A/HRC/42/25 discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law. It had further emphasized the need to ensure equal access to justice, in particular for poor and economically vulnerable persons. Those important elements of the resolution aimed at reducing the injustices associated with the application of the death penalty. 13. Mr. Shany drew the attention of the Council to another important normative development, namely the adoption by the Human Rights Committee of its general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, which the Committee regarded as the supreme right. In its general comment, the Committee addressed the tension between the right to life articulated in paragraph 1 of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the regulation of the death penalty in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of the same article. He observed that part of the solution to that conundrum was found in paragraph 6, which reaffirmed the position that all States should be on an irrevocable path towards the complete abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty could not be reconciled with full respect for the right to life, and abolition of the death penalty was both desirable and necessary for the enhancement of human dignity and the progressive development of human rights. It was contrary to the object and purpose of article 6 for States parties to increase the application of the death penalty or to reduce the number of pardons and commutations they granted. 14. Mr. Shany noted that, in its general comment, the Committee underscored the need to narrowly construe the conditions under which the death penalty might be applied. It considered the “most serious crimes” only as serious crimes involving intentional killing, and emphasized that such crimes could never include offences whose very criminalization violated freedom of expression, freedom of religion and other civil and political freedoms. That was reflected in Council resolution 36/17, in which the Council urged States to ensure that the death penalty was not imposed as a sanction for specific forms of conduct such as apostasy, blasphemy, adultery and consensual same-sex relations. The Committee underscored that all international due process safeguards must be observed, and cruel, inhuman or degrading methods of execution were prohibited. 15. Mr. Shany quoted the general comment, which stipulated that the death penalty must not be imposed in a discriminatory manner contrary to the requirements of articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. It also stated that data suggesting that members of religious, racial or ethnic minorities, indigent persons or foreign nationals were more likely to face the death penalty might indicate an unequal application of the death penalty, which raised concerns related to article 2 (1), read in conjunction with article 6, and to article 26. Furthermore, factors related to age, parenthood, disability