A/HRC/33/20 introduced laws prescribing the death penalty for kidnapping and several other states increasingly resorted to the death penalty, particularly to punish kidnapping. 16. Several States adopted new laws on counter-terrorism allowing the death penalty for vaguely and broadly defined terrorism-related crimes. Cameroon, Chad, Guyana and Tunisia enacted laws providing for the death penalty for a number of crimes related to terrorist activities. Pakistan adopted the Constitution (Twenty-First Amendment) Act of 2015 and the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act 2015, allowing for the establishment of new military courts with the power to impose death sentences on civilians suspected of terrorism-related offences. Following the adoption of a new terrorism law, Chad resumed execution in August 2015.8 17. Other States also adopted new laws introducing the death penalty for other crimes. Bangladesh adopted the Coast Guard Act 2016, which provides for the death penalty for mutiny. Ethiopia proposed a new law on human trafficking and migrant smuggling, which provides a range of punishments, including the death penalty in cases where the victims suffered severe injury or death. Oman amended its law on combating drugs and narcotics, introducing the death penalty for a greater range of drug-related offences. 18. In the United States of America, the State of North Carolina enacted House Bill 774 aimed at the resumption of executions in the State. The law allows for the participation of medical professionals other than a physician in executions, contrary to medical ethics codes. It also allows the authorities to keep confidential any identifying information of any person or entity involved in the manufacture, preparation or supply of drugs used for lethal injection, in an effort to curtail litigation on this matter. Legislators in the State of Texas also voted in favour of a law to allow for secrecy on the providers of drugs used for lethal injections. The States of Oklahoma and Utah amended their legislation to allow for the use of nitrogen gas and firing squads to carry out executions, should lethal injection procedures not be implementable. III. Information on the use of the death penalty 19. In its resolution 30/5 adopted in September 2015, the Human Rights Council emphasized that lack of transparency in the use of the death penalty had direct consequences for the human rights of the persons sentenced to death as well as for other affected persons. The Council called upon States that had not yet abolished the death penalty to make available relevant information, disaggregated by sex, age and other applicable criteria, with regard to their use of the death penalty, inter alia, the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row, the number of executions carried out and the number of death sentences reversed, commuted on appeal or in which amnesty or pardon had been granted, which could contribute to informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States with regard to the use of the death penalty. 20. As noted by the Secretary-General in previous reports (A/HRC/4/78, A/HRC/8/11, A/HRC/12/45, A/HRC/15/19, A/HRC/18/20, A/HRC/21/29, A/HRC/24/18 and A/HRC/27/23), it is difficult to obtain up-to-date and accurate global figures on the application of the death penalty, owing to the continued lack of transparency on the part of some Governments. In some countries, such as Belarus, China and Viet Nam, data on the use of the death penalty continues to be classified as a State secret, with disclosure constituting a criminal offence. Furthermore, information regarding the actual date of 8 6 See www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=51772#.V4NlmU1f3cs.