A/HRC/10/44 page 21 64. If testing is indispensable, the way in which it is undertaken needs to be least intrusive and respect the dignity of the person subjected to the testing. In this context, a case before the European Court of Human Rights is of interest, even though it concerns the process of securing evidence.54 65. If forcible testing is done on a discriminatory basis without respecting consent and necessity requirements, it may constitute degrading treatment, especially in a detention setting. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur welcomes the clear language used in the UNAIDS/WHO policy statement on HIV testing of 2004, regarding consent, which requires that, in order to be able to provide informed consent, the patients should at a minimum be informed of the clinical benefit and the prevention benefits of testing, their right to refuse, the follow-up services that will be offered and, in the event of a positive test result, the importance of anticipating the need to inform anyone at ongoing risk who would otherwise not suspect they were being exposed to HIV infection.55 The statement also mentions the right to confidentiality, which, if not respected, might raise concerns regarding inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 4. Use of the death penalty and discriminatory treatment in the administration of justice 66. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that, in some countries, drug offences are punishable by the death penalty and consequently convicts are held on death row or sentenced to life-imprisonment. The Human Rights Committee, in its general comment No. 6 on the right to life, clearly stated that, under article 6 (2), States were obliged to restrict the application of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes”, which does not include drug-related crimes.56 This position has been reiterated by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.57 In the Special Rapporteur on torture’s view, drug offences do not meet the threshold of most serious crimes. Therefore, the imposition of the death penalty on drug offenders amounts to a violation of the right to life, discriminatory treatment and possibly, as stated above, also their right to human dignity. 54 “The authorities subjected the applicant to a grave interference with his physical and mental integrity against his will. They forced him to regurgitate, not for therapeutic reasons, but in order to retrieve evidence they could equally have obtained by less intrusive methods. The manner in which the impugned measure was carried out was liable to arouse in the applicant feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority that were capable of humiliating and debasing him. Furthermore, the procedure entailed risks to the applicant’s health, not least because of the failure to obtain a proper anamnesis beforehand. Although this was not the intention, the measure was implemented in a way which caused the applicant both physical pain and mental suffering. He therefore has been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.” Jalloh v. Germany, 11 July 2006, para. 82. 55 See www.who.int/rpc/research_ethics/hivtestingpolicy_en_pdf.pdf. 56 General comment No. 6/16 of 27 July 1982 in A/37/40, annex V. 57 A/HRC/4/20, para. 53.