A/HRC/33/20 B. Persons with mental or intellectual disabilities 57. In accordance with international human rights law, the death penalty should not be imposed on persons with mental or intellectual disabilities. The judiciary in several States took the initiative of addressing the issue of the use of the death penalty against persons with mental or intellectual disabilities, in particular regarding the acceptance of evidence of mental illness. For example, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland quashed a death sentence after accepting medical evidence adduced that clearly demonstrated that the accused suffered from chronic schizophrenia.48 However, presenting such evidence is reportedly hampered by the lack of resources available for obtaining forensic psychiatric and psychological evaluations. 58. Pakistan reportedly executed death row prisoners with mental disabilities. The Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities called on the authorities in Pakistan to protect the right to health of inmates in death row with severe psychosocial disabilities, irrespective of their legal situation, guaranteeing their access to the health services required by their situation. They reminded Pakistan of its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which it is a party. They noted that the Government of Pakistan was bound to respect, in particular, the right to life and the inherent dignity of detainees with disabilities, and must provide reasonable accommodation in detention. 49 VI. Human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed 59. In its resolution 30/5 on the question of the death penalty, the Human Rights Council acknowledged the rights of children of parents sentenced to death or executed. It called upon States to ensure that children whose parents or parental caregivers were on death row, the inmates themselves, their families and their legal representatives were provided, in advance, with adequate information about a pending execution, its date, time and location, to allow a last visit or communication with the convicted person, the return of the body to the family for burial or to inform them where the body is located, unless that was not in the best interests of the child. In that resolution, the Council built on past consensus language from its resolution 19/37 on the rights of the child. 60. When examining reports of State parties, the Committee on the Rights of the Child continued to address the issue of human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed. For example, in its concluding observations on the periodic report of the United Arab Emirates (CRC/C/ARE/CO/2), the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concerns about the impact on children where the death penalty is imposed on their parents and the lack of attention paid to providing psychological support for such children (ibid., para. 51). The Committee recommended that the State take into consideration the existence of children and their best interests when considering the death penalty and provide psychological and other support necessary to children whose parents have been sentenced to death (ibid., para. 52). 48 49 16 Trindad and Tobago, Stephen Robinson v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago), judgment of 20 July 2015. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16275&LangID=E.