A/HRC/15/19 a number of serious problems, in places where capital punishment remains in force, with regard to the respect of international norms and standards, notably in the limitation of the death penalty to the most serious crimes, the exclusion of juvenile offenders from its scope, and guarantees of a fair trial. 26. The question of the death penalty was also addressed by the Human Rights Council at its universal periodic review. With regard to the death penalty in Nigeria, concerns were expressed by Member States during the consideration of that State’s report in February 2009. In its response, the Government pointed out that while the death penalty was a “valid part of Nigerian law”, it had decided to constitute a national committee to review the law. At the review, Member States recommended that Nigeria should establish a formal moratorium on executions with a view to abolish the death penalty (A/HRC/11/26). Recommendations to establish a moratorium and/or formally abolish the death penalty were also issued in relation to Armenia, Egypt, El Salvador, Kazakhstan and Madagascar. 27. The United Nations human rights treaty bodies continued to address the question of the death penalty, in concluding observations following examination of State party reports and when considering individual communications. In two recent cases,8 the Human Rights Committee recalled that the imposition of a death sentence after a trial that did not meet the requirements for a fair trial amounted also to a violation of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In one case involving the imposition of a mandatory death sentence for murder and attempted murder,9 the Committee referred to its jurisprudence that the automatic and mandatory imposition of the death penalty constituted an arbitrary deprivation of life, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, in circumstances where the death penalty is imposed without any possibility of taking into account the defendant’s personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offence.10 The Committee found that the imposition of the death penalty itself, in the circumstances, violated the author’s right under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 28. In another case, the Human Rights Committee considered a case of a deportation with a risk that the person concerned would be subjected to the death penalty,11 and recalled its jurisprudence that a State party, which has itself abolished the death penalty, would violate an individual’s right to life under article 6, paragraph 1, if it were to remove a person to a country where they were under a sentence of death.12 It recognized that, while neither the Committee nor the State party were in a position to assess the guilt or otherwise of the person or to assess the likelihood of the imposition of a non-mandatory sentence in the event that the person was convicted in their country of return, the Committee noted that the risk to the author’s life would only be definitively established when it was too late for the State party to protect the person’s right to life under article 6 of the Covenant. It did not accept the State party’s apparent assumption that a person would have to be sentenced to death to prove that there was a “real risk” of a violation of the right to life. The Committee also noted the anxiety and distress that would be caused to the person by being exposed to a risk of the death penalty. In conclusion, it considered that an enforced return of the person to their country of origin, would, without adequate assurances, constitute violations by the 8 9 10 11 12 8 Communication No. 1280/2004, Tolipkhuzhaev v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 22 July 2009; and communication No. 1520/2006; Mwamba v. Zambia, Views adopted on 10 March 2010. Communication No. 1520/2006, op. cit. See for example communication No. 806/1998, Thompson v. St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Views adopted on 18 October 2000; communication No. 845/1998, Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Views adopted on 26 March 2002; and communication No. 1077/2002, Carpo v. The Philippines, Views adopted on 28 March 2003. Communication No. 1442/2005, Kwok v. Australia, Views adopted on 23 October 2009. Communication No. 829/1998, Judge v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 August 2003. GE.10-15029