# data[].attributes.body
Find around 4 sources/articles (challgenge myself by finding difficult texts)

Make a vocabulary list - goal of 15

On Thursday the presentation will be about what i have learnt, an understanding, quick summary, no text. POWER POINT

Goal is to practice for the national exams

# data[].attributes.body
A death penalty is when a criminal get scentenced to death by a court. It is a concept that has been used throughout history for thousands of years, but nevertheless also has been something people have worked against to prevent and/or to get rid of.

There is a numerous of ways to carry out a death penalty, and five of those are beheading, electrocution, haning, lethal injection, and shooting.

According to Amnestys’ records, the number of executions in 2020 had decreased from the previous year, and was also the year that held the fewest executions of the decade. China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia were the world leading nations in numbers of executions.

People favouring the death penalty, mean the capital punishment is mere juctice, whilst other argue that it is a muder too, a muder comitted by the govement. On the first hand, there are those who deem it justice towards the family of the victim. The other side of it, argue it is a doubtful concept. Two of the main arguments are, it is irrevocable and it is a human right to live.

# data[].attributes.headline
business owner gives away his company to save the planet

# data[].attributes.subject
business owner gives away his company to save the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ukrainian forces have made rapid gains in recent days and have recaptured territory in the Russian-occupied Luhansk region of eastern Ukraine.

However, Russian forces still hold about a fifth of the country.

How has the conflict changed?

Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, surrounding the Ukrainian capital Kyiv. It also launched attacks in the south, east and north of the country.

In early April, Ukrainian forces retook large areas around Kyiv, after Russia abandoned its push towards the capital.

Russia has since been focusing its military operations in the south, east and north-east of Ukraine, seizing large areas.

However, things changed dramatically at the start of September.

In a decisive offensive in the north-east, Ukraine drove back Russian forces. It claims to have regained 3,000 square kilometres (1,158 sq miles) of territory around the city of Kharkiv alone.

Its forces have also retaken territory in Luhansk, in eastern Ukraine. Since July, the region had been entirely occupied by Russia.

In total, Ukraine says it has retaken more than 8,000 sq km (3,088 sq miles) from Russian control in September - its most significant territorial gains since the war started.

The cities of Izyum and Kupiansk, which Ukraine says were retaken on 10 September, were both key supply hubs for the Russian forces. As such, these represent important strategic gains.

There is also a Ukrainian counter-attack around the Kherson region in the south of the country.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) says Ukrainian troops have inflicted a "major operational defeat" on Russian forces.

Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute said Russian positions in Kharkiv had suffered a "total collapse".

The Russian withdrawal was, he said, "certainly the most dramatic reverse that we've seen from the Russians since they retreated from Kyiv in April".

How has Russia responded?

Russia confirmed that its forces retreated from Izyum and Kupiansk. It said this was a strategic withdrawal to "regroup".

It has also said it will continue to target these areas with military strikes.

The Russian army appears to have abandoned large quantities of equipment and ammunition during the withdrawal.

How much territory does Russia still occupy?

Russia still holds about 20% of Ukraine, according to the ISW.

Areas in the west of the country, including Lviv, have experienced missile attacks, but no attempt by Russian forces to take and occupy ground.

What does Russia want?

Russia refuses to recognise its invasion as a war, and says it is undertaking a "special military operation" in Ukraine.

The Kremlin said its operations would continue "until all the tasks originally set" had been achieved.

One objective was to ensure Ukraine didn't join the Western defensive alliance, Nato.

Russia's initial aim was to overrun Ukraine and depose its government.

However, it now appears to have limited its ambitions to securing land in Ukraine's east and south.

What does Ukraine want?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said his main goal is to drive all Russian troops out, to "de-occupy our whole territory".

Mr Zelensky has appealed for more funding and equipment to retain the areas retaken from Russia.

Western shipments of weaponry are being used heavily by Ukrainian forces.

How many people have died?

Both sides have suffered losses, although neither publish exact numbers.

However, it said the actual number is likely to be considerably higher.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ukrainian forces have made rapid advances, but Russia still holds 20% of the country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Amnesty International recorded 483 executions in 18 countries in 2020, a decrease of 26% from 657 recorded in 2019. This figure represents the lowest number of executions that Amnesty International has recorded in the past decade.

Most known executions took place in China, Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia - in that order.

China remained the world's leading executioner - but the true extent of the use of the death penalty in China is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 483 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out in China.

Excluding China, 88% of all recorded executions took place in just four countries - Iran, Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Amnesty International recorded that 16 women were among the 483 people known to have been executed in 2020 (3%), in the following countries: Egypt (4), Iran (9), Oman (1), Saudi Arabia (2).

India, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan resumed executions. Amnesty International did not record any executions in Belarus, Japan, Pakistan, Singapore and Sudan, despite having done so in 2019 and 2018, as well as in Bahrain, which carried out executions in 2019 but not in 2018.

Egypt more than tripled its reported executions (from at least 32 to at least 107).

Executions recorded in Iraq more than halved (from 100 in 2019 to 45 in 2020). Saudi Arabia decreased its tally by 85%, from 184 to 27.

Chad abolished the death penalty for all crimes in May. Kazakhstan signed and in December took steps to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. In the USA, Colorado became the 22 nd US abolitionist state. Barbados concluded reforms to repeal the mandatory death penalty.

At the end of 2020, 108 countries (a majority of the world's states) had abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes and 144 countries had abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

Amnesty International recorded commutations or pardons of death sentences in 33 countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malaysia, Morocco/Western Sahara, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, USA, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

At least 18 exonerations of prisoners under sentence of death were recorded: Cameroon (3), China (1), Singapore (1), Taiwan (1), USA (6) and Zambia (6).

Amnesty International recorded that 1,477 death sentences were imposed in 54 countries, down 36% from at least 2,307 in 2019.

At the end of 2020, at least 28,567 people were known to be under sentence of death.

The following methods of execution were used across the world in 2020: beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting.

Three people were executed for crimes that occurred when they were below 18 years of age in Iran. Reports indicated that other people in this category remained on death row in Maldives and Iran.

At least 30 executions for drug-related offences were known to have been carried out in three countries (China, Iran and Saudi Arabia), a decrease of 75% from 2019 (118).

Death sentences were known to have been imposed after proceedings that did not meet international fair trial standards in several countries, including Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Viet Nam and Yemen.

Regional analysis

Americas

For the 12 th consecutive year, the USA remained the only country to carry out executions in the region.

