A/HRC/30/21 pointed to the urgent need to tackle impunity to deter crimes. Impunity was one of the gravest concerns in many regions of the world. Victims wanted to see that justice was done, and attention should focus on judicial effectiveness. In other words, the duty of States was to exercise due diligence: to investigate properly and to ensure that perpetrators could be identified, arrested and prosecuted. They also recommended that authorities should address the root causes of crimes effectively. The irreversibility of an execution in itself was an argument for abolishing the death penalty. D. Public opinion and the role of political leaders 30. Some delegates reported that the death penalty continued to be used in their countries because of public opinion, which remained in favour of the death penalty for serious crimes. In that regard, experts and several delegates emphasized that public opinion was neither definitive nor static. It was likely to change when people were better informed of the issues. Looking at public opinion on one day did not necessarily reflect the following day’s majority views. In that regard, a study in a country in the Americas found that 89 per cent of people supported the death penalty, but when they were informed that innocent people were sometimes executed, that support fell sharply to 35 per cent. 31. The role of political leaders was also highlighted. They needed to be better informed, and must take the lead in changing public opinion. In that regard, experts provided some examples of how national leaders had influenced public discourse. Although public opinion in Greece was very much in favour of the death penalty when the former Greek dictators were sentenced to death in 1974, the Prime Minister decided to impose life imprisonment instead. That decision turned public opinion against the death penalty and eventually led to the abolition of the death penalty in Greece. In France, although public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty in 1981, its abolition decided by the then President of France led to a change of public opinion. Speakers emphasized that abolishing the death penalty needed leadership, vision and courage. E. Implementation of human rights standards and safeguards 32. Several delegations emphasized that States that continued to apply the death penalty must ensure for the individuals concerned the full protection set out in international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Economic and Social Council safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. 7 In that regard, some delegates of retentionist States explained that rights and safeguards were respected in their countries when imposing the death penalty, including through fair trials; and it was only used for the “most serious crimes”, as determined by each State taking into account their unique circumstances. Several delegations expressed concern, however, with regard to the imposition of the death penalty in violation of fair-trial standards and safeguards in a number of States across various regions. They deplored the fact that international safeguards, while universally recognized, were not necessarily implemented. In particular, they were concerned about: the use of the death penalty for crimes that did not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under international human rights law; mandatory death penalty provisions in some countries; arbitrary application of the death penalty in secrecy; the inhuman and degrading conditions of detention for death-row prisoners; the use of 7 The safeguards were approved on 25 May 1984 by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1984/50. 9