Dear Jeremy Corbyn

I am writing to you as your constituent regarding an urgent matter of international human rights law that requires immediate parliamentary and legal intervention. I seek your assistance in organising a comprehensive legal challenge to combat the application of default death penalties against Palestinian prisoners, which I believe contravenes fundamental principles of international human rights law.

The current situation presents a clear violation of established international legal standards. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, whilst permitting the death penalty in exceptional circumstances, requires strict adherence to due process and limits its application to the most serious crimes. The mandatory imposition of death penalties without consideration of individual circumstances fundamentally contradicts these international obligations and the principle that such irreversible punishment must be applied with utmost caution to prevent miscarriages of justice.

The European Convention on Human Rights provides additional grounds for challenge, as it prohibits the death penalty in all circumstances, reflecting the broader international trend towards abolition. Although the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been ratified by the United Kingdom and is therefore binding in international law, it has not been incorporated into domestic legislation in the same manner as the European Convention 6. International standards.. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom's international obligations under the ICCPR remain binding and provide a strong foundation for challenging any system that applies death penalties as a default measure. Under international law, the UK's internal principle of parliamentary sovereignty has no bearing on the legal effect of its international obligations, and the State's internal law cannot be used to justify a breach of an international obligation Treaty scrutiny and implementation in the UK.

The mandatory death penalty has been found by international human rights bodies such as the International Covenant and Civil and Political Rights Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to be arbitrary and to have deprived individuals of the most fundamental human rights without considering whether the death sentence as an exceptional form of punishment was appropriate in the particular circumstances of an individual's case Nervais v R; Severin v R - [2018] 4 LRC 545 - The mandatory death penalty. Furthermore, the mandatory death penalty for murder has been recognised as amounting to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, as unanimously concluded when considering such penalties in various jurisdictions, relying on authorities and materials derived from multiple countries and international human rights bodies Matthew v The State Respondent -.

The United Kingdom's own legislative framework demonstrates a clear opposition to the death penalty. The Extradition Act 2003 prohibits extradition where an individual may face the death penalty unless assurances are provided that it will not be imposed or carried out. This domestic position reflects the UK's commitment to opposing capital punishment and provides additional moral and legal authority for challenging its application elsewhere.

I respectfully request that you utilise your position and influence to organise a dedicated legal team to mount this challenge. I am prepared to support the engagement of a Human Rights barrister to work alongside the Director of Reprieve and Barrister Michael Mansfield in developing a comprehensive legal strategy. This collaboration would bring together expertise in international human rights law, capital punishment cases, and strategic litigation to ensure the most effective approach to protecting these prisoners' fundamental rights.

The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated, as the irreversible nature of capital punishment means that any delay could result in irreparable harm. The international legal framework provides clear grounds for challenge, particularly regarding the mandatory nature of these death penalties and the apparent absence of adequate procedural safeguards. The fundamental purpose of international human rights law is to protect individuals from arbitrariness, and the current system appears to fall far short of this standard.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss the specific legal strategies and parliamentary actions that might be pursued. As your constituent, I am committed to supporting this challenge and believe that your leadership on this issue could make a decisive difference in protecting these prisoners' rights to life and due process.

I look forward to your urgent response and to working together on this critical human rights matter.

Yours sincerely, 

Waheeda Rahman