A/HRC/12/45 page 7 25. In January 2009 the International Court of Justice found that the execution of a Mexican national in the United States in 2008 breached the United States’ obligations under international law. The Court underlined that its 2004 judgment ordering the United States to review the death sentences of a number of Mexican nationals (in the light of possible failures to advise of a right to consular assistance) remains binding.6 26. The Human Rights Committee continues to address the question of the death penalty under ICCPR in both concluding observations following examination of State party reports and in considering individual communications under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. In four cases,7 the Committee recalled its jurisprudence to the effect that the imposition of a death sentence after a trial which did not meet the requirements for a fair trial amounts also to a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. 27. During the reporting period, the Committee directly addressed the effect of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty under the provisions of the Covenant. The case8 involved the mandatory imposition of the death sentence for the crimes of committing and of abetting murder. The Committee recalled its jurisprudence that such mandatory sentencing is an arbitrary deprivation of life. The State party did not contest that the death sentence was mandatory for the offence of which the individual concerned was convicted, but argued that there had been a moratorium on the death penalty for nearly 30 years. The Committee recalled 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.9 Thus, while observing the fact that the State party had imposed a moratorium on executions, the Committee found that the imposition of the death penalty itself, in the circumstances, violated the author’s right to life under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 6 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America). 7 Communication No. 1163/2003, Ms. Umsinai Isaeva v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 20 March 2009; communication No. 1195/2003, Mr. Vladimir Dunaev v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2009; communication No. 1200/2003, Mrs. Gulrakat Sattorova v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 30 March 2009; and communication No. 1276/2004, Mrs. Zulfia Idieva v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 31 March 2009. 8 9 Communication No. 1406/2005, Weerawansa v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 17 March 2009. See also communication No. 806/1998, Thompson v. Saint 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.