The number of executions ( 17) in 2020, decreased compared to 2019 ( 22). The number of recorded US death sentences ( 18) dropped by almost half compared to 2019 ( 35).

After 17 years, the Trump administration resumed US federal executions, eventually putting 10 men to death over five and a half months.

Only two countries, USA and Trinidad and Tobago, imposed death sentences in the region.
Asia-Pacific
In Asia-Pacific Bangladesh, China, India, North Korea, Taiwan and Viet Nam are known to have carried out executions in 2020.

The number of new death sentences recorded in 2020 ( 517) more than halved compared with 2019, when 1,227 were registered.

The number of countries imposing death sentences ( 16) remained similar to 2019 ( 17).

Japan, Pakistan and Singapore did not report any executions for the first time in several years.

Europe and Central Asia

Although Belarus continued to impose death sentences, there were no executions in 2020.

Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Tajikistan continued to observe moratoriums on executions.

Kazakhstan signed and moved to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Middle East and North Africa

The number of recorded executions fell by 25%, from 579 in 2019 to 437 in 2020, while recorded death sentences fell by 11% from 707 in 2019 to 632 in 2020.

Amnesty International recorded executions in eight countries - Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen - in the region.

Oman and Qatar resumed executions, carrying out their first known executions in years.

Sub-Saharan Africa

Recorded executions in the region went down by 36%, from 25 in 2019 to 16 in 2020.

Executions were recorded in three countries - Botswana, Somalia and South Sudan; one fewer compared with 2019.

Recorded deaths sentences fell by 6%, from 325 in 2019 to 305 in 2020.

Death sentences were recorded in 18 countries in 2020, the same as 2019.

Chad became the 21 st country in sub-Saharan Africa to abolish the death penalty for all crimes.

Recorded commutation of death sentences increased by 87%, from 165 in 2019 to 309 in 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The unprecedented challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic were not enough to deter 18 countries from carrying out executions in 2020, Amnesty International said today in its annual global review of the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The question as to whether or not it is morally acceptable for the state to execute people, and if so under what circumstances, has been debated for centuries.

The ethical problems involved include the general moral issues of punishment with the added problem of whether it is ever morally right to deprive a human being of life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A breakdown of the arguments given in favour of abolishing (or against reintroducing) the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capital punishment | Definition, Debate, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capital punishment, execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. The term ‘death penalty’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘capital punishment,’ though imposition of the penalty is not always followed by execution. Learn more about capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
Abolished - Avskaffa

Second Optional Protocol - Andra Valfria Protokoll

Exonerations - Befrielse

Imposed - Belägrat

Distinguished - Särskilja

Extrajudicial - Utomprocessuell

Condoned - Gottgjort

Retribution - Vedergällning

Moratorium - Betalningsanstånd

Adultery - Äktenskapsbrott
Irrevocably - Oåterkalleligt

# data[].attributes.body
Yvon Chouinard grounded the company patagonia for about 50 years ago. and now he has sold it to save the world. He sold the company to a man called Ryan Gellert that will run the company in the same way as Yvon. With the ideology that a for profit business can work for the planet. This is one of the things Ryan wanted to say in the press release "two years ago, the Chouinard family challanged a few of us to develop a new structure eith two central goals".  And that all the future profits will be donated to help climate change. Chouinard sais that while they are doing their best it´s not enough. He also said this while announcing the decision, "we needed to find a way to out more money inte fighting the crisis while keeping the company´s values intact. Truth be told, there were no good potions available. so, we created our own."
Patagonia has been known as a conservationist company and has been out spoken on hot button issues. patagonia´s corporate activism is a large part of it´s a brand identity.
In 2017, the company sued then president Donald Trump over his admistration´s move to dratically shrink two national monunments in Utah.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long reign of Queen Elizabeth II was marked by her strong sense of duty.

# data[].attributes.body
Monarch = Monarki - kung/drottning
Maintaining = Underhålla
Sense of duty = pliktkänsla
Determination = Beslutsamhet
Educated = Utbildad
Royal = Kunlig
Throne = tron
Acceded = tillträtt
Visited = besökt
Society = samhälle
Preserving = bevara

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After failing to capture Ukraine's cities, including the capital Kyiv, in the north and north-east in March, Moscow said it was now focusing on the Donbas - parts of which were already under the control of Russian-backed rebels before the Russian invasion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ukraine war: Houses flooded after missiles hit major dam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ukraine says the attack is revenge after it retook occupied territory from Russia in the east.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patagonia’s founder transfers ownership into two entities to help fight the climate crisis | CNN Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patagonia’s founder is transferring ownership of the company after nearly 50 years into two entities that will help fight the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
ethereum merge: software upgrade could slash power consumption - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The world's second biggest cryptocurrency just got a lot greener

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ethereum, the world's second most valuable cryptocurrency, has completed a massive software upgrade that its backers claim will slash its carbon footprint.

# data[].attributes.body
The Queen's death

'Gender fluidity': The ever-shifting shape of identity

Sustainability

Global Warming

Liz Truss

Monkey Pox

Capital Punishment

Ukraine

Cryptocurrency

Business owner gives away his company to save the planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
‘Gender fluidity’: The ever-shifting shape of identity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For some people, gender identity and expression isn’t fixed – rather, it can change daily.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Search the Internet for good study material such as news articles, stories, films etc. Work with your material, always with the English language in focus.         

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Search the Internet for good study material such as news articles, stories, films etc. Work with your material, always with the English language in focus.         

# data[].attributes.body
Post all links and vocabulary lists in your column.

# data[].attributes.body
Do research
Week 37 Friday
Week 38 Monday, Friday
Week 39 Monday, Thursday, Friday

Presentation:

Week 40

PPT

Approximately 5 minutes

Topic

Sources

Vocabulary?

Result?

Next time?

Essay Writing?

# data[].attributes.body
What is the Death Penalty? - WorldAtlas
(Retrieved: 2022-09-16)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Only about 1/3 of the countries around the world still allow the death penalty.

What Is the Death Penalty?

The death penalty remains a controversial issue in many governments and states all over the world. Death penalty refers to the sentence of death imposed by a court of law on an offender who has committed a capital offense. The death penalty is sometimes referred to as the capital punishment. Even though the words death penalty and capital punishment are used interchangeably in many contexts, some people believe that there exists a difference in the meaning of the two phrases. However, the difference in meaning is negligible. The death penalty is merely the imposition of a death penalty on a capital offender by a court of law, whereas capital punishment is the actual execution or killing of the offender after imposition of a death penalty. The death penalty should be differentiated from the extrajudicial execution. Whereas death penalty is imposed through conviction of an offender is a court of law, extrajudicial executions happen without the due process of the law.

