Abolish death penalty for apostasy, humanists tells the Maldives at UN

At the 61st session of the UN Human Rights Council, Humanists UK called on the Maldivian government to protect the rights of non-religious people. It urged them to abolish the death penalty, repeal blasphemy and apostasy laws, and recognise non-Muslims as citizens.

The state of human rights in the Maldives

The intervention followed the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the Maldives. UPR is a process where every UN country has its human rights record peer-reviewed by other countries. Each country is reviewed every four and a half years. Other countries can recommend ways it could better meet international human rights standards, and the country under review will state whether or not it accepts them.

Humanists UK expressed dismay that the Maldives has refused to accept at least nineteen recommendations seeking to abolish the death penalty. This is a particular concern for humanists because the Maldives is one of twelve countries in the world that maintains the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy.

The intervention was delivered via video by Humanists UK Policy and Campaigns Manager Laura Newlyn. She said:

‘We note that under the Penal Code criticising Islam is punishable by up to a year in prison. Conversion away from Islam is prohibited and may result in a loss of citizenship. However, judges may impose harsher punishments for religious crimes – and according to sharia jurisprudence such acts may be viewed as ‘apostasy’ and risk carrying the death penalty.

‘The Maldives remains bound by ICCPR Article 6 [the right to life], which limits the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”. The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 states that under no circumstances can the death penalty be applied as a sanction against conduct which if criminalised at all is itself a violation of the Covenant. This includes apostasy.

‘The Committee’s General Comment 34 on Article 19 [the right to freedom of expression] states that blasphemy laws are incompatible with the Covenant, further highlighting that it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one religion or belief system, or its adherents over another, or the religious over the non-religious’.

Respect and protect the rights of the non-religious

The right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is a vital right for the protection of the non-religious. It is well established that this right protects holding ‘theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief’. However, under international law, a country is generally only bound by the laws it agrees to follow. In the case of the Maldives, it has only agreed to be bound by the right to freedom of religion or belief as far as it aligns with its constitution, which only recognises Muslims as citizens.

However, in its intervention, Humanists UK argued that the Maldives cannot hide behind its limited view of FoRB to undermine the rights of the non-religious and other non-Muslims. The non-religious, those who leave a religion (sometimes called apostates) and those who follow other religions are protected not just by FoRB, but a whole range of human rights. As well as the right to life and the right to freedom of expression among others, human rights law says that the law must protect everyone equally, and that everyone must be protected from discrimination – including on grounds of religion or belief. Limiting citizenship to one religion is discriminatory, and it is therefore untenable that the Maldives continues to do so.

Humanists UK urged the Maldivian government to take steps to guarantee the rights of everyone – including the non-religious and apostates – by abolishing the death penalty, repealing laws that criminalise blasphemy and apostasy, and ensuring equal citizenship rights regardless of religion or belief.