A/HRC/33/20 B. Restrictions to the scope of the death penalty or limitations of its use 6. In several de facto abolitionist States, as well as in States that continue to apply the death penalty, some noticeable initiatives restricting its use were recorded during the reporting period. In the Central African Republic, new legislation for the establishment of a special criminal court for investigating and prosecuting war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious human rights violations was adopted in 2015 that excluded the death penalty as possible punishment.3 7. The Israeli Parliament rejected a bill that would have made it easier for military and district courts to sentence to death those convicted of terrorism offences by allowing the decision on sentencing to be taken by a majority of judges instead of the unanimity currently required. 8. The Law Commission of India published its second report on the death penalty, which concluded that the “death penalty does not serve the penological goal of deterrence any more than life imprisonment” and that the reliance on the death penalty diverted attention from problems in the criminal justice system. The Commission fell short of recommending that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes, instead suggesting that it be retained for terrorism-related offences and waging war.4 C. International and regional instruments contributing to the abolition of the death penalty 9. The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, which has been ratified by 81 States as at the end of June 2016, is the key international treaty prohibiting the use of the death penalty. In particular, the Optional Protocol is significant as the absence therein of a procedural clause for withdrawal means that once a State has ratified it, the death penalty can never be reintroduced without violating international law. 10. Furthermore, States parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have an obligation thereunder to take all necessary measures to ensure that the death penalty cannot be reintroduced. Benin, which ratified the Second Optional Protocol in 2012, accepted recommendations under the universal periodic review to amend as soon as possible the draft criminal code and the draft code of criminal procedure to bring them into line with the Optional Protocol (see A/HRC/22/9, para. 108.4). The Human Rights Committee also recommended that Benin adopt the new Criminal Code as soon as possible so as to expressly abolish the death penalty (see CCPR/C/BEN/CO/2, para. 19). 11. Laws authorizing accession to the Second Optional Protocol were adopted in Togo and considered in the Niger. Furthermore, during the universal periodic review process, several States, including Armenia (A/HRC/29/11), the Marshall Islands (A/HRC/30/13 and A/HRC/30/13/Add.1), the Federated States of Micronesia (A/HRC/31/4/Add.1), Myanmar (A/HRC/31/13), Nauru (A/HRC/31/7), Saint Lucia (A/HRC/31/10), Sao Tome and Principe (A/HRC/31/17), Suriname (A/HRC/33/4) and Tajikistan (A/HRC/33/11) accepted recommendations to ratify the Second Optional Protocol. 2 3 4 4 Zimbabwe, Cuthbert Tapuwanashe Chawira and 13 others v. Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. Organic Law No. 15,003, sect. 59. Law Commission of India, Report No. 262, The Death Penalty, August 2015, paras. 7.1.1 and 7.2.4.