A/HRC/24/18 that the death penalty contributes more than any other punishment to eradicating drug trafficking or any other drug-related offences.27 29. In his report to the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions emphasized that clear guidelines are needed to help States to engage in cooperative drug control efforts without departing from the human rights framework, including international standards on the use of death penalty (A/67/275, paragraphs 84-86). 30. Such guidelines are also being explicitly sought by regional organizations that are major donors with regard to drug control efforts. For example, in its December 2010 resolution on the European Union’s annual report on human rights and democracy in the world, the European Parliament called upon the European Commission to develop guidelines governing international funding for country-level and regional drug enforcement activities.28 31. The European Union emphasized that “actions, such as legal, financial or other technical assistance to third countries, should not contribute to the use of the death penalty”.29 32. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) published a position paper in 2012 articulating its position on the promotion and protection of human rights as part of its work. Taking note of applicable international norms and standards, it stated that if “a country actively continues to apply the death penalty for drug offences, UNODC places itself in a very vulnerable position vis-à-vis its responsibility to respect human rights if it maintains support to law enforcement units, prosecutors or courts within the criminal justice system”. It further noted that “at the very least, continued support in such circumstances can be perceived as legitimizing government action. If, following requests for guarantees and high-level political intervention, executions for drug-related offences continue, UNODC may have no choice but to employ a temporary freeze or withdrawal of support”.30 2. Use of the death penalty for other crimes not involving intentional killings 33. The continued use of the death penalty for other crimes not involving intentional killings – such as economic and political crimes, robbery, blasphemy, witchcraft and sorcery – that do not constitute “most serious crimes” under international human rights law remains a particular concern. The Islamic Republic of Iran continued to use the death penalty for so-called crimes of “Moharebeh” (“enmity against God”).31 In June 2012, four individuals were executed for “Moharebeh” in connection with alleged crimes committed 27 28 29 30 31 8 Death Penalty”, “Annual Report on the Death Penalty in Iran 2012”, France, 2013; available at http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article2740. Submission of Harm Reduction International to the Secretary General’s report on the question of the death penalty dated 4 April 2013. See also Harm Reduction International, “Partners in Crime: International Funding for Drug Control and Gross Violations of Human Rights”, available at http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/06/20/Partners_in_Crime_web1.pdf. Resolution 2007/2274(INI) of the European Parliament. See “European Union Guidelines on the Death Penalty” (2013). Available at http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st08/st08416.en13.pdf. UNODC, “UNODC and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights”, p.10, available at www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/UNODC_HR_position_paper.pdf. “Moharebeh” is aimed at armed insurrection, or more generally, the resort of armed and violent activities. Anyone found responsible for taking up arms, whether for criminal purposes or against the State, or even belonging to an organization taking up arms against the State, may be considered guilty of “enmity against God”.