A/HRC/24/18 A. Restriction of use of the death penalty to “most serious crimes” 24. Article 6, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prescribes that in States that have not abolished it, the death penalty may only be imposed for the “most serious crimes”. This term has been interpreted to mean that the death penalty should only be applied to the crime of murder or intentional killing. The application of this safeguard in recent years has focused on the use of the death penalty for acts that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”. In particular, the use of the death penalty for drug-related offences, economic crimes, political crimes, adultery, and offences relating to consensual same-sex relationships, is a violation of article 6, paragraph 2, and of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty.20 25. The European Union (EU) adopted in April 2013 new revised and updated Guidelines on the Death Penalty.21 These guidelines have made a number of key clarifications to the minimum standards for States that still maintain the use of the death penalty, including narrowing the definition of “most serious crimes”, while continuing to emphasize the EU’s strong opposition to the death penalty and advocating for its full abolition. The guidelines state that the death penalty must not be imposed for “non-violent acts”, and economic, political and drug-related crimes have been added to the list of offences that the death penalty should not be imposed for. 22 1. Use of the death penalty for drug-related offences 26. In accordance with the Human Rights Committee, drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes”.23 Nevertheless, 33 countries or territories continue to retain the death penalty for drug-related offences in their legislation, though only a few of these countries actually impose and enforce this punishment.24 27. During the reference period, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran continued to raise concerns about the use of capital punishment in the country, including for crimes such as alcohol consumption and drug trafficking, which do not constitute serious crimes by international standards (A/67/369, paragraph 56). Reportedly, executions for drug-related offences also took place and people were sentenced to death for such offences in several States, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.25 28. Human rights organizations expressed concerns about the international funding and technical assistance for drug control programmes in States that retain the death penalty for drug-related offences.26 According to these organizations, there is no persuasive evidence 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 See Human Rights Committee, concluding observations: Thailand, CCPR/CO/84/THA, para. 14, concluding observations; Sudan, CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, para. 19. See also Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50; General Assembly resolution 39/118. See http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/13/st08/st08416.en13.pdf. The previous list included only financial offences, religious practices or expression of conscience, and sexual relations between consenting adults. A/50/40 Vol. I, para. 449; A/55/40 (Vol. I), para. 464. Harm Reduction International, “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2012, Tipping the Scales for Abolition”. Available at: http://www.ihra.net/files/2012/11/27/HRI__2012_Death_Penalty_Report_-_FINAL.pdf. Amnesty International, op. cit., p. 20, 21, 22, 26 and 37. “The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2012 – Tipping the Scales for Abolition” see http://www.ihra.net/contents/1290; see also “Iran Human Rights and World Coalition against the 7