A/HRC/42/34 OHCHR stresses that such a move is contrary to the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Moreover, in situations where the death penalty has not been abolished, the “most serious crime” requirement under international human rights law and standards restricts its use to the offence of intentional killing. 34 2. Restrictions on freedom of movement 51. Restrictions on freedom of movement, mainly around the Administrative Boundary Lines, remained of serious concern in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia and adjacent areas during the reporting period. OHCHR recalls that, in addition to constituting a human right, freedom of movement is a precondition for the exercise of other rights and an important confidence-building measure in the context of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It reiterates its call on all relevant actors to urgently ensure respect for freedom of movement in accordance with international human rights norms and standards. 52. During the reporting period, the process of so-called “borderization” continued in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the installation of additional fences, “border signs” and equipment, frequent controls and increased surveillance. According to the information received from the Government of Georgia, this process in both regions has particularly affected the villages adjacent to the Administrative Boundary Lines, with more than 800 families consequently deprived of access to their property, agricultural lands and other sites, and some living with barbed wire installed through their property. 53. Freedom of movement was further restricted in early January 2019, when the authorities in control in Abkhazia and South Ossetia simultaneously closed the crossing points along the Administrative Boundary Lines, evoking public health concerns following a reported influenza outbreak on the Tbilisi-controlled territory. Although some exceptions were allowed, the lines remained closed for almost one month in the case of Abkhazia and for over two months in the case of South Ossetia. Under the guidance of the World Health Organization, the international community questioned these closures, considering them to be inefficient in combating the spread of influenza and deprived of any public benefit. 35 54. Various reports indicated the severe impact of the closures on the affected population in and around both regions, which aggravated its socioeconomic situation and isolation. Concerning Abkhazia, OHCHR received information of a 90 per cent decline in daily crossings during that period. According to the Government of Georgia and the Council of Europe, the population in South Ossetia was additionally affected by significant food and medicine shortages due to the severe winter season and the lack of access of international humanitarian organizations. 36 55. Open and functioning crossing points along the Administrative Boundary Lines remained very limited. With only two crossing points staying open across the Administrative Boundary Line with Abkhazia at the time of finalization of the present report, people travelled longer distances and thus had to spend more money to be able to cross. Concerning South Ossetia, the “customs post” established at one of the crossing points further complicated the crossing process, especially for trade.37 56. OHCHR continued to receive information on the implications of various regulations, regimes and practices applied by the authorities in control in Abkhazia and South Ossetia with regard to personal documents. In Abkhazia, new rules introduced during the period under review have reportedly further impeded freedom of movement, particularly of ethnic Georgians. The old version of the de facto Abkhaz “travel documents” and previous Soviet passports have been declared invalid, and are therefore no longer accepted to cross the Administrative Boundary Line. 57. As the majority of ethnic Georgians in Abkhazia are reportedly not eligible to obtain the new version of the de facto Abkhaz “travel documents”, they need to apply for the 34 35 36 37 See, for example, A/67/275. See also General Assembly resolution 69/186. See, for example, A/73/880, para. 24. See SG/Inf(2019)12, para. 51. A/73/880, para. 20. 11