A/HRC/42/28 may serve as a powerful example for other States where use of the death penalty is shown to have been tinged by political considerations, bias and discrimination. VIII. Foreign nationals, deportation, extradition and transfer 41. The Human Rights Committee has recently stated that failure to promptly inform detained foreign nationals of their right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in cases resulting in the imposition of the death penalty would be a violation of the right to life. 95 Failure to afford individuals about to be deported to a country in which their lives were claimed to be at real risk with the opportunity to avail themselves of judicial recourse would similarly violate article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 96 In Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates, which both resumed use of the death penalty after a brief hiatus, it is reported that a significant proportion of persons sentenced to death for drug offences are foreign nationals, who in some cases have lacked access to consular support.97 42. The Human Rights Committee has further stated that it would be contrary to article 6 of the Covenant to deport, extradite or otherwise transfer an individual from a country that had abolished the death penalty to a country in which he or she might face the death penalty, unless credible and effective assurances against the imposition of the death penalty had been obtained.98 A number of States confirmed that they respected this approach in their submissions for the present report.99 Actual or threatened resumption of the use of the death penalty in a State may therefore create an obligation on third States to seek specific guarantees of non-application regarding nationals already transferred, or to refrain from any form of deportation, extradition or transfer where credible guarantees cannot be obtained. Resumption of use of the death penalty in a State can have a detrimental impact on citizens of that State accused of a crime abroad, as it may lead to the State no longer seeking such guarantees for crimes that carry the death penalty in both States. 100 IX. Role of the international community 43. Resumption of the use of the death penalty is a matter of international concern not only as it relates to international human rights law but also as regards its potential impact on bilateral and multilateral relations among States. A number of States and regional bodies highlighted in their submissions for the present report the important role of advocacy against the death penalty in their foreign policy. 101 The European Union drew attention to the Alliance for Torture-Free Trade, co-sponsored by Argentina and Mongolia, through which States committed to enact and enforce legislation to restrict trade in goods used for torture and the death penalty. The Council of Europe noted that it had established a European Day against the Death Penalty, which had become the World Day against the Death Penalty, celebrated on 10 October every year. Such measures are important elements of the growing international consensus against the death penalty and contribute to the goal, supported by the Secretary-General, of universal abolition of the death penalty. 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 General comment No. 36, para. 42. Ibid. A/HRC/36/26, para. 27, and submission of Reprieve. General comment No. 36, paras. 30 and 34. Submissions of Australia, Azerbaijan, Colombia, Ireland, Slovakia, South Africa, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Submission of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines; and Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, “Advisory on Overseas Filipino Workers on Death Row”, 8 October 2018. Submissions of Australia, Ireland, Montenegro, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the European Union. 13