Iraq is one of the world’s most prominent retentionist states, with a long and complicated history of capital punishment. Iraq has endured dictatorial regimes, civil warfare, invasion, armed conflict with neighbouring countries, and domestic terrorism in recent years. Throughout all of this turmoil, the death sentence has remained an integral part of the law of Iraq. Despite the changes and re-interpretations of capital punishment under Iraqi legislation, the ECDHR stands firmly against its existence. The death penalty is inextricably linked with coercive confessions, inadequate judiciary processes, and given its irreversible nature and ineffectiveness in crime deterrence, it has no place in the modern legislative landscape.
In 1968, the Ba’ath Party used the death sentence as a means of political control, linking the death sentence to a wide range criminal and political offences. Throughout the 1970s, the scope of the death sentence was broadened, and it was frequently used against political opposition and marginalised groups. This poses a stark contrast to the growing movement of the abolition of the death sentence among several Western countries. In 1979, Saddam Hussein rose to power, prompting several regional armed conflicts and wars with neighbouring countries. Under his rule, the death penalty was extensively used in the Iraqi Armed Forces, further entrenching capital punishment as a tool for political power. Following the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the death penalty was suspended by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).
This did not last long however, as it was reinstated by the Government of Iraq (GOI) in 2004, amid negotiations for the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution, and used against Saddam Hussein himself in 2006. For the following decade, sectarian violence dictated Iraqi affairs. Crucially, violence between the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the Republic of Iraq escalated in 2014, with almost all territory gained by ISIS being liberated by 2017. This marked a rise in the use of the death penalty from 2016 onwards. Members of ISIS as well as civilians under their control have been routinely sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced confessions obtained under torture, and continuing the pattern of arbitrary deprivation of life.
The death penalty is entrenched in Iraqi law under a number of different provisions. Firstly, Article 15 of the Constitution of Iraq (2005) guarantees the right to life, security, and liberty for all individuals, but emphasises the importance of due process in events of deprivation of this right. This emphasis has been overlooked consistently. The Iraqi Penal Code (law no. 111 of 1969) contains 37 provisions which outline the use of the death penalty. The punishable crimes mentioned are limited to more extreme violations, such as terrorism. This is supported in The Counter-Terrorism Act (no. 13 of 2005), which provides in Article 4 that direct commission or indirect support of terrorist acts are punishable by death. While the death penalty typically takes place via hanging, the Military Penal Code stipulates that military personnel are executed by firing squad. With 8,000 prisoners on death row recorded in 2024, violations of internationally recognised human rights standards will continue to take place.
Iraq has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1971, as well as the Convention Against Torture (CAT) in 2011. While it has not ratified the optional protocols for either Treaty, it is still bound by International standards on the right to life, torture, and due process. Article 6(1) of the ICCPR entrenches the right to life, however, it does not strictly prohibit capital punishment. Article 6(2) of the ICCPR stipulates that in countries where capital punishment is in place, it may only be used for the most serious crimes and in line with domestic law. The death penalty is being used as a means of retaliation, taking lives on mass-scale in an arbitrary manner. The ECDHR maintains that Iraq is violating the right to life, but it is also failing to abide by its own policy of due process as well as its international obligations.