23 November 2007 :

the final vote by the UN General Assembly on the Moratorium on capital punishment is expected at the UN on December 19 or 20.
We cannot exclude the possibility that, before its definitive approval, countries which are supposed ‘Friends of the death penalty’ (led by Singapore and Egypt), could return stronger than ever with a series of amendments to kill the Moratorium.
Radical Party exponents in New York gathered this information in the corridors of the UN. According to these sources, there are high hopes of creating a consensus in the General Assembly, surpassing the 99 in favour (52 against 33 abstaining) of the vote in the commission. That is, if we don’t let our guard down this week.
Matteo Mecacci, UN representative and Senate Vice President of the Radical Party, and Marco Cappato, European Parliamentarian and speaker on human rights, are in New York together with a delegation from the Assembly in Strasbourg. They discussed these issues today in a meeting with journalists.
The Radicals have identified about twenty countries that could vote in favour or abstain, many of which are African countries. Countries that didn’t vote in the Commission but could vote in favour include Tunisia (a country with a de facto moratorium), the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea Bissau, Senegal, as well as the Seychelles and Kiribati.
Countries with a moratorium who abstained from voting in the Commission include Morocco, Congo Brazzaville, Ghana, Niger, Lesotho and also South Korea.
The text of the Moratorium was approved by the Third Commission of the UN General Assembly on November 15. It represented a success for Italian diplomacy, as Italy managed to not only keep the European Union united, but also to construct a vast consensus in all of the five continents. The resolution on the Moratorium, like all documents of the General Assembly, is not legally binding, however it carries moral weight. The resolution asks for a moratorium on capital punishment, in view of its abolition, and appeals to countries that have the death penalty to ‘progressively reduce’ the use and ‘the number of crimes for which it can be imposed.’