A/HRC/33/20 holders. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stated that, by commuting those death sentences, Zambia had put a stop to mental and physical pain and suffering and taken an important step towards ensuring respect for the inherent dignity of the person. They noted that the decision supported previous steps towards the abolition of capital punishment in Zambia, where a presidential moratorium on the death penalty had been maintained since 1997.30 42. Judiciaries in many States tend to commute the death penalty or pardon those sentenced to it in response to doubts about the guilt of the offender, concerns over the application of due process standards, remorse shown by the petitioner or for the rehabilitation of the petitioner. For example, the Supreme Court of Belize commuted the death sentence of the last remaining person on death row, holding that his 13 years on death row amounted to inhuman treatment and rendered his death sentence unlawful. Indian courts commuted to life imprisonment the death sentences of several prisoners, including three prisoners whose mercy petitions the President of India had previously rejected. In Jamaica, the death sentence of the last remaining person on death row was commuted.31 In Saudi Arabia, the punishment of a woman sentenced to death by stoning for committing adultery was reviewed and commuted by a court. 43. The United Nations human rights treaty bodies continued to recommend that States commute all death sentences. For example, in its concluding observations on the periodic report of the Republic of Korea, the Human Rights Committee recommended, inter alia, the commutation of all death sentences (see CCPR/C/KOR/CO/4, para. 23). The Committee against Torture encouraged China, inter alia, to commute all existing death sentences (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, para. 50). Commutation or clemency/pardon procedure 44. Under article 6 (4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a particular procedure is not prescribed for the exercise of the right to seek pardon or commutation and States parties consequently retain discretion in spelling out the relevant procedures.32 However, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, such procedures should be specified in domestic legislation (see CCPR/CO/72/GTM, para. 18), and they should not afford the families of victims a preponderant role in determining whether the death sentence should be carried out (see CCPR/CO/75/YEM, para. 15).33 Furthermore, the Committee has ruled that pardon or commutation procedures must offer certain essential guarantees, including clarity about the processes followed and the substantive criteria applied, a right for individuals sentenced to death to initiate pardon or commutation procedures and to make representations about their personal or other relevant circumstances, a right to be informed in advance when the request will be considered and a right to be informed promptly about the outcome of the procedure.34 30 31 32 33 34 12 See www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16258&LangID=E. Jamaica, Court of Appeal, Moodie v. R, ruling delivered on 31 July 2015. Communication 845/1999, Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Views adopted on 26 March 2002, para. 7.4. See also Human Rights Committee, draft general comment No. 36, 2015. See Human Rights Committee, draft general comment No. 36, 2015. See also A/HRC/8/3, para. 67, and report No. 41/00 (Mckenzie et al.) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which prescribes similar procedural guarantees.