A/HRC/33/20 53. Methods and procedures in some States result in the judgment of juveniles as adults and, subsequently, the subjection of juveniles to the death penalty. In Pakistan, trial courts are obliged to determine the defendant’s age. Courts, however, reportedly often fail to undertake that assessment and place the burden of proof of age upon the defendant,44 despite a significant number of citizens possessing no official documentation with which to prove their age. During the reporting period, cases were reported where proof was presented but disregarded by the court in favour of visual assessments conducted by the police or unverified documentation supplied by the claimant, or where evidence was dismissed due to it being raised at the “incorrect” stage of proceedings. In June 2015, three United Nations independent experts called on Pakistan to halt the execution of Shafqat Hussein, who was convicted of kidnapping and voluntary manslaughter committed as a child following a trial using evidence allegedly obtained through torture. 45 Mr. Hussein was executed by the authorities in August 2015. 54. As stated by the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its general comment No. 6 (2005) on the treatment of unaccompanied and separated children outside their country of origin, if there is a possibility that an individual facing the death penalty is a child, they should be treated as such. An individual who says that he or she is a child should be afforded all the special protections and rights contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the right not to be executed, unless it can be conclusively determined that the individual is an adult. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has also stated, in its general comment No. 10 (2007) on children’s rights in juvenile justice, that if there is no proof of age, the individual is entitled to a reliable medical or social investigation that may establish their age and, in the case of conflict or inconclusive evidence, the child shall have the right to the benefit of the doubt. 55. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh ruled that the mandatory death penalty was unlawful during the appeal of a man who was sentenced to death for rape and murder allegedly committed when he was 14 years of age. However, it did not order a re-sentencing of those who had been sentenced to death under the legislation and it appears that children may still be subject to a mandatory death sentence.46 All individuals, but in particular children, sentenced to death under legislation providing for the mandatory imposition of the death penalty should be re-sentenced through a process that takes into account the personal circumstances of the offender and the particular circumstances of the offence, including its specific aggravating or attenuating elements. 47 56. While the abolition of, or moratoriums on, the death penalty are welcome developments, concerns remain that they can lead to an increase in the number of juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment. The Special Rapporteur on the question of torture has stated that life imprisonment and lengthy sentences, such as consecutive sentencing, are grossly disproportionate and therefore cruel, inhuman or degrading when imposed on a child (see A/HRC/28/68, para. 74). States should therefore ensure that children are not sentenced to life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty. 44 45 46 47 Submission of Pakistan Justice Project, dated April 2016. The submission is on file with the Secretariat and is available for consultation. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16046&LangID=E. Child Rights Information Network, submission to the present report, available at www.crin.org/en/ library/publications/death-penalty-submission-secretary-generals-report-death-penalty-2016. See Human Rights Committee, draft general comment No. 36, 2015. See also communication No. 390/1990, Luboto v. Zambia, Views adopted on 31 October 1995, para. 7.2. 15