A/HRC/42/25 following intergovernmental organizations, national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations also took the floor: Center for Global Nonkilling, Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, Ensemble contre la peine de mort, European Union, Friends World Committee for Consultation, International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, and International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association.8 A. General remarks on the use of the death penalty 28. A majority of delegates, from States with a range of legal systems, traditions, cultures and religions, expressed their opposition to the use of the death penalty in all circumstances and at all times. Several delegates noted that the death penalty was incompatible with the right to life, with human dignity and with the possibility of rehabilitation of the offender, which was a fundamental purpose of criminal justice. A number of delegates welcomed the recent record vote at the General Assembly, and called upon all States to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. 29. Many delegates highlighted that no judicial system was immune from error and the irreparable nature of the death penalty made clear the need to abolish the punishment. Several States that retained the death penalty outlined the judicial process followed at national level in death penalty cases. 30. A number of delegates underlined the incompatibility of the imposition of the death penalty with the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In this regard, delegates noted, in particular, the suffering caused by uncertainty regarding the date of execution, by solitary confinement, by conditions of detention on death row and by method of execution. 31. Some delegates asserted the sovereign right of States to choose their legal and criminal justice systems. They stated that many countries considered the death penalty to be a deterrent against what their societies regarded as the most serious crimes. Some delegates stated that public opinion supported the death penalty in their countries. A number of delegates representing States which retained the death penalty laid out in detail the due process guarantees and rights to appeal in their national legal systems. A number of delegates stated their position that there was no international consensus for or against the death penalty when imposed according to due process of law. 32. Several delegates stressed that there was no conflict between the principle of sovereignty and encouraging moratoriums with a view to the universal abolition of the death penalty, as reaffirmed in General Assembly resolution 73/175. A number of State delegates referred to the importance of advocacy towards abolition of the death penalty in their foreign policy. 33. A number of delegates expressed concern at the resumption of executions in some States, including in some cases for drug offences, which did not constitute “most serious crimes” under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They encouraged authorities to prioritize evidence-based approaches to crime prevention instead, 7 8 Also on behalf of Afghanistan, the Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Statements by the following delegations were not delivered due to a lack of time: Albania, Botswana, Canada, Ireland, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Amnesty International, Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries, International Council Supporting Fair Trial and Human Rights, Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik and United Nations Watch. Statements received in electronic form are available for consultation from the secretariat of the Human Rights Council. 7