A/HRC/27/26 III. Opening statement of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 7. In her opening statement, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights declared that she opposed the death penalty in all circumstances, and urged those States that still retained that punishment to abolish it. The High Commissioner acknowledged the accelerating progress made towards abolition since the adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which had asserted the human right to life. She noted that back then, 66 years previously, only 14 countries had abolished the death penalty, the majority of them in South America. Eighteen years later, at the time of the adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1966, there had still only been 26 abolitionist countries. In the face of such resistance, the drafters of the Covenant had been able to do little more than restrict the scope of the death penalty. Nevertheless, that had not been meant to justify the continuing use of the death penalty. In that regard, she referred to article 6, paragraph 6, of the Covenant, which stated: “Nothing in this article shall be invoked to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment by any State Party to the present Covenant.” She also noted that the adoption of the Covenant’s Second Optional Protocol in 1989 had given abolition a decisive new momentum. While welcoming the most recent moratoriums, the High Commissioner deplored the fact that approximately 20 States still continued to execute people, often in direct violation of international human rights standards. 8. The High Commissioner outlined several reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. First, the death penalty was not reconcilable with human rights, starting with the right to life. She pointed out that many countries whose people had been the victims of the most heinous crimes and violations had abolished the death penalty or did not use it. Those countries were pursuing justice but respected the right to life, a right that could not be negated by the thirst for vengeance. She also noted that the death penalty was cruel, inhumane and degrading, either per se or as applied. Furthermore, the application of the death penalty often violated the right to equality and non-discrimination. The decision whether to sentence a convict to death or to lesser punishment was often arbitrary, disproportionate and devoid of predictable rational criteria. In that “judicial lottery”, the odds were often stacked against the poor and against minorities and other common targets of discrimination. The second reason why the death penalty should be abolished was its finality. Even the most developed, well-functioning and robust legal systems, and those with multiple judicial safeguards, had, in many instances, put to death individuals who subsequently had been proved to be innocent. A third strong reason for abolishing the death penalty was the lack of merit of the common assertion that it had a deterrent effect. There was no evidence that the death penalty deterred crime any more than other forms of punishment. 9. The abolition of the death penalty often came into effect after a period of difficult national debate. To make sure that such debates were effective, transparent and fully reflective of the collective will, it was vitally important that the public be provided with balanced information and accurate statistics that covered all aspects of the discussion on criminality and described various effective ways, short of the death sentence, to combat it. With regard to arguments that abolishing the death penalty would go against the sentiments of the public, the High Commissioner emphasized that human progress did not stand still, and that popular support for the death penalty at a given moment did not imply that such support would persist in the future. She referred to undisputed historical precedents where laws, policies and practices inconsistent with human rights standards had had the support of a majority of the people; but had eventually been abolished or banned. She urged all States that still retained the death penalty to introduce a moratorium on it as a first step. She also emphasized that States should go beyond simply ceasing executions. They should aim for a 4