A/HRC/30/18 carried out. Penologists and medical experts agree that the process of carrying out a verdict of death is often so degrading and brutalizing to the human spirit as to constitute psychological torture”.31 In 2001, in the case United States v. Burns, the Canadian Supreme Court stated that capital punishment engaged the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 32 Furthermore, the Constitutional Courts of Albania, Hungary, Lithuania, South Africa and Ukraine have also found that the death penalty per se violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 30. States that still use the death penalty do not have unfettered discretion in deciding about the manner in which it is carried out. They should comply with requirements emanating from the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under international human rights law. In practice, capital punishment today often leads to violations of this prohibition, either because of the death row phenomenon, or the method of execution. 31. The Secretary General and special procedures mandate holders have extensively discussed this issue in recent reports. They have described circumstances that generally go hand in hand with the death row phenomenon, including the lengthy and anxiety-ridden wait for uncertain outcomes, isolation, drastically reduced human contact and the physical conditions in which some inmates are held. The Human Rights Committee has recognized the death row phenomenon as a possible breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.33 Several regional courts have also confirmed the existence and destructive nature of the death row phenomenon.34 32. The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 20 (1992) on article 7 (prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) also recognized that, when the death penalty is imposed, it must be carried out in a manner that causes “the least possible physical and mental suffering” (para. 6). Having examined relevant international, regional and national jurisprudence on various methods of execution, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment concluded that there was a growing trend towards scrutiny of all methods of execution that had to date been considered as not causing severe pain and suffering. He found no categorical evidence that any method of execution currently in use complied with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Even if the required safeguards (Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, annex) were respected, all methods of execution currently used could inflict inordinate pain and suffering (see A/67/279, paras. 31–40). E. Right to equality and non-discrimination 33. Non-compliance with the right to equality and non-discrimination is a major concern when considering the application of the death penalty. In practice, the decision whether to sentence a convict to death or life imprisonment is often arbitrary and devoid of predictable 31 32 33 34 10 See www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1260876/people-v-anderson/. See http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1842/index.do. See, for example, communication No. 470/1991, Kindler v. Canada, Views adopted on 30 July 1993, para. 6.4. See, for example, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=00157619#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57619%22]}, para. 111, and www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_94_ing.pdf.