A/HRC/30/65 certain circumstances, even when it is carried out without the intention of obtaining information (see A/HRC/22/53, para. 74). C. Right to life 38. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that, in those States which have not abolished the death penalty, the sentence of death can only be applied for the “most serious crimes”. The Human Rights Committee has determined that drug-related offences do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” (see CCPR/C/IDN/CO/1, para. 10, CCPR/CO/84/THA, para. 14, and CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3, para. 19). The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on torture, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly and the Secretary-General support this interpretation (see A/HRC/10/44 and Corr.1, para. 66, A/HRC/4/20, paras. 51-53, and A/HRC/24/18, para. 24).43 The International Narcotics Control Board has encouraged States that impose the death penalty to abolish it for drug-related offences (see A/HRC/27/23, para. 31). 39. Nevertheless, it has been estimated that 33 countries or territories continue to impose the death penalty for drug-related offences, resulting in approximately 1,000 executions annually.44 Drug-related offences account for the majority of executions carried out in some countries and are mandatorily punished by death in a number of States (see E/2015/49 and Corr.1, para. 72).45 40. Human rights organizations have expressed concern about international funding and technical assistance for drug control programmes in States that retain the death penalty for drug-related offences.46 UNODC, which opposes the death penalty, has stated that if “a country actively continues to apply the death penalty for drug offences, UNODC places itself in a very vulnerable position vis-à-vis its responsibility to respect human rights if it maintains support to law enforcement units, prosecutors or courts within the criminal justice system”. It noted that “at the very least, continued support in such circumstances can be perceived as legitimizing government actions. If, following requests for guarantees and high-level political intervention, executions for drug-related offences continue, UNODC may have no choice but to employ a temporary freeze or withdrawal of support”. 47 The European Union has emphasized that actions such as legal, financial or other technical assistance to third countries should not contribute to the use of the death penalty, and specifically indicated that the death penalty should not be imposed for drug-related crimes.48 41. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has expressed concern about extrajudicial executions against people in the war on drugs (see A/HRC/26/36/Add.1, para. 8), a concern voiced also by States and non-governmental 43 44 45 46 47 48 10 See also Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 and General Assembly resolution 39/118. Harm Reduction International, The Death Penalty for Drug Offences: Global Overview 2012, p. 5. See also the submission of Amnesty International, p. 2. Reprieve, Harm Reduction International, International Drug Policy Consortium, Transform, Release, Espolea, Drug Policy Alliance, Diogenis, Andrey Rylkov Foundation, Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and Forum Droghe, “INCB report launch and the death penalty for drug offences” (joint statement, 3 March 2015). UNODC, “UNODC and the promotion and protection of human rights” (2102), p. 10. Council of the European Union, “EU guidelines on the death penalty” (doc. No. 8416/13, annex).