International comparison and precedent

Question

1. In other cases involving the death penalty, including in countries such as Iran and Myanmar, Australia has gone beyond public statements to pursue sustained diplomatic engagement, including high-level representations and coordinated multilateral action. Why has a similar level of engagement not been publicly evident in response to Israel's proposed death penalty law? 2. In response to grave human rights violations in contexts such as Russia following the invasion of Ukraine, Australia has implemented sanctions, export controls and broader accountability measures. What explains the Government's decision not to pursue comparable measures in response to credible allegations of torture, arbitrary detention and discriminatory legal frameworks in this case of the State of Israel? 3. Australia has previously supported international accountability mechanisms, including through engagement with the International Criminal Court and UN processes, in response to allegations of serious international crimes. What steps has Australia taken to support accountability mechanisms specifically in relation to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners by the State of Israel? 4. Like-minded partners have, in other contexts, escalated concerns about detention practices through coordinated demarches, public attribution and multilateral pressure. Has Australia participated in any such coordinated action in relation to Palestinian prisoners, and if not, why not? 5. Australia has consistently stated that opposition to the death penalty is a universal principle. Why has the Government's response in this instance not reflected the same level of urgency, visibility or consequence that has characterised Australia's responses to other countries applying or expanding the death penalty?

Answer

Please see attached answer

Documents

• Question with answer (PDF) (opens in a new tab)
• 143.pdf (opens in a new tab)