A/HRC/27/26 methods of execution, such as stoning and decapitation, which inflicted unbearable pain. More common execution techniques, such as electrocution or shooting, might well constitute inhuman or degrading treatment and therefore be in contravention of international law. It was also underlined that the margin of error in the application of the death penalty was too large. 26. Some delegations emphasized that the death penalty was not only morally wrong, but was also an ineffective deterrent. They also stated that there must not be any impunity for crimes, but that there was no clear evidence regarding the effectiveness of the death penalty in combating impunity. They observed that the death penalty had never been proved to be a more effective deterrent than other forms of punishment. Justice and fairness were never advanced by the taking of a human life. In that context, it was also observed that the leaders of several States which had recently abolished or introduced a moratorium on the death penalty had cited, among the reasons for their decision, the absence of credible evidence that the death penalty deterred crime. It was further emphasized that the application of the death penalty was irreversible and irreparable, and that a State did not need to take lives in order to defend itself. 27. Some delegations stated that the death penalty had no place in democratic societies, They stressed that building a society free from the death penalty should be at the core of all judicial actions, and that application of the death penalty did not repair the harm done to victims and their families. They also stated that the abolition of the death penalty contributed to the progressive strengthening of human rights around the world. Some delegations discussed how the abolition of the death penalty contributed to State-building efforts. For example, in Ireland, the moratorium on the use of the death penalty had remained in place until abolition in 1991, even in the face of grave threats to the State and the people; that refuted the claim that the death penalty was needed in the fight against terrorism. In Rwanda, the abolition of the death penalty had been a step forward in the reconciliation process. 28. A group of States, in a joint statement,1 expressed the view that the simplistic approach of characterizing the death penalty as a human rights issue in the context of the right to life of the convicted prisoner was deeply flawed and controversial. The group considered that the death penalty was first and foremost an issue of the criminal justice system and an important deterring element vis-à-vis the most serious crimes. Some delegations stated that capital punishment was a sensitive issue since countries had different opinions because of varying cultural and intellectual frameworks and the absence of international agreement on the subject. A few retentionist States observed that the purpose of the use of the death penalty was not revenge, but to ensure retribution and provide justice to victims. Some stated that the retention of the death penalty was a prudent choice made in accordance with international law and the people’s demand for justice. They also mentioned the existence of strict controls over the application of the death penalty. B. Implementation of international human rights standards and safeguards 29. Several delegations emphasized that States that continued to apply the death penalty must guarantee the protection that was set out in international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that regard, some delegations highlighted the fact that article 6, paragraph 2, of 1 See A/HRC/25/G/16 for the full text of the joint statement. 9