A/HRC/42/25 progress towards abolition when the death penalty had been reintroduced for certain grave crimes in 1985, but that law had been repealed within five years. The Constitution of 1990 had explicitly prohibited capital punishment. Thus, it had taken almost 59 years for Nepal to reach full abolition of the death penalty. In 1998, Nepal had ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Constitution of 2015 considered the right to life to be the bedrock of all human rights and prohibited the death penalty in all cases. Abolition had been possible due to a long and conscious effort of all stakeholders, including political leaders, civil society, human rights defenders, the media and faith leaders. The tradition, culture and social value system of Nepal valued human life and advanced a concept of justice that placed a high value on compassion, repentance and forgiveness. Those values, along with the principles of rehabilitation, reformism, reconciliation and transformation, guided the path towards full respect for the dignity of life. 18. In conclusion, Mr. Gyawali stressed that Nepal believed in the complete abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty removed any possibility of correction and reform of the individual. No study had ever proven that the death penalty reduced crime. Physical elimination of the individual was not the answer. Instead, States must focus on the root causes of crime, which included poverty, deprivation, destitution and marginalization. Abolition was a long and gradual, but sure, pathway. As States advanced the cause of the right to life, human rights and the values of human dignity, abolition became a necessity, and universal abolition would be achieved in due time. 19. In response to the moderator’s question on the main manifestations of discrimination in the application of the death penalty in the English-speaking Caribbean and effective strategies towards abolition, Ms. Janki noted that only the former British colonies in the Caribbean retained the death penalty, which had been abolished by the rest of the Caribbean countries, with the exception of Cuba. The existence of the death penalty was itself a form of discrimination. Capital punishment had been essential to the machinery of slavery in the Caribbean, and enslaved Africans had been considered not as persons, but as property. Institutionalized inequality remained hardwired into Caribbean societies. Like slavery, the death penalty posited that some persons were less than others. The death penalty robbed convicted persons of their dignity as human beings. Convicted criminals should face punishment, including removal from society, and be rehabilitated for the protection of society. It was barbaric for a State to take the life of one of its own citizens. 20. Ms. Janki noted that there were around 36 persons on death row in Trinidad and Tobago, 35 in Guyana, 8 in Jamaica, 7 in Saint Kitts and Nevis, 4 in Barbados, and 3 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. However, data were hard to come by and more transparency was required. In the Caribbean, the death penalty was imposed only after a trial, but no criminal justice system was perfect, and even advanced judicial systems like that in the United States of America were now known for the number of innocent persons who had been sentenced to death. 21. Ms. Janki highlighted discrimination in the application of the death penalty. Noting the importance of quality legal representation and the nexus with poverty, she said that the rich and powerful could hire skilled lawyers to save them from the death penalty or obtain a not-guilty verdict, whereas the poor were often represented by inexperienced or mediocre lawyers, or no lawyer at all. It was the poor, the marginalized, the illiterate and those with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities who were sentenced to death. Persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities needed expert opinion to show why they should not be sentenced to death, but they did not have access to experts. The illiterate and undereducated were often terrified of the criminal justice system and unable to understand what was happening. In Guyana, some citizens did not speak English as a first language and needed an interpreter, but did not get one. 22. Ms. Janki noted that even if the criminal justice system were perfect and did not discriminate, the death penalty should be abolished, as it was barbaric. In her advocacy against the death penalty, she had found it invaluable to partner with organizations such as Greater Caribbean for Life, Amnesty International and the Death Penalty Project. Highlevel support was vital to success. Justice Institute Guyana had sent a memorandum on the death penalty that had been supported by a select group of highly influential lawyers 5