A/HRC/27/26 penalty. In 2011, it had abolished the death penalty for 15 crimes; and the death penalty was not applied to (a) children who committed crimes below the age of 18, (b) pregnant women and (c) elderly people aged 75 years and above. In Indonesia, the issue of the death penalty had been the subject of a robust national debate among various groups. The issue had undergone a judicial review by the Constitutional Court in 2007. In line with article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Indonesia strived to ensure that strong safeguards were in place. 41. Some delegations highlighted the importance of the establishment of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty while national debates on abolition were ongoing. A moratorium on executions gave the authorities the opportunity to: review death penalty legislation; ensure that domestic law complied with international human rights law, especially regarding the duty to ensure a fair trial; review claims of wrongful conviction; engage in an informed debate with experts and the public; and realize that the death penalty was not a special deterrent to crime. D. Importance of public debate, awareness and exchange of information 42. It was noted that the majority of retentionist countries justified the use of the death penalty on the basis of their domestic public opinion. In that context, supporting the remarks of several panellists, several delegations highlighted the fact that capital punishment had been abolished in their countries following debates and exchanges of ideas that had resulted in slow changes in mentalities. It was emphasized that, in the absence of objective information, the public might be reluctant to accept and support abolition efforts. It was therefore of paramount importance that countries that still applied the death penalty ensured that studies and statistics regarding its use were made publicly available, so that public discussion and evaluation of its use could be promoted and a moratorium established. The public should not be deprived of objective and transparent information on the issue and its effects on society. 43. Some delegations emphasized the need for continued education on and public awareness of the importance of the abolition of the death penalty. They highlighted the fact that, in abolitionist countries, there was a constant need to spell out why the death penalty ran contrary to the right to life and to human dignity. Vigilance was required, since some political parties even in abolitionist States had put the restoration of the death penalty on their programmes. Such developments clearly marked the need for long-term action against the death penalty and for efforts to transmit valuable experience, training and assistance to third countries in carrying out public debates and swaying public opinion. 44. Some delegations said that if the history of the abolition of the death penalty in their countries had taught them anything, it was that the path towards abolition was long and hard. The death penalty was not abolished or repealed overnight. Abolition became a reality only as a result of increasing public awareness and constant collective efforts. In that regard, the importance of informed debate and the fluid exchange of ideas was highlighted. 45. Some delegations pointed out that national debates on the abolition of the death penalty were currently under way in their countries. For example, there were ongoing active debates in Indonesia on the use of the death penalty. In Sierra Leone, which had had a moratorium since 1998, a regional conference had been organized early in 2014 to address the question of the death penalty. The current constitutional review process in Sierra Leone also provided an opportunity to debate the issue. 46. It was emphasized that there was a need to reach out to the judiciary to make sure it understood the true implications of sentencing decisions, and the lack of evidence that the death penalty had a deterrent effect in comparison with other non-lethal punishments. 12