Why didn't Djibouti sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Why didn't Djibouti sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Bob P
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Corruption:

    Djibouti

    Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2007

    Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

    March 11, 2008

    Djibouti is a republic with a strong elected president and a weak legislature. It has an estimated population of 660,000. In 2005 President Ismail Omar Guelleh won reelection unopposed amidst an opposition party boycott. International observers considered the election to be generally free and fair. The civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

    The government's human rights record remained poor although there were improvements. Problems included abuse of detainees; harsh prison conditions; corruption; official impunity; arbitrary arrest and detention; prolonged pretrial detention; interference with privacy rights and restrictions on freedom of the press, assembly, and association. Other abuses included female genital mutilation (FGM), discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and nationality, and restrictions on unions.

    During the year regional council members - who were elected in the first-ever regional elections in 2006 – took office and began working with government officials to implement decentralization. Prison conditions improved with the construction of new facilities, and the government also publicized women's rights and supported a new center to protect women at risk from abuse.

  • 4 years ago

    The loss of life penalty is an exceptionally final and unchangeable punishment, and because our device in many situations convicts human beings wrongly, or sentences them unfairly, or supplies somebody loss of life for the comparable crime somebody else have been given existence for, or the accused would not have ideal legal guidance, i think it is going to be used sparingly or under no circumstances. There are people who need to die for what they did -- yet whilst the state gets in touch, like very pretty much each little thing else controlled by utilising the government, stuff is going incorrect. to respond to your question approximately cruel and unusual punishment, we are "so worried" approximately it because of the fact it incredibly is a constitutionally-secure ideal to not be difficulty to cruel and unusual punishment (word: not "or," yet "and," proving the two is extremely complicated to do). and clearly that argument did not artwork, or the loss of life penalty may well be outlawed. There are genuinely techniques that even a deadly injection (as detrimental to a taking pictures squad, a public dazzling, the electrical powered chair, or the gas chamber) could nicely be cruel and unusual. there have been situations the place the guy sentenced to loss of life has been poked with 8 or 9 needles to attempt to discover a great vein, one guy had to have the poison routed by using his neck because of the fact his hands and legs did not have an obtainable vein. upload that to the potential of wrongful conviction, undesirable legal experts and poverty-stricken accused (ever seen a wealthy guy on loss of life row?), there's a great variety of motives to not have the loss of life penalty.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.