A/HRC/27/23 18. Brunei Darussalam adopted a new penal code that imposes the death penalty for numerous offences. The new code also introduces stoning to death as the specific method of execution for rape, adultery, sodomy and extramarital sexual relations. 19. Papua New Guinea extended capital punishment to sorcery-related killings, aggravated rape and robbery with violence; it also approved new means of execution, including lethal injection, hanging, electrocution, firing squad and death by deprivation of oxygen.15 The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) expressed regrets over Papua New Guinean legislative action to resume the use of the death penalty and noted that such measures marked a significant regression in the human rights progress that Papua New Guinea had made, and contradicted the global trend towards the abolition of the death penalty.16 20. Maldives adopted a new regulation in April 2014 that provides for the imposition of the death penalty for intentional murder, even for individuals who are under 18. OHCHR expressed deep concern about the new regulation of Maldives to implement the death penalty, which ended the country’s 60-year moratorium on the death penalty.17 21. In the United States of America, a law known as the Timely Justice Act was adopted in the State of Florida, which requires the Governor to sign a death warrant within 30 days of the conclusion of clemency review and to schedule execution within 180 days of the issuance of the warrant. III. Making information on the use of the death penalty available 22. In accordance with General Assembly resolution 67/176, States should make available relevant information with regard to their use of the death penalty, including accurate data on the number of persons sentenced to death, the number of persons on death row and the number of executions. 23. During a panel discussion on the human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed, convened by the Human Rights Council in September 2013 at its twenty-fourth session, several States and non-governmental organizations, noted that the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment had all expressed concerns regarding the lack of transparency surrounding executions. They also recalled that the human rights mechanisms viewed the failure to provide information concerning executions as amounting to a violation of international human rights law (see A/HRC/25/33, para. 25). 24. However, as noted by the Secretary-General in previous reports (A/HRC/4/78, A/HRC/8/11, A/HRC/12/45, A/HRC/15/19, A/HRC/18/20, A/HRC/21/29 and A/HRC/24/18), it is difficult to obtain up-to-date and accurate global figures on the application of the death penalty, owing to the continued lack of transparency on the part of some Governments. In Belarus, China and Viet Nam, data on the use of the death penalty is classified as a State secret, the disclosure of which constitutes a criminal offence. Furthermore, difficulties in obtaining information are compounded in countries affected by conflict, where it may not 15 16 17 6 Amnesty International, “Papua New Guinea: keep the Pacific free of death penalty”. Available from www.amnesty.org.nz/our-work/end-death-penalty/papua-new-guinea. UN News Centre, “Papua New Guinea’s plans to resume death penalty ‘major setback’ – UN”, 17 May 2013. Available from www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44930. UN News Centre, “Maldives should repeal new regulation providing for death penalty, says UN rights office” 29 April 2014. Available from www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47680.