Death Penalty Around the World

In the recent centuries, the death penalty has become rare because its use as a method of punishment has been banned by many governments. Countries that still carry out punishment by death penalty constitutes about only a third of the countries in the world. Such countries include Iran, Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, United States, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Sudan among others.

Other countries, among them Australia, Canada, Mexico, and all members of the Council of Europe have abolished the use of the death penalty. A total of 75 countries in the world have completely abolished the use of death penalty regardless of whether the offense committed is a capital offense or not.

In most countries that practice the death penalty, the penalty is reserved only for the capital or serious crimes. Such crimes include murder, terrorism rape, kidnapping and human trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and corruption and bribery. Besides, in some states, some sexual offenses such as prostitution homosexuality and adultery are punishable by the death penalty. However, some countries also impose the death penalty on smaller crimes such as general theft and drugs.

It is also important to understand that execution of the death penalty is governed by some laws and regulation. For instance, particular groups of people are excluded from being sentenced to death. According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, juvenile offenders are excluded from receiving the death penalty. Besides, mentally handicapped criminals are also excluded from receiving the death penalty. The severity of the capital offence committed by the juvenile and the mentally handicapped is seen as less severe based on the mental capability and therefore imposing a death penalty on them is regarded disproportionately severe.

Forms of Execution

When imposing the death penalty, the form of execution is prescribed by the legislature in charge. The form of execution imposed must not inflict unnecessary pain on the capital offender. Some of the forms of execution applied today include the use of an electric chair or electrocution, lethal injections, strangulation, hanging, beheading and the use of firing squad. Stoning is a traditional method of imposing the death penalty.

1. Home

2. Society

3. What is the Death Penalty?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The death penalty remains a controversial issue in many governments and states all over the world. Death penalty refers to the sentence of death imposed by a court of law on an offender who has committed a capital offense. The death penalty is sometimes referred to as the capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
capital punishment | Definition, Debate, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
(Retrieved: 2022-09-16)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capital punishment | Definition, Debate, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Capital punishment, execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense. The term ‘death penalty’ is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘capital punishment,’ though imposition of the penalty is not always followed by execution. Learn more about capital punishment.

# data[].attributes.body
Death Penalty - Amnesty International
(Retrieved: 2022-09-16)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We know that, together, we can end the death penalty everywhere.

Every day, people are executed and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for a variety of crimes - sometimes for acts that should not be criminalized. In some countries, it can be for drug-related offences, in others it is reserved for terrorism-related acts and murder.

Some countries execute people who were under the age of 18 when the crime for which they have been convicted was committed, others use the death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several others apply the death penalty after unfair trials - in clear violation of international law and standards. People can spend years on death row, not knowing when their time is up, or whether they will see their families one last time.

The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception - regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of the crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

Previous Next

About the death penalty

Amnesty International holds that the death penalty breaches human rights, in particular the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Both rights are protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the UN in 1948.

Over time, the international community has adopted several instruments that ban the use of the death penalty, including the following:

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty, and Protocol No. 13 to the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.

The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Although international law says that the use of the death penalty must be restricted to the most serious crimes, meaning intentional killing, Amnesty International believes that the death penalty is never the answer.

Amnesty International has never felt more hopeful that this abhorrent punishment can and will be relegated to the annals of history
Agnès Callamard, Secretary General, Amnesty International

Juvenile Executions

The use of the death penalty for crimes committed by people younger than 18 is prohibited under international human rights law, yet some countries still resort to the death penalty in these situations. Such executions are few compared to the total number of executions recorded by Amnesty International each year.

However, their significance goes beyond their number and calls into question the commitment of the executing states to respect international law.

Since 1990 Amnesty International has documented at least 163 executions of people who were below the age of 18, in 10 countries: China, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan, the USA and Yemen.

Several of these countries have changed their laws to exclude the practice. Iran has executed more than twice as many people who were below the age of 18 at the time of the crime as the other nine countries combined. At the time of writing Iran has executed at least 113 of them since 1990.

Execution Methods used in 2022

Beheading

Hanging

Lethal injection

Shooting

Where do most executions take place?

In 2022, most known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the USA - in that order.

China remained the world's leading executioner - but the true extent of its use of the death penalty is unknown as this data is classified as a state secret; the global figure of at least 883 excludes the thousands of executions believed to have been carried out there.

Excluding China, 90% of all reported executions took place in just three countries - Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

The global view: death sentences and executions 2008-2022

*This map indicates the general locations of boundaries and jurisdictions and should not be interpreted as Amnesty International's view on disputed territories.

**Country names listed reflect nomenclature in May 2023

How many death sentences and executions take place each year?

Death sentences

Amnesty International recorded at least 2,016 death sentences in 52 countries in 2022, a slight decrease from the total of 2,052 reported in 2021. At least 28,282 people were known to be under sentence of death globally at the end of 2022.

Executions

Amnesty International recorded at least 883 executions in 20 countries in 2022, up by 53% from 2021 (at least 579 executions).

Reasons to abolish the death penalty

It is irreversible and mistakes happen

Execution is the ultimate, irrevocable punishment: the risk of executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Since 1973, for example, more than 191 prisoners sent to death row in the USA have later been exonerated or released from death row on grounds of innocence. Others have been executed despite serious doubts about their guilt.

It does not deter crime

Countries who execute commonly cite the death penalty as a way to deter people from committing crime. This claim has been repeatedly discredited, and there is no evidence that the death penalty is any more effective in reducing crime than life imprisonment.

It is often used within skewed justice systems

In many cases recorded by Amnesty International, people were executed after being convicted in grossly unfair trials, on the basis of torture-tainted evidence and with inadequate legal representation. In some countries death sentences are imposed as the mandatory punishment for certain offences, meaning that judges are not able to consider the circumstances of the crime or of the defendant before sentencing.

It is discriminatory

The weight of the death penalty is disproportionally carried by those with less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds or belonging to a racial, ethnic or religious minority. This includes having limited access to legal representation, for example, or being at greater disadvantage in their experience of the criminal justice system.

It is used as a political tool

The authorities in some countries, for example Iran and Sudan, use the death penalty to punish political opponents.

What is Amnesty International doing to abolish the death penalty?

For over 45 years, Amnesty International has been campaigning to abolish the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty International monitors its use by all states to expose and hold to account governments that continue to use the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. We publish a report annually, reporting figures and analysing trends for each country. Amnesty International's latest report, Death Sentences and Executions 2022, was released in May 2023.

