A/HRC/41/36/Add.1 of these guarantees distinguishes capital punishment as possibly permitted under international law from an arbitrary execution. 39. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the implementation of the death penalty may amount to an arbitrary execution if there is evidence that it was imposed as a result of systemic biases in the judicial process, from the investigation to sentencing. Evidence indicates that the death penalty disproportionately affects people living in poverty, for a number of reasons, including the high cost of legal advice, fees and associated costs, the lack of adequate legal aid for the poor, corruption, unfamiliarity with the laws and procedures; insufficient knowledge of the language in which proceedings are conducted. Poverty further compounds the obstacles faced by certain groups who already face inherent discrimination due to their gender, ethnicity, race, or migration status. 40. The Special Rapporteur also recalls that women are often sentenced to death against a backdrop of gender-based violence, and long-term abuse, and because of judicial biases, including the failure of the Courts to recognise persistent domestic violence as grounds of self-defence. 41. She is also concerned that in seven communications sent to States, the conviction of the defendant relied upon confessions extracted under torture or duress. The extraction of confessions under torture and the acceptance of such confessions as evidence of guilt constitute flagrant violations of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). 42. The Special Rapporteur has also sent four communications on individuals convicted for crimes committed when they were children. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the death penalty cannot be imposed on individuals who were under 18 at the time of the commission of the alleged offence (regardless of their age at the time of sentencing or of execution). Furthermore, the burden of proof should be placed on the prosecution to demonstrate that a defendant was an adult at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. 43. The Special Rapporteur re-iterates her concerns that again during this reporting period, several communications addressed the imposition of the death penalty for offences that do not meet the threshold of “most serious crime”. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that under international law, the death penalty may only be imposed for the “most serious crimes”, which has been interpreted to mean “intentional killing”. In particular, the Special Rapporteur underlines that “protests related offences” do not constitute a most serious crime and thus individuals charged with that crime should not be sentenced to death. 44. The Special Rapporteur would like to restate, as did her predecessors, that any death sentence implemented in contravention of any Government’s international obligations is tantamount to an arbitrary execution. 45. She also wishes to reiterate that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more than other forms of punishment would and encourages retentionist States to consider an official moratorium on the death penalty with a view to its full abolition. 15