A/HRC/30/21 either introduced safeguards relating to the situation of individuals on death row, or held the mandatory death penalty to be unconstitutional. Criminal procedure laws had been amended to require interrogations of individuals to be recorded or videotaped, thereby providing safeguards against miscarriages of justice. In some countries, reviews of all death sentences by supreme courts had been mandated. Ms. Hossain also highlighted the fact that there were examples of reform initiatives across the region, from which other countries could learn. 19. Ms. Hossain further emphasized that, while under international law, the death penalty might only be imposed for the most serious crimes, in Asia it was still used in relation to acts linked to sexual relations that were consensual, across sexes and between the same sexes. She stated that, in some countries, conversion from, or renunciation of, religion was considered a capital crime. The fact that laws in some countries continued to allow for the mandatory use of the death penalty was of concern. 20. Other challenges also highlighted by Ms. Hossain included: lack of respect for fairtrial standards; limited access to lawyers; lack of effective representation; lack of qualified interpreters; absence of records of proceedings; unfair and inconsistent sentencing practices; the fact that mitigating circumstances were often not taken into account; lack of limited independence of the judiciary and the imposition of the death penalty through special courts. People living in poverty continued to be disproportionally subjected to the death penalty. Many countries across the region did not have meaningful legal aid frameworks, which was particularly problematic in death penalty cases. Ms. Hossain also expressed concerns regarding wrongful convictions, secrecy surrounding executions and the method of execution. However, she reiterated that positions and discussions were evolving within an increasing number of countries based on domestic and international human rights standards, including provisions included in constitutions. IV. Summary of the discussion 21. During the interactive phase of the panel discussion, the following delegations spoke: Singapore (on behalf of a group of States), Timor-Leste (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese-speaking Countries), Argentina, Australia, Austria, Norway, Belgium, Albania, Turkey, Paraguay, Netherlands, Brazil, Russian Federation, Slovenia, South Africa, Republic of Moldova, Jamaica, Algeria, Mexico, Pakistan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, Portugal, Lichtenstein, Ireland, Indonesia and Sudan. The following intergovernmental, national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations also contributed to the discussion: European Union, International Organization of la Francophonie, National Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Conseil national des droits de l’Homme du Maroc, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Penal Reform International, Franciscans International, Amnesty International, Friends World Committee for Consultation, and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative.5 5 6 Statements by the following delegations were not delivered due to lack of time: Chile, China, Costa Rica, Council of Europe, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Holy See, Italy, Morocco, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Poland, Rwanda, Spain, Switzerland, the United Nations Children’s Fund and Ahlulbayt Foundation. All statements are available for consultation from the secretariat of the Human Rights Council.