The organization's work to oppose the death penalty takes many forms, including targeted, advocacy and campaign based projects in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia-Pacific, Americas and Europe and Central Asia , and Middle East and North Africa regions; strengthening national and international standards against its use, including by supporting the successful adoption of resolutions by the UN General Assembly on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty; and applying pressure on cases that face imminent execution. We also support actions and work by the abolitionist movement, at national, regional and global level.

When Amnesty International started its work in 1977, only 16 countries had totally abolished the death penalty. Today, that number has risen to 112 - more than half the world's countries. More than two-thirds are abolitionist in law or practice.

Case Studies

Saved from death row: Hafez Ibrahim

Thanks to Amnesty's campaigning efforts, the execution of Hafez Ibrahim, from Yemen, was stopped not once, but twice. Hafez, who was accused of a crime he insists he didn't commit, first faced a firing squad in 2005. He was taken to a small yard in a Yemeni prison and brought before a row of officers with rifles in hand. He thought that moment would be his last.

Just before he was about to be shot, he was taken back to his cell, with no explanation. "I was lost, I did not understand what was happening. I later learned that Amnesty International had called on the Yemeni President to stop my execution and the message was heard," Hafez said.

In 2007, Hafez was about to be executed again when he sent a mobile text message to Amnesty International. "They are about to execute us." Hafez said.

It was a message that saved his life. The message sparked an international campaign, persuading the President to stop the execution for a second time.

Now Hafez is a lawyer helping juveniles who languish on death row corridors across Yemen.

Activists on a mission: Souleymane Sow

Amnesty International's work to abolish the death penalty is also bolstered by its incredible activists, who take it upon themselves to campaign against this abhorrent practice.

Souleymane Sow, has been volunteering with Amnesty International since he was a student in France. Inspired to make a difference, he returned to Guinea, set up a local group of Amnesty International volunteers and got to work. Their aim? To promote the importance of human rights, educate people on these issues and abolish the death penalty in Guinea. Along with 34 NGOs, they finally achieved their goal in 2017.

"My colleagues and I lobbied against the death penalty every day for five months. In 2016, Guinea's National Assembly voted in favour of a new criminal code which removed the death sentence from the list of applicable penalties. Last year [2017], they did the same in the military court, too," said Souleymane.

"It was the first time so many NGOs had come together to campaign on an issue. People said they were happy with our work and they could see that change is possible. Most of all, it inspired us to continue campaigning."

It was such an incredible achievement - and it showed the importance of people power.
Souleymane Sow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception. Here's why.

# data[].attributes.body
Capital Punishment, Death Penalty - Dödstraff
Executed, Execution - Avrättade, Avrättning
Sentenced - Dömd
Variety - Mängd
Acts- Handlingar
Criminalized- Kriminaliserat
Offences - Brott
Reserved - Reserverad
Committed - Engagerad
Intellectual - Intellektuell
Death row - Dödscell
Apply - Tillämpa
Violation - Överträdelse
Ultimate cruel - Ultimata grymma
Degrading - Förnedrande
Exception - Undantag
Regardless - Oavsett
Accused - Den anklagade
Circumstances - Omständigheter
Guilt - Skuld
Innocence - Oskuld
Breaches - Överträdelser
Particular - Särskild
Torture - Tortyr
Ban - Förbjudna
Restricted - Begränsad
Prohibited - Förbjuden
Defendants - Åtalade
Beheading - Halshuggning
Lethal injection - Dödlig injektion

# data[].attributes.body
The founder of Patagonia is giving his company away : NPR

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, who has previously expressed his reluctance at amassing wealth, is giving away his company.

The outdoor apparel company will now be in the hands of a trust and a nonprofit organization. All future profits will be donated to help fight climate change, the company announced Wednesday.

"It's been a half-century since we began our experiment in responsible business," Chouinard, 84, said. "If we have any hope of a thriving planet 50 years from now, it demands all of us doing all we can with the resources we have. As the business leader I never wanted to be, I am doing my part."

He added, "Instead of extracting value from nature and transforming it into wealth, we are using the wealth Patagonia creates to protect the source. We're making Earth our only shareholder. I am dead serious about saving this planet."

The Patagonia Purpose Trust will control all voting stock of the company (2%), while the Holdfast Collective, a climate change nonprofit, will own all nonvoting stock (98%).

Chouinard, who is currently a board member, said in a statement that while trying to fight climate change, he realized his company was contributing to it. So he had been thinking about what to do with the business.

One option was to sell it and donate the money, but Chouinard said he was concerned new owners might not hold the same values or keep the same employees. The other option was to become a publicly traded entity.

"What a disaster that would have been," he said. "Even public companies with good intentions are under too much pressure to create short-term gain at the expense of long-term vitality and responsibility."

The company will continue to give 1% of its earnings to grassroots environmental groups, and the leadership will not change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The founder of Patagonia is giving his company away to help fight climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, who has previously expressed his reluctance at amassing wealth, is giving away his company. The outdoor apparel company will now be in the hands of a trust and a nonprofit organization. All future profits will be donated to help fight climate change, the company announced Wednesday.

# data[].attributes.body
Patagonia's founder transfers ownership into two entities to help fight the climate crisis | CNN Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patagonia’s founder transfers ownership into two entities to help fight the climate crisis | CNN Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patagonia’s founder is transferring ownership of the company after nearly 50 years into two entities that will help fight the climate crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard Transfers Ownership of Business – Footwear News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Patagonia's founder is giving away the company.

Founder of the outdoor apparel maker Yvon Chouinard announced in an open letter on Wednesday that he is transferring ownership of the privately-held business, reportedly valued at $3 billion, to a nonprofit and specially designated trust. The move is meant to ensure that the company's profits are completely reinvested in the business or used to further values and goals related to the environment.

As Chouinard put it, "Earth is now our only shareholder."

"While we're doing our best to address the environmental crisis, it's not enough," Chouinard wrote in a letter announcing the decision. "We needed to find a way to put more money into fighting the crisis while keeping the company's values intact. Truth be told, there were no good options available. So, we created our own."

100% of the company's voting stock (or 2% of the company's total stock) will go to the Patagonia Purpose Trust, which is meant to preserve the values of the company. All nonvoting stock (or 98% of the company's total stock) has been transferred to the nonprofit Holdfast Collective, which works to protect the environment.

The decision comes as an alternative to selling the company or taking it public, Chouinard said.

