Hindraf wants the government to drag Singapore to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for giving out the death sentence to Malaysian Prabagaran Srivijayan without considering the right of life.
Putrajaya should intervene and “ensure that a Malaysian life is not short-lived or falls prey to antics of Singapore without having an opportunity to preserve their life”, urged it’s chairman P Waytha Moorthy.
“Hindraf concludes, together with other evidences and statements given by Prabagaran from the first available opportunity that his conviction was unsafe and there should be a reference to the ICJ on grounds of fundamental human rights violations (right to life) due to such arbitrary decision on his life by Singapore…
“These includes elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law, as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity and proportionality,” he said
The 29-year-old Prabagaran has been sentenced to death in 2014 for trafficking 22.24 grams of diamorphine.
Prabagaran is scheduled to be hanged in a matter of weeks after the Singapore Court of Appeals rejected his application which was filed by legal counsel M Ravi.
Ravi is a prominent lawyer cum activist lobbying for anti-death penalty in Singapore.
Waythamoorthy, also a lawyer, further said that the capital punishment was meted out by Singapore based on presumptions without recourse for the accused to have his right of life.
Waythamoorthy also reminded Putrajaya that both Malaysia and Singapore were signatories to bilateral and multilateral agreements such as the International Drug Control Conventions of 1961, 1971 and 1988 which allowed the infringed party to raise the grievances for their own citizens.
“These treaties envisage reference of disputes to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that opens a door for the Malaysian government to bring forth a case against Singapore when it involves the Malaysian citizen as it is reflected in Article 36 in the statue of ICJ.”
He also said that the conventions allowed reference of the dispute to be brought to the ICJ if the Malaysian government was keen in safeguarding the right of life for a Malaysian for his/her non-derogable right for life.
A memorandum submitted on behalf of Prabagaran on Dec 21 last year to the Malaysian embassy indicated that Singapore’s Central Narcotics Bureau failed to investigate and locate two other individuals implicated in this case, identified only as Balu and Nathan.
Not only that, the prosecution did not have the burden to proof beyond reasonable doubt under the Misuse of Drugs Act that the offence was committed by the accused.