A/HRC/33/20 executions is reportedly withheld from family members and lawyers of death row prisoners until the completion of the executions in some States, including Belarus, 9 Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, South Sudan and Viet Nam. 21. Difficulties in obtaining information are compounded in countries affected by conflict, where it may not be possible to obtain sufficient reliable information to confirm the number of executions and other relevant details. The United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq received several reports of executions being carried out, but no confirmation was obtained from the Iraqi authorities. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed its concern with regard to the fact that the Iraqi Ministry of Justice had ceased to communicate information to the United Nations in relation to the carrying out of executions.10 22. While examining the report of China, the Committee against Torture expressed concern about the lack of specific data on the application of the death penalty, which prevented it from verifying whether that new legislation was actually being applied in practice (see CAT/C/CHN/CO/5, para. 49). In its concluding observations on the report of Saudi Arabia (see CAT/C/SAU/CO/2, para. 42), the Committee expressed it deep concern about the continued existence of the death penalty and the failure of the State party to provide data requested by the Committee on the number of persons executed or on death row as well as, inter alia, the gender, age, nationality and other relevant demographics of the persons affected, and for what specific offences. The Committee called upon Saudi Arabia, inter alia, to provide disaggregated data on the number of individuals on death row and the number executed, detailing for which offences and whether any minors or persons with mental disabilities had been sentenced to death and/or executed and the other data required (ibid., para. 43). IV. Safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty Restriction of use of the death penalty to “most serious crimes” A. 23. State parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that have not yet abolished the death penalty should only impose it for the “most serious crimes”. Crimes not resulting directly and intentionally in death do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” under international human rights law. 11 In the same vein, a limited degree of involvement or complicity in the commission of even the most serious crimes, such as providing the physical means for the commission of murder or failing to prevent it, cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty. In draft general comment No. 36 being discussed by the Human Rights Committee, the Committee has stated that States parties are under an obligation to constantly review their criminal laws so as to ensure that the death penalty can be imposed, if at all, only for the most serious crimes and only for their chief perpetrators. 24. Drug-related offences do not meet the criteria for “most serious crimes”. There is no persuasive evidence that the use of the death penalty is a greater deterrent than other methods of punishment in eradicating drug trafficking or other drug-related offences, nor 9 10 11 The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus has expressed concerns on the lack of transparency in the proceedings of the death penalty cases in Belarus (see A/HRC/29/43). See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=17051&LangID=E. See Human Rights Committee, draft general comment No. 36, 2015. 7