A/HRC/4/20 page 33 149 Ibid. 150 Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845/1998 (2002), para. 7.3. 151 The HRC has affirmed its holding in Thompson in a number of its other final views. Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845/1998 (2002); Carpo et al. v. The Philippines, No. 1077/2002 (2002); Pagdayawon Rolando v. Philippines, Communication No. 1110/2002 (2004); Ramil Rayos v. Philippines, Communication No. 1167/2003 (2004); Hussain et al. v. Guyana, Communication No. 862/1999 (2005); Mr. Webby Chisanga v. Zambia, Communication No. 1132/2002 (2005); Lawrence Chan v. Guyana, Communication No. 913/2000 (2006); Larrañaga v. the Philippines, Communication No. 1421/2005 (2006); Raymond Persaud and Rampersaud v. Guyana, Communication No. 812/1998 (2006). 152 The logical structure of the conclusion reached by these various judicial and quasi-judicial bodies was clearly stated by the Privy Council in Bowe in the following syllogism: (1) It is a fundamental principle of just sentencing that the punishment imposed on a convicted defendant should be proportionate to the gravity of the crime of which he has been convicted; (2) The criminal culpability of those convicted of murder varies very widely; (3) Not all those convicted of murder deserve to die. Bowe v. The Queen, Privy Council Appeal No. 44 of 2005 (8 March 2006) (appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas), para. 29. 153 Mithu v. State of Pubjab, 2 S.C.R. 690, 704, 707-708 (1983) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 154 Mithu v. State of Pubjab, 2 S.C.R. 690, 704 (1983). 155 HRC, General Comment 6 (1982) (emphasis added); see also Baboeram et al. v. Suriname, Communication No. 146/1983 and 148 to 154/1983 (1985), para. 14. 156 Woodson et al. v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 304-305 (1976) (internal citations omitted). -----