A/HRC/42/25 7. The High Commissioner concluded by noting that human rights developed as societies became more inclusive, integrating the voices and experiences of previously marginalized groups. That process brought to light past miscarriages of justice, often rooted in discrimination and stereotypes. It was unacceptable to continue to sentence persons to death knowing that there was a risk of a mistake. The High Commissioner encouraged all States to take a stand on the right side of history and join the international trend towards abolition. 8. In his opening remarks, Mr. Reynders, speaking on behalf of a group of co-sponsors of Human Rights Council resolution 36/17,2 congratulated the Gambia for ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, and welcomed the recent announcement that Malaysia would abolish the death penalty, joining the some 170 States which had either abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its use for more than 10 years. It was regrettable that the death penalty was still applied in a minority of countries, including for apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or consensual same-sex relations, which did not qualify as “most serious crimes” under international law. Such application of the death penalty was particularly discriminatory, targeting certain groups simply for exercising their fundamental rights, and should not exist in the twenty-first century. 9. Mr. Reynders drew attention to the inextricable link between poverty and the death penalty, noting that beyond legal expenses, every step of the judicial process incurred costs, whether for obtaining or photocopying documents, the appearance of witnesses or commissioning independent experts. Furthermore, the poorest often lacked social capital and knowledge of their rights in the judicial process or of how to obtain the assistance they needed. The death penalty was disproportionately applied against members of racial and ethnic minorities, foreign nationals, sexual minorities, and women. Sometimes that was a result of discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law, but too often the discrimination was structural and enshrined in law. For those reasons, the co-sponsors decided that this panel discussion should focus on the rights to non-discrimination and equality. 10. Mr. Reynders noted that the death penalty was a serious violation of human rights, notably the right to life. It was a cruel and irreversible punishment that violated human dignity and had serious repercussions on the enjoyment of a wide range of human rights of both the sentenced persons and their families. Abolition of the death penalty was not a question of culture, as human rights were universal. It was simply a question of political will. The States that had decided not to apply the death penalty represented a diversity of judicial systems, traditions, cultures and religions. The abolitionist movement included men and women of all political views, and from all sectors of society across the world, who together opposed capital punishment in all circumstances, whatever the crime or method of execution. Mr. Reynders highlighted that numerous scientific studies had demonstrated that the death penalty had no impact on crime rates, so the hypothesis that it made society safer was incorrect. He deplored the use of security arguments to justify the persistent and largescale application of the death penalty, on the pretext of combating terrorism or drug trafficking. 11. Mr. Reynders concluded by noting that Belgium was to host the Seventh World Congress against the Death Penalty in Brussels in the days following the panel discussion, in partnership with the non-governmental organization Ensemble contre la peine de mort. Along with civil society, Belgium and the other co-sponsors would continue to work tirelessly towards abolition, and encouraged others to join those efforts. III. Contribution of the panellists 12. In his introductory remarks, the moderator, Mr. Shany, noted that the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 36/17, had called upon States that had not yet abolished the death penalty to ensure that it was not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of 2 Belgium, Benin, Costa Rica, France, Mexico, Mongolia, Republic of Moldova and Switzerland. 3