A/HRC/30/18 of Health Personnel, particularly Physicians, in the Protection of Prisoners and Detainees against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 37/194, includes such a provision. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions observed that, from the perspective of ethics, given that medical personnel should not help to torture, they should not be asked to assist with executions, at least not where such executions might violate international law. States should be cognizant of those considerations when they called for the presence or assistance of medical personnel when administering the death penalty (see A/67/275, para. 97). IV. Consequences of the lack of transparency in the application and imposition of the death penalty on the enjoyment of human rights 48. In its resolution 1989/64, the Economic and Social Council set out minimum requirements of transparency. It called upon all Member States to publish annually information about the use of the death penalty for each category of offence for which the death penalty is authorized, as well as information about the use of the death penalty. The information should include the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of executions actually carried out, the number of persons under sentence of death, the number of death sentences reversed or commuted on appeal and the number of instances in which clemency has been granted. Information on the extent to which the safeguards referred to in the resolution are incorporated in national law should also be included. The lack of transparency has direct consequences for the human rights not only of the persons sentenced to death, but also for other affected persons. A. Right to a fair trial and due process 49. Transparency is fundamental to the administration of justice. A transparency safeguard is contained in article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee observed that transparency “is a duty upon the State that is not dependent on any request by the interested party”. 53 50. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has emphasized that “transparency is the surest safeguard of fairness … Over time, punishment imposed by Governments has come to replace private acts of retribution. This has rationalized the disposition of justice, yet it has also introduced the possibility of more systematic arbitrariness. The extraordinary power conferred on the State — to take a person’s life using a firing squad, hanging, lethal injection, or some other means of killing — poses a dangerous risk of abuse. This power may be safely held in check only by public oversight of public punishment. It is a commonplace that due process serves to protect defendants. However, due process is also the mechanism through which society ensures that the punishments inflicted in its name are just and fair” (see E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.3, para. 7). 53 See communication No. 215/1986, Van Meurs v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 13 July 1990, para. 6.1. 15