A/HRC/36/27 to the death penalty. Representatives also drew attention to the work of two former Special Rapporteurs on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, who had referred to the existence of an evolving standard by which the death penalty constituted torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Other representatives recommended that OHCHR study the connection between the death penalty and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 1. Confessions obtained as a result of torture 36. Several representatives expressed concern about torture being used to obtain confessions in cases that have led to the imposition of the death penalty. Some individuals who were tortured had confessed to capital crimes they had not committed. Convictions based on forced confessions allegedly extracted through torture or under duress in China, including in Taiwan, Bahrain, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen were mentioned. Some representatives recommended that national human rights institutions investigate allegations of confessions obtained through torture and present their findings to national judicial systems. 2. Lack of transparency 37. Several representatives spoke of the international human rights jurisprudence that held that lack of transparency, particularly in relation to secret executions, and lack of information concerning the timing of executions, the place of burial or the possibility of having a loved one’s body returned constituted torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When discussing best practices in relation to trials in jurisdictions where the death penalty was still available, representatives noted that such trials must take place transparently so as to respect the rights of all people concerned. Secret executions were widely criticized as being deeply unfair to all concerned. The State secrets policy applied by China in relation to the number of people on death row and information about executions was mentioned in that regard. 38. The need for disaggregated, comprehensive, transparent and current data was emphasized. Such data would help inform the public and policymakers about the reality, efficacy and negative impacts of the death penalty. Data should be collected on the number of executions, the number of prisoners on death row and on the time lapse from sentencing to execution. Data should be disaggregated by offence, gender and sexual orientation, nationality and immigration status, economic and social status, and the profile of lawyers assigned to provide counsel. Such data could be used to analyse discrimination and the effectiveness of legal aid, to enhance transparency in the criminal justice system and to educate the public, judges and public figures about the death penalty and its consequences. 39. A number of representatives observed that a lack of transparency made it impossible to hold productive debates on the death penalty and its abolition. The role of political leaders in changing public opinion was also highlighted, as was the need for leaders to be well informed and courageous when presenting arguments in favour of abolition of the death penalty. 3. Poor and marginalized individuals 40. Some representatives observed that arguments in favour of abolition included the fact that, in practice, the death penalty discriminated between those who could and those who could not afford a good defence. Others observed that poor and marginalized individuals were disproportionately affected by the death penalty, as they were those most often accused of capital crimes and those least likely to benefit from effective and adequate legal representation. The absence of adequate legal assistance raised questions about the fairness of trials. The social and economic implications of capital punishment needed to be discussed. 11