A/HRC/RES/42/24
disproportionality of applying it for any other crimes not resulting directly and intentionally
in death, and the due process guarantees affected by its resumption,1
Acknowledging the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights on the high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, 2
according to which the panel had concluded by noting that it was nearly impossible to apply
the death penalty without discrimination and so, to avoid irreversible miscarriages of justice
and arbitrary killing, it should not be applied,
Mindful of the work of the special procedure mandate holders who have addressed
human rights issues related to the death penalty, including the Special Rapporteur on torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on the independence
of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,
Mindful also of the work undertaken by the treaty bodies to address human rights
issues related to the death penalty,
Recognizing the role of regional and subregional instruments and initiatives towards
the abolition of the death penalty, which in some cases have led to the prohibition of the use
of the death penalty,
Welcoming the fact that the international trend towards the abolition of the death
penalty is continuing,
Welcoming also the fact that many States are applying a moratorium on the use of the
death penalty,
Noting that States with different legal systems, traditions, cultures and religious
backgrounds have abolished the death penalty or are applying a moratorium on its use,
Strongly deploring the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of the
human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons,
Noting that, according to the Human Rights Committee, States parties to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that have abolished the death penalty are
barred from reintroducing it, and the abolition of the death penalty is legally irrevocable,
Noting also that the reinstatement of the death penalty by a State party to the Second
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a violation of
international law,
Recalling article 6 (6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which states that nothing in that article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition
of capital punishment by any State party to the Covenant, and bearing in mind that, according
to the Human Rights Committee, States parties that are not yet totally abolitionist should be
on an irrevocable path towards complete eradication of the death penalty, de facto and de
jure, in the foreseeable future,
Noting that, according to the Human Rights Committee, the term “the most serious
crimes” must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving
intentional killing, and that crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death, such as
attempted murder, corruption and other economic and political crimes, armed robbery,
piracy, abduction, and drug and sexual offences, although serious in nature, can never serve
as the basis for the imposition of the death penalty,
Expressing concern that several States have widened their application of the death
penalty to include terrorist offences not resulting directly and intentionally in death, which
may not reach the high bar of “the most serious crimes”,
Stressing that under no circumstances can the death penalty ever be applied as a
sanction against specific forms of conduct, such as adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality,
1
2
2
A/HRC/42/28.
A/HRC/42/25.