular), and application of the death penalty for non-violent offences, which cannot be qualified as crimes (such as demonstrations and activities to defend human rights) after manifestly unfair trials or mass trials. An anti-terrorist law promulgated in January 2016⁷⁵ established “in particular exceptional courts and provides for heavy fines for journalists who publish information about terrorism which is contrary to official press releases⁷⁶.”