A/HRC/27/26 were represented by a lawyer, and excluding the use of confessions extracted through torture. In Singapore, courts were currently provided with the discretion not to impose the death penalty for certain categories of offence, such as drug trafficking offences and some homicide offences. That had followed the adoption by the Parliament in November 2012 of legislative amendments abolishing the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under certain circumstances. Ms. Jahangir also emphasized that every country in Asia that still retained the death penalty would adopt its own particular path to end the practice. Leaders, parliaments, judges, civil society organizations, the media and academic institutions had to be convinced of the need for the abolition of capital punishment. V. Summary of the interactive discussion 21. During the interactive discussion, representatives of the following countries and organizations spoke: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil (on behalf of the Portuguesespeaking countries), China, the Council of Europe, the European Union, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Kuwait (on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council), Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, New Zealand, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore (on behalf of a group of 26 countries), Slovenia, Spain, the Sudan and Switzerland (on behalf of 44 countries). Statements by the following delegations were not delivered owing to lack of time: Albania, Algeria, Belarus, Chile, Cuba, Germany, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, the Republic of Moldova and Turkey. 22. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also spoke: Amnesty International, Harm Reduction International (on behalf of Reprieve, Human Rights Watch and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty), International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Penal Reform International and Verein Suedwind Entwicklungspolitik. 23. Delegates welcomed the convening and organization of the high-level panel discussion. They viewed the panel as a useful platform for discussing good practices and sharing experiences relating to the abolition of the death penalty and to the introduction of a moratorium on executions. A. General remarks on the use of the death penalty 24. A large number of delegations expressed their opposition to the death penalty and firmly supported its universal abolition. In that regard, they welcomed the developments noted in the Secretary-General’s most recent report on the question of the death penalty (A/HRC/24/18) suggesting that the trend towards abolition was continuing. Some delegations stated that there was a clear trend towards its elimination. They were convinced that the question of the death penalty was about human rights and that justice that killed was not justice. They further highlighted that the strong link between the death penalty and human rights was acknowledged even in the constitutions of some retentionist countries, which stated that no person should be deprived of the right to life except in execution of a sentence. 25. Some States emphasized that the death penalty violated the right to life, the basis of all rights, and that it undermined the right to dignity inherent to all human beings. Some expressed concerns that the imposition of the death penalty constituted torture, as recently stated by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and that it was an inhumane form of punishment, constituting a serious violation of human rights. It was pointed out that that was clearly the case for brutal 8