A/HRC/4/20 page 2 Summary This report, submitted in accordance with Human Rights Council decision 1/102, details the principal activities of the Special Rapporteur in 2006. It also examines four issues of particular importance. 1. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur in armed conflicts. The report rejects the notion, put forward by one State in particular, that matters arising in the context of armed conflict are beyond the purview not only of the Special Rapporteur but of the Human Rights Council itself. Such an approach would contradict very long-standing policies of the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council, and the General Assembly and would critically undermine their ability to address pressing threats to human rights in many of the situations before the Council. 2. “Mercy killings” in armed conflict. Accepting the notion of so-called “mercy killings” would undermine key rules of international law applicable during armed conflicts. The prohibition under international humanitarian law of killing those who have laid down their arms or have been placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause must be resolutely upheld. 3. Most serious crimes. The requirement of human rights law that the death penalty should be imposed only for the “most serious crimes” continues to be interpreted subjectively by certain States. The report examines the travaux of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, surveys the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, and analyses the comments by the Secretary-General, principles declared by the Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights and concludes that, if it is to comply with the most serious crimes restriction, the death penalty can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life. 4. Mandatory death sentences. The experience of numerous judicial and quasi-judicial bodies has demonstrated that mandatory death sentences are inherently over-inclusive and unavoidably violate human rights law. The categorical distinctions that may be drawn between offences in the criminal law are not sufficient to reflect the full range of factors relevant to determining whether a death sentence would be permissible in a capital case. In such cases, individualized sentencing by the judiciary is required in order to prevent cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and the arbitrary deprivation of life.