"We couldn't be sure a new owner would maintain our values or keep our team of people around the world employed." Going public, he said, would likely pressure the company to focus on short term gains as opposed to long-term values.

Leadership will remain the same, with Ryan Gellert staying on as CEO and the Chouinard family continuing to sit on the board. Gellert said in a statement that he hopes this new business structure "will inspire a new way of doing business that puts people and planet first."

Patagonia has made a name for itself as a company that makes its values known to its consumers. In 2020, the company took a firm stance on climate-denying politicians and shared with its consumers a message to "Vote Climate Deniers Out of Office." In 2021, Gellert took the the company's Twitter account to encourage businesses to join the outdoor retailer in removing advertisements from Facebook as well as its subsidiary Instagram to protest the spread of "hate speech and misinformation about climate change and our democracy" on the platform. The company also made a public statement in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision regarding abortion earlier this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Patagonia Founder Yvon Chouinard Transfers Ownership of Business: 'Earth Is Now Our Only Shareholder'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Patagonia's founder is giving away the company. Founder of the outdoor apparel maker Yvon Chouinard announced in an open letter on Wednesday that he is transferring ownership of the privately-held business, reportedly valued at $3 billion, to a nonprofit and specially designated trust.

# data[].attributes.body
Remains - Förblir
Controversial - Kontroversiell
Refers, referred -  Hänvisar, Hänvisade
Offender - lagbrytare
Offence - Anfall
Interchangeably - Omväxlande
Contexts - Sammanhang
Negligible - Försumbar
Differentiated - Differentierade
Extrajudicial - Utomrättsliga
Conviction - Övertygelse
Offender - Lagbrytare
Recent - Nyligen
Rare - Sällsynt
Banned - Förbjudna
Governments - Regeringar
Constitutes - Utgör
Abolished - Avskaffas
Completely - Helt och hållet
Bribery - Bestickning
Prostitution - Prostitution
Instance - Exempel
Particular - Särskilt
According - Enligt
Excluded - Utesluten
Severe - Svår
Severity - Allvarlighetsgrad
Capability - Förmåga
Disproportionately - Oproportionerligt
Prescribed - Föreskrivs
Legislature - Lagstiftning församling
Inflict unnecessary - Tillfoga onödigt
Injections - Injektioner
Strangulation - Strypning
Firing Squad - Arkebusering
Stoning - Stening
Imposing - Imponerande

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.royal.uk/diana-princess-wales

https://www.insider.com/things-you-didnt-know-about-princess-diana-2020-6#diana-reportedly-confronted-camilla-parker-bowles-about-her-affair-with-her-husband-prince-charles-16

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/31/world/gallery/princess-diana-a-life-in-pictures-25-years-after-her-death/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/news/1997/sep/01/guardianobituaries.monarchy

# data[].attributes.body
Capital Punishment is also called death penalty.  Capital Punishment is execution of an offender that are sentenced to death by a court of law of a criminal offence.

Capital Punishment around the world

Capital Punishment has become rare in the recent centuries, it's because using this as a method has been banned by many governments. But is countries today that still use death penalty, it constitutes about only a third of the countries in the world. The countries that still have capital punishment is Iran, Iraq, china, Saudi Arabia, USA, Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan. Countries that abolished the use of death penalty is Australia, Canada, Mexico and all members of the Council of Europe.

In many Countries that carry out death penalty it's reserved only for the capital os serious crimes. Crimes like murder, terrorism rape, Kidnapping, human trafficking, illegal drug trafficking and corruption and bribery. In some states, sexual offences such as prostitution homosexuality and adultery are punishable by the death penalty. There is also countries that impose people on smaller crimes as general theft and drugs.

About Death penalty

There are people even under 18 years old executed every day around the world and sentenced to death by the state as punishment for variety of crimes. Sometimes for acts that should be not criminalized. There are countries that use death penalty against people with mental and intellectual disabilities and several apply the death penalty after unfair trials, in clear violation of international law and standards.
Criminals can bring the rest of their life in death row without even knowing when their time is out, or if they will ever meet their families again.

The Capital Punishment breaches human right in particular, the right to life and the right to live free from torture or cruel, in human or degrading treatment or punishment.  Death penalty is the ultimate cruel, in human and degrading punishment. Amnesty opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception and regardless of who is accused, the nature or circumstances of crime, guilt or innocence or method of execution.

# data[].attributes.body
Apparel - Kläder
Amassing - Samla ihop
Conservationist- Konservativa
Deisgnated - Utsedda
Entities - Enheter
Ensure - Se till
Preserve - Bevara
Combat- Bekämpa
Deviate - Avvika
Perpetually - Alltid
Extracting - Extrahera
Reluctance - Motvilja
Biodiversity - Biologiskt mångfald
Shareholder - Aktieägare

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/news/1997/sep/01/guardianobituaries.monarchy
-
1. Obituary - Dödsruna / Dödsannons
2. Prime - Primär (annan betyedelse, in his prime - i sin bästa ålder)
3. Fleet street labels - " British national newspapers and to the journalists who work for them."

4. Diaphanous - transparent
5. Inevitability - Oundviklighet
6. Stark reliefs - fullständig lättnad
7. Cynicism - Kyniska skolan (cynicism is thought of ancient greek philosophy practiced by the cynics)
8. Beguilingly - (Beguiling) Förförande/Förföriska (charming/enchanting)
9. Ungrand - not grand (grand = stor)
10. Hauteur - högmod (proud haughtiness of manner)
11. Irrevocably - oåterkalleligt
12. Bulimia - ätstörning. hetsäter och sedan försöker göra dig av med maten.
14. Buoyed - bojade (keep someone or something afloat?)
15. Pageantry - ståt/prål (elaborate display or ceremony)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Her life, it was often said, although not so much of late, was like a fairytale. She was, it was often said, though not so much of late, a fairytale princess. And although this was one of those typically lazy Fleet Street labels, you could see the truth in it when the young Diana Spencer first emerged blushing and blinking into this lens and that lens, and all those lights and clicks and whirrs and shouts.

For the young prince had been seeking a bride but, as with princes, a pure bride of noble breeding. And these were in such short supply in the kingdom that some despaired of his ever finding one. Until, suddenly, she was there.

Our first proper view was the one of the nursery assistant, shyly pretty, caught in the playground, innocent of the sunlight and the lenses and clicks and whirrs and friendly shouts and guile that would make her skirt entirely diaphanous.

It was a fairytale moment but a 20th century fairy tale moment, with a knowingness among the smiles. And, as we all ought to know by now, 20th century fairy tales do not end happily.

No, they spin faster and faster, whirligigs powered by the pursuit of fame and profit and every last detail, a conspiracy of interests heavy with the inevitability of tragedy, large or small, but never underplayed or undersold, and always with the lights and the headlines.

None other has come close to matching the life and death of Diana Spencer. And not only in its twists, turns, heroes, speculations, confirmations, villains, stark reliefs and immense, unrelenting profile in which every quality, every event was endlessly exaggerated and simplified for the century's easier digestion. Here, also, the century met the monarchy in a collision that may in time prove as fatal as the desperate event in Paris a collision between the light and the magic that royalists had long warned against but in the end proved powerless to prevent, and even helped to fix.

But, despite all our cynicism and countless hindsights, it still did not seem quite like that as Lady Diana Spencer stood in the nursery playground on that day in 1980, posing for that photograph.

Then, in royal terms, it seemed a happy, clever, almost perfect match. A public tiring of an endlessly energetic bachelor prince who nevertheless seemed to be achieving little, publicly or privately, was delighted with Lady Diana , as were the photographers and their editors.

She was fresh, unknown, beguilingly shy, already with the appealing and trademark upward glance. And, most importantly for the photographers and their editors, and unlike many another royal or would-be royal, she was genuinely pretty and in possession of that most vital of 20th century qualities: she was very, very photogenic.

Good news, then, for Fleet Street, especially at the lower end, where Rupert Murdoch and his Sun newspaper in particular were increasingly alive to the attractions for readers of royalty, of a young and fresh royalty.

Buckingham Palace's more traditional concerns were equally satisfied. This might be the first English woman to marry an heir to the throne for over 300 years. But this was no common English woman.

Lady Diana 's father, the eighth Earl Spencer, had been an equerry to both George VI and the Queen. Her maternal grandmother, Ruth, Lady Fermoy, was a close friend and lady in waiting to the Queen Mother.

Diana was born on July 1, 1961, at Park House, on the Sandringham estate, in the same room in which her mother, Frances, had been born. In her childhood, she had played regularly with Prince Andrew and Prince Edward. This was a girl who knew the form. But also a girl unaffected by the hauteur and distance that usually go with the form.

Journalists who spent a lot of time in the early days of her courtship with the Prince of Wales on the doorstep of the ungrand flat she shared in Coleherne Court in Kensington were surprised to find how approachable, how friendly she was.

If it is easy to see the seeds of future troubles in this now, it would have been much easier then to see other seeds in other parts of her background.

But such was the enthusiasm, high and low, for Diana and such was the shortage of other supposedly suitable mothers for a future monarch that little attention was paid to a childhood that had been anything but stable or happy. She had been only six when her mother left to take up with the lively and witty Peter Shand Kydd, a businessman and something of a contrast to her father, whose friends and pursuits she found dull.

By accounts, Lady Fermoy was determined that custody would remain with Diana 's father, the then Viscount Althorp, and not with her daughter, irrevocably deemed, even in the 'swinging sixties', a 'bolter'.

Diana 's fall from a horse while in her mother's care formed part of the custody proceedings. She was later to recall rows and violence between her parents. When her mother left, she would later recollect, she and her young brother, Charles, now Lord Spencer, cried themselves to sleep together she could remember, she said, the crunch of the gravel under her mother's shoes as she left.

Thus, classically, and beneath that appealing freshness, was to emerge the bulimia that was, by her own frank admission, to so plague her.

She was sent to Riddlesworth Hall, a boarding school near Diss, Norfolk, at the age of nine. She did not shine academically, either there, or when she moved on to her mother's old school, West Heath, near Sevenoaks, although her former teachers did speak loyally of sporting prowess, particularly at swimming.

She failed all her O levels, twice, leaving school at 16. She spent a brief time at the Institut Alpin Videmanette, a Swiss finishing school, before moving to the London flat, bought for her by her father.

Initially, before becoming an assistant at the Young England nursery in Pimlico, she had had various temporary jobs cleaning, acting as waitress at cocktail parties and nannying. Not the form thing, either.

Her elder sister, Jane, had followed a rather more conventional route by marrying Robert Fellowes, an assistant private secretary to the Queen later to become principal private secretary. Her eldest sister, Sarah, had been an earlier girlfriend of the Prince of Wales.

These connections, and Lady Fermoy's close interest, combined to bring Diana to the attention of the Prince and the Palace. In the summer of 1980, one of the early royal watchers discovered her through his binoculars, poised attractively on the banks of the Dee at Balmoral, looking up admiringly at a fishing Prince of Wales.

And so to the Coleherne Court doorstep, the nursery playground, and, in February, 1981, the announcement of the engagement.

The couple were haltingly, stiltingly, interviewed on television, Diana doing much upward looking, displaying her engagement ring, hiding chewed nails and much else, if probably not as much as her fiance.

In a segment endlessly replayed throughout the tortuous doings that were to follow, they were asked if they were in love. 'Of course,' replies Diana , in an embarrassed rush. 'Whatever love is,' replies the Prince, in an embarrassed rumination.

Much has been made of the contrast, particularly in the light of the revelation that the Prince of Wales was conducting at the time, and continues to conduct, a relationship with Camilla Parker Bowles, an old girl friend who had, for the usual complicated reasons, married someone else.

Not so much has been made of other subsequent revelations about Diana 's worries about the match, even up to the eleventh hour, when she had to be persuaded to go ahead by her sisters, with their only half-joking warning that the souvenir teatowels were already on sale. Duty did not play its part only on the Prince's side.

Even less has been made of how significant it was that an interviewer should have dared in the first place to ask the question of whether they were in love. It is hard, for example, to imagine it being asked of Princess Elizabeth and Philip Mountbatten. It was also a question that prepared the way for the even more intrusive questioning of the couple years later by Jonathan Dimbleby and Martin Bashir.

But the nation, buoyed up by the earlier celebration of the royal jubilee, remained in the mood for pageantry, and the wedding, on July 29, 1981, was carried off with style amid genuine public interest and happiness. Their long kiss on the balcony at Buckingham Palace was judged a great success, although observant lip readers had seen the Prince asking for permission.

The differences between the couple in ages and interests did not excite much comment. Royal marriages had never dwelt overmuch on compatability. Duty remained the watchword.

But so absolute a concept was becoming increasingly isolated in a Court that had taken a conscious and determined decision to modernise itself. Only by revealing more of itself, argued the modernisers, led by the Duke of Edinburgh, could the monarchy be made more easily understood, its use more easily recognised.

The Victorian constitutional theorist, Walter Bagehot had warned that letting light on to the monarchy would destroy its mystique. The modernisers were more confident. But they reckoned without a society which, influenced by an ever more irreverent media, was rapidly discarding deference. More particularly, and, to the point, they neglected to note how attractive newspapers and their readers were finding royalty as soap opera. The threat was both within and without.

Diana , with her beauty, her youth, her genuinely winning manner, her seeming unstuffiness, her artlessness, her clear and unforced compassion, was prime fascination. Any amount of pop psychology has been devoted to the effect of this on a young woman from an unhappy and insecure background, but, in truth, she was facing new pressures that no amount of royal training could have prepared anyone for.

But, clearly, too, Diana enjoyed the attention, whether or not, as the pop psychologists argue, this was to compensate for the lack of attention she sufffered as a child. Clearly, too, what she saw as a lack of private attention from her husband contrasted cruelly with the unending public attention.

Outwardly, at first, all seemed well with the royal marriage. Prince William was born in 1982 Prince Harry in 1984. A spare and heir achieved popularity across the world, a leader of fashion, a patron of charities, another week, another magazine cover, another month, another triumphant foreign tour.

Later, though, the Princess was to declare that her marriage was dead in three years, effectively ending after the birth of Prince Harry.

The Prince, unhappy in his marriage, took refuge in his old round of holidays and country pursuits, and in his old mistress.

The Princess, as with any princess, took refuge in her children and her charities. But, this being modern times, there was also her Walkman and an extensive range of advisers and consultants, including a psychotherapist, an aromatherapist, a reflexologist and an astrologer.

Rumours about the state of the marriage continued to emerge, usually in the Sunday newspapers, and usually dismissed as 'downstairs gossip'.

They were further fuelled by a number of public incidents, endlessly speculated on, first starting with the Prince's early return on his own from a summer holiday in Majorca in 1986, through various foreign tours where she asked for separate rooms, turned her head away just as he was about to kiss her, and posed alone and forlorn in front of the Taj Mahal.

Then, in 1992, came publication of Andrew Morton's Diana : Her True Story, much of which seemed, even given the previous years of whisper and rumour, incredible. Morton alleged that the Princess suffered from bulimia nervosa that she had thrown herself down the stairs at Sandringham while pregnant with Prince William that she had slashed at her wrists with a razor blade, a penknife and a lemon slicer, and that she had once thrown herself against a glass cabinet.

It also disclosed that the Prince kept in touch with Camilla Parker Bowles even while on honeymoon on the royal yacht Britannia, a disclosure allied to the one that Diana had found an inscribed gold bracelet intended as a gift from the Prince to Parker Bowles only days before the marriage. A fairy tale romance, indeed.

Once again, Buckingham Palace threw doubt on the allegations. But Morton claimed that the information had all come from close friends. And three days after the first extract from the book had been published in the Sunday Times, Diana made a public and tipped-off visit to one of them, her former flatmate and bridesmaid, Carolyn Bartholomew.

In its way, this use of the media to put her case was as startling as the more sensational allegations. It followed earlier private briefings by the Prince and Princess to newspapers and marked a significant step beyond any previous contact between the press and royalty but also a determination by Diana not to be crushed by the Court. The modernisers suddenly discovered that they were being rather outplayed at their own game by someone for whose intellect they had not previously shown an immense amount of respect.

But the gift for public relations displayed by the incident, and particularly its timing, is one of the more compelling aspects of a much misunderstood and complex personality. Certainly, the Prince and the Palace were perpetually on the back foot thereafter, which is where, after yesterday, they will perpetually remain.

In December of that year, the Prince and Princess announced their formal separation. This brought no respite from the line of allegation and disclosure, growing ever more public and ever more tawdry as the opposing sides, authorised or not, attempted to create two hard, clear, and opposing images. The Prince was portrayed as a weak, heartless, hidebound figure, bullied by his father, overwhelmed by his responsibility, dominated by his selfishness.

For her part, the Princess was to be seen as neurotic, unbalanced, frivolous, flighty, in sway to fame and frocks.

There was something in both characterisations. But there was rather more to the Princess. A surprisingly steely resolve, a gift for friendship, certainly but also something more elusive. That early artlessness, openness, and friendliness, that which in more formal days had been usually described as the 'common touch' had become translated into a quality of compassion, a gift of ease, and had been put to apt work, with children, with Aids victims, and in areas where, like with her recent land mines campaign, a high-profile example or a large amount of publicity could be more use than any amount of earnest cajoling and lecturing.

Thus, despite the sneers, Saint Diana . But, also, uncomfortably for times where the simplicity of the message is the most prized, it went hand-in-hand, and fed off all those sessions with consultants, all those meetings with celebrities, all those frocks and smiles.

It was also, sadly, inextricable from the accompanying and tawdriness of the commonplaces of a broken marriage made extraordinary by the married.

In 1994, the Prince told Jonathan Dimbleby in a television interview that he had been unfaithful. In DimbL leby's biography, published the same year, the Prince conceded he had been bullied into the marriage by his father he had, he said, never loved his wife.

The Princess responded by arriving for a dinner in Hyde Park on the night of the Prince's adultery confession in an outfit so black and daring as to capture a good proportion of the front pages and raise more doubts in the public mind about the tastes and good sense of its future monarch.

In the same year, Diana was linked with the England rugby captain, Will Carling. They had met at one of the public gyms used by Diana , whither and whence she was to be seen most days when she was in London, and whither and whence she was, most days, photographed.

It was a curious relationship, that between Diana and her photographers. She could be at turns friendly or distant. That distance was frequently misjudged, vividly this year in the case of a long-time freelance pursuer of her who found himself being attacked by a member of the public at her behest.

The sneerers claimed it was all part of a need for publicity which had become unbalancing, and claimed to see much piquant irony in the affair in 1993 when the Daily Mirror published photographs of her exercising taken clandestinely by a gym owner.

Similar doubts were raised in 1993, when the Princess announced that she intended to reduce her official engagements and become more of a private figure. Four months later, she was back. But, once again uncomfortably for the stereotype of a fame junkie, it was to a role, as Red Cross roving ambassador, where she would be able to point out real achievement in the face of a sceptical and lukewarm government.

Her supporters claimed that the very public gym trips and the lunches were vital to maintaining some sort of normal life, and that the relationship she cultivated with the press and the paparazzi was also vital to maintaining that normality, even if it did have its explosions and inconsistencies. Whatever the faults on whichever side, it was a relationship that was eventually to kill her.

Her part, in the public eye, as the innocent party in the marriage break-up was felt to be a crucial part of the Princess's popularity. When, before the separation, the 'Squidgygate' tape recording had surfaced, allegedly detailing a telephone conversation between Diana and a lover, the story was widely disbelieved as a malicious invention, much more so than the so-called 'Camillagate' tape, in which the Prince of Wales, inter alia, appeared to be favouring re-incarnation as a tampon. The most clear response to Squidgygate was that the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment began proudly, if unofficially, to refer to itself as 'Squidgy's Own'.

In 1994, too, the publication of Anna Pasternak's book, Princess in Love, supposedly detailing her five-year affair with a former army officer, James Hewitt, was similarly derided.

But, in another extremely shrewd piece of PR timed for its influence on the couple's possible divorce and its custody implications, Diana gave an interview the next year, 1995, to the BBC Panorama programme that held the nation gripped with its combination of intensity and artlessness assisted by an artifice that by now seemed second nature.

It had a candour clearly influenced by the pyschotherapeutic treatment the Princess had been receiving.

Asked by Martin Bashir 'were you unfaithful' with Hewitt, the Princess replied 'Yes'. She agreed that the Squidgygate tape was genuine, and that she had made a series of phone calls to a married friend, Oliver Hoare.

The interview, which attracted 15 million viewers, was as clear an example as exists of the contrasts in the Princess's personality. For as well as these concessions, there were references to her husband's staff as 'the enemy', the questioning of his suitability to become king, and the clear declaration that she had no intention of seeking a divorce.

There was the winning, telling soundbite: 'We had three of us in this marriage, it was a bit crowded. And there was the typically overblown soundbite, that she would never be Queen of the country, but she would like 'to be a Queen of people's hearts, in people's hearts'.

She continued, tellingly: 'I don't think many people will want me to be Queen. Actually, when I say many people I mean the Establishment that I married into because they have decided that I'm a non-starter . . . because I do things differently, because I don't go by a rule book, because I lead from the heart, not the head. That's got me into trouble in my work, I understand that. But someone's got to go out there and love people and show it.' Any member of the Prince's party listening to it all would have concluded, as did Nicholas Soames, that Diana was in the 'advance stages of paranoia'.

This, though, was a complete misjudgement of the public's mood. For it was perhaps the greatest mark of the Princess's many and curious gifts that she continued to remain personally immune from the republican mood in the country that she had done almost as much as anyone to foster. This again, in contrast, to all the other troublesome young members of the royal family, in particular the exuberant and ultimately very silly Sarah Ferguson.

After the Panorama appearance, the divorce could not be long delayed and was, indeed, urged by the Queen, at last, but far too late, disturbed by all this media manipulation.

In February, 1996, three years after the separation, the princess, after a a private meeting with her husband at St James's Palace, once again wrongfooted the Court by releasing a statement to PA News (the Press Association) that she had agreed to a divorce shortly after breaking the news to the Queen by telephone.

Negotiations began between respective solicitors, with the Princess's lawyer, Anthony Julius, of Mishcon de Reya, himself being touched by media celebrity as discussions continued until July on the size of the settlement, access and custody, the Princess's role and future title, much royal magic being considered invested in the dignity of Her Royal Highness, the title withheld from the Duchess of Windsor at the behest of the Queen Mother.

On July 12, 1996, the terms were announced: a settlement believed to be around pounds 15m ( the Princess had been reported to be asking for nearer pounds 50m), equal responsibility for the upbringing of their children, and the demotion in title to Diana , Princess of Wales.

It is almost impossible to resist the temptation to see the period since then as one of acceleration towards the horror of yesterday.

The Princess's behaviour, in the way it was highlighted, at least, seemed to be at once a little more erratic, and its reception a little less respectful.

The narrowness of the public role she had agreed and chosen was another danger. The number of the charities she actively supported was drastically cut at the time of her divorce settlement. The controversy that had first greeted her entry into the land mine debate earlier in the year had only last week been resurrected in an interview with a French journalist in Le Monde where she was alleged to have described the Tory Government's policy on landmines as 'hopeless'. There had also been more sideswipes at the press. A feeling that Diana 's PR, formerly so successful, if famously erratic, needed more control was fuelled by the row that followed when her office denied that she had so described the Tories, thus extending and exaggerating a row which would have quietly deflated on its own.

But there could be no doubt about the sincerity and the worth of her work for charity in areas normally carefully skirted by royalty and the establishment. Turning Point, the national drink, drugs, mental health and learning disabilities agency, an unfashionable charity with which she was involved for ten years, is a good example of this.

But her habit of doing good by stealth, the clandestine hospital visits, the charity auction of her wardrobe: such things were treated increasingly as eccentric rather than saintly, while such events as the charity auction of her old outfits was seen, unfairly, as having more to do with her fascination with the world of Hello! magazine celebrity, a feeling strongly reinforced by one of the year's strongest images, her red-eyed appearance earlier in the summer at the funeral of Gianni Versace, con soling a weeping Elton John. And strongly reinforced, too, by the long summer of Dodi Fayed, the posing and the confrontations, the promises of a 'big surprise', retracted but soon fulfilled in the shape of the Egyptian.

We will know never know whether this decline in the immunity of her public popularity was temporarary, and, indeed, whether it would have survived a lengthy liaison with Dodi Fayed, and more particularly, his controversial father, certain to become only more controversial. As Jackie Kennedy discovered, immense private wealth and privilege has a way of corroding the affection and admiration gained in the attractive exercise of public wealth and privilege. But the consolation of such a horrible, twentieth century, twisted metal, senseless kind of death, if there is any consolation, is that the reputation of Diana , Princess of Wales, as a beautiful, winning, intriguing woman unfairly treated by fate but touched with a rare compassion and influence for good will remain forever frozen in time, inviolate.

Diana , Princess of Wales, Lady Diana Frances Spencer, born July 1, 1961 died August 31, 1997

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Her life, it was often said, although not so much of late, was like a fairytale. She was, it was often said, though not so much of late, a fairytale princess.

# data[].attributes.body
Lady Diana Frances Spencer was born 1st of July, 1961 in Sandringham, England. Later came to be known as Princess Diana, Princess Of Wales. First wife of current King Charles III of England. She married Charles at a young age of 20 in 1981. They were thought to be a happy couple with 2 lovely boys until it was revealed to the public that wasnt the case. Charles was in love with antoher woman and was having an affair with her since before the marriage. They separated as a couple 4 years before their official divorce. Diana later died in 1997 in a car crash in Paris along with her partner at the time.