A/HRC/25/33 used the death penalty ensured that children maintained contact with the parent in prison by facilitating visits and developing child-friendly visiting conditions and environment. States should create a system whereby children were protected from risks, defended, fed, clothed, sheltered and given appropriate medical care. He also recommended that States provide advice and support to other parents and caregivers of children with a parent sentenced to death, and support and cooperate with non-governmental, faith-based and civil society organizations. Finally, he highlighted the importance of public awareness and the engagement of schools in providing support to avert the harmful effects of parental imprisonment and execution. IV. Summary of the discussion 14. During the plenary discussion, the following delegations spoke: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Cuba (on behalf of Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Egypt, the European Union, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan (on behalf of a group of States), Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Moldova, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The following delegations from non-governmental organizations also contributed to the discussion: Penal Reform International, Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik, the Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), Defence for Children International, the International Catholic Child Bureau, Amnesty International and SERVAS International. A. General remarks on the use of the death penalty 15. Some delegations expressed their opposition to the death penalty and firmly supported the universal abolition of the death penalty. They considered the death penalty as an inhumane form of punishment, constituting a serious violation of human rights and human dignity. Some delegations also emphasized that there was no clear evidence regarding the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and that any miscarriage or failure of justice in its application was irreversible and irreparable. Concerns were expressed regarding the application of the death penalty in an arbitrary manner and in secrecy. 16. Several delegations emphasized that States that continued to apply the death penalty must guarantee the protections set out in international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention of the Rights of the Child and safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty (Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50). In that regard, some delegations further highlighted that article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant requires that States continuing to apply the death penalty can only impose that sentence for the most serious crimes. Some delegations noted that ensuring enjoyment of the human rights of children of persons sentenced to death could be used as a supplementary argument in favour of adopting moratoriums on the use of the death penalty. 17. In the light of the negative effects on children, some delegations also called upon States that had not yet abolished the death penalty to introduce a moratorium on executions, with a view to abolishing them; and to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was also emphasized that there was a need for alternative humane punishment that corresponded to the best interest of the child as well as public interests. 7