A/HRC/33/20 international human rights law and urged States to make immediate commitments to its full abolition.15 29. The death sentence was also imposed in several countries for other offences that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under international law, including for economic crimes, such as embezzlement and taking bribes, and arson, adultery, apostasy and crimes of blasphemy. Several States also continued to use the death penalty for overly broad and vaguely defined terrorism-related crimes. In the report of the Secretary-General on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, to be submitted to seventy-first session of the General Assembly, trends on the use of the death penalty for other crimes that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” will be furthered discussed. B. Prohibition of the mandatory use of the death penalty 30. According to the jurisprudence of human rights mechanisms, the mandatory use of the death penalty is not compatible with the limitation of capital punishment to the “most serious crimes”. There have been some positive developments towards putting an end to the mandatory use of the death penalty in a few countries. In Uganda, a law was passed substituting the mandatory death sentence with a discretionary death sentence for any terrorism-related offences that result in death16 and abolishing the death penalty for all other terrorism offences. A bill was also tabled before Parliament seeking to fully remove the mandatory death penalty and to restrict the application of the death penalty to the most serious crimes. In Malaysia, the Government plans to table a bill in 2016 to abolish the mandatory death penalty for drug-related offences. 31. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh held that the Suppression of Women and Children (Special Provisions) Act, 1995, under which the mandatory death penalty was provided for, was inconsistent with several provisions of the Constitution. In reaching that conclusion, the Court reiterated that mandatory sentences reduce the courts to a “rubberstamp of the legislature” and impede their power to take into account all circumstances surrounding the offence when deciding on a sentence. 17 The Supreme Court of Kenya heard a constitutional challenge to the mandatory death penalty, 18 regarding whether the imposition of the death penalty for individuals convicted for murder, irrespective of the circumstances of the case and of any mitigating features, is consistent with the right to life and the prohibition of inhuman and degrading punishment under the Kenyan Constitution. 32. Nevertheless, several States, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Singapore, reportedly continued to impose mandatory sentences.19 The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions expressed his concern that, despite recent reforms, the legislation of Singapore still provided for the mandatory death sentence for intentional murder and stated that such 15 16 17 18 19 See www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Health/UNGASS-joint_OL_HR_mechanisms_April2016.pdf. Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Act 2016. Bangladesh, Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust and others v. Government of Bangladesh and others, judgment of 5 May 2015. Available from http://supremecourt.gov.bd/resources/documents/ 808470_CivilAppealNo.116of2010.pdf. Kenya, Mwangi and Muruatetu v. Republic of Kenya, petition Nos. 15 and 16 of 2015. See www.deathpenaltyproject.org/news/2037/supreme-court-of-kenya-today-heard-submissions-onmandatory-death-penalty/. Sadakat Kadri, International Bar Association, “Forced to kill: the mandatory death penalty and its incompatibility with fair trial standards” (International Bar Association, 2016). 9