A/HRC/30/21 A. Importance of regional and intergovernmental bodies for advancing the abolition of the death penalty 22. Several delegates emphasized the potential of regional instruments to act as catalysts for change on the ground. They could play a role in prohibiting the trade of drugs used for executions, as well as the supply of technical assistance relating to such drugs. Some delegates also emphasized that subregional mechanisms and intergovernmental bodies could be instrumental in advancing the abolition of the death penalty. The Community of Portuguese-speaking countries indicated that the abolition of the death penalty reinforced security and the continuous development and consolidation of human rights. In 2003, the Council of Ministers of the Community adopted a resolution on human rights and the abolition of the death penalty, which contained the commitment of its members to work towards the universal abolition of the death penalty and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. That commitment had been renewed in 2013 through the adoption of a resolution on the promotion and protection of human rights in the Community. The commitment of the International Organization of la Francophonie to the abolition of the death penalty was expressed in its awareness-raising activities for different francophone networks of lawyers, judges, constitutional courts and national human rights institutions. B. General remarks on the use of the death penalty 23. Many delegations stated their opposition to the death penalty and held that the death penalty constituted a violation of human rights, in particular the right to life. One delegation quoted Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that: “Darkness cannot drive out darkness.” 6 Several States said that the right to life was enshrined in their national constitutions, prohibited the imposition and implementation of executions, and that the protection of that right was any State’s duty. Other delegations pointed out that it was critical for States to interpret the right to life broadly. 24. Several States explained that they opposed the death penalty because it violated the dignity of the condemned, as well as the dignity of humanity as a whole. They asserted that the final and cruel nature of capital punishment was per se incompatible with the right to life. They emphasized that the abolition of the death penalty contributed to the progressive development and consolidation of human rights. Some delegates observed that rational arguments in favour of abolition included the lack of evidence that the death penalty deterred crimes; in practice it discriminated between those who could afford, and those who could not afford, a good defence in a judicial system; and it carried the risk of killing innocent people, which could not be tolerated in a civilized society. Several delegates also labelled the death penalty one of the worst forms of cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. 25. Some States stressed that there was no international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty. They observed that every State had the inalienable sovereign right to decide about its legal and criminal justice system, without interference by other States. Accordingly, the question of whether to retain or abolish the death penalty and the types of crimes for which the death penalty was applied should be determined by each country, taking into account the circumstances and threats unique to their societies. Those arguments were, however, rejected by other States, with some labelling the death penalty a failure of justice. Several experts and delegates stated that the process towards the abolition of the 6 Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1986). 7