A/HRC/36/27 welcomed the continuing trend towards abolition and called for a universal moratorium with a view to universal abolition. Some representatives referred to the call for abolition as central to their foreign policy. Others referred to the remarks made by the SecretaryGeneral 13 and the High Commissioner 14 at the start of the thirty-fourth session of the Human Rights Council, in which they touched on the death penalty and called for action towards its abolition. Reference was also made to the argument made by the former Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that international law could no longer be described as “retentionist”, but instead that it required the progressive abolition of the death penalty (see A/71/372, para. 39). A number of representatives urged States to act in accordance with the spirit of article 6 (6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 1. National policies and practices regarding the question of the death penalty 22. Several State representatives said that the right to life was enshrined in their national Constitutions, prohibiting the imposition and implementation of executions, and that the protection of that right was a State’s duty. Others pointed out that it was critical for States to interpret the right to life broadly. Many representatives said that the death penalty was incompatible with human rights, justice and human dignity, and violated the right to life. Some also referred to the dignity of the whole of society and said that the death penalty made killers of us all and that it was an affront to the dignity of all human beings. They emphasized that the abolition of the death penalty contributed to the progressive development and consolidation of human rights. The death penalty had no place in modern policies to combat crime. The aim of prison systems was to rehabilitate and reintegrate people into society, and the death penalty went against that aim. Some representatives emphasized that the abolition of the death penalty was a matter of principle, not culture. Accordingly, the death penalty in States that retained it should be progressively discontinued. 23. In terms of the practices adopted by States, it was noted that Fiji had removed the only reference to the death penalty in its legal system and that it did so under the weight of domestic and international opinion, because there was the necessary political will and as a result of the discussions held during the 2014 universal periodic review. Mongolia too had amended its criminal code to reflect the decision to abolish the death penalty. Some representatives noted that capital punishment had, during recent years, been reinstated in a number of States following a period of moratoriums. Others expressed concern about an increase in recent executions in States in the Persian Gulf region. The decrease in death sentences and executions in the United States during 2016 was noted, as was the fact that death sentences in that country were imposed in an arbitrary manner, depending not on the seriousness of the crime but on the poor quality of defence lawyers, the race of the accused or the victim and the county and state in which the crime occurred. Some representatives highlighted incremental reforms introduced to phase out the use of the death penalty. In that regard, reference was made to the experience of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Among the incremental steps that States could take were restricting the scope of the application of the death penalty and strengthening safeguards, appeals and clemency options. 24. Some representatives stated that the death penalty was a matter of criminal justice, rather than human rights, and that its use was vital for guaranteeing peace, security and human rights for their citizens. There was no international consensus that the death penalty, when applied in accordance with due process and judicial safeguards, violated the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Rejecting that argument, several other representatives highlighted the fact that human rights were universal and every State’s criminal justice system should respect international human rights law obligations. Several representatives referred to various provisions of international human rights treaties that imposed restrictions on the use of the death penalty. 13 14 8 https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-02-27/secretary-generals-human-rights-councilremarks. www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21229&LangID=E.