A/HRC/30/18 B. Prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 51. As illustrated by the Views of the Human Rights Committee in two cases, for a convict and his or her family, a lack of transparency in what is already a harrowing experience — waiting for one’s execution — can result in inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the meaning of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In relation to an individual complaint submitted by the mother of an executed prisoner, the Committee found that “the complete secrecy surrounding the date of execution and the place of burial and the refusal to hand over the body for burial have the effect of intimidating or punishing families by intentionally leaving them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress”.54 This amounts to inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In another case, the Committee found that the delay of approximately 20 hours before communicating a reprieve to the accused just 45 minutes prior to his scheduled execution constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.55 52. The Committee against Torture has also expressed deep concern over the unnecessary secrecy and uncertainty surrounding executions. It noted that refusing to provide advance notice of the date and time of execution to convicted persons and their family members was a clear human rights violation (see, for example, CAT/C/JPN/CO/2, para. 15). C. Right to information 53. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has stated that article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights addresses not only the rights of accused persons but also the public’s right to information on the use of the death penalty. States have a duty to make information on the death penalty publicly available (see E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.3, para. 12). The Special Rapporteur has stated that article 19 of the Covenant also generates transparency requirements in recognizing not only freedom of expression but also public access to information (see A/65/275, para. 108). In Toktakunov v. Kyrgyzstan, the Human Rights Committee found that information about a State’s use of the death penalty was of public interest. 56 The Committee consequently recognized a general right to gain access to that information deriving from article 19. The idea of a public right to information finds further support in the emergence of a right to truth. In the context of the death penalty, this would create the public’s right to the information needed to establish whether deprivation of life is arbitrary or lawful (see A/67/275, paras. 108 and 109). 54. In its resolution 69/186 on moratorium on the use of the death penalty, the General Assembly called upon all States to make available relevant information, which can contribute to informed and transparent national and international debates, including on the obligations of States pertaining to the use of the death penalty. The lack of reliable information is also a serious impediment to scrutiny by the international human rights system. In some cases, not having advance knowledge of an imminent execution makes examining questions of lawfulness before an execution and advising about obligations under international law impossible. 54 55 56 16 See communications No. 886/1999, Schedko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 3 April 2003, para. 10.2, and No. 887/1999, Staselovich v. Belarus, Views adopted on 3 April 2003, para. 9.2. See communication No. 210/1986, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Views adopted on 6 April 1989, para. 13.7. See communication No. 1470/2006, Toktakunov v. Kyrgyzstan, Views adopted on 28 March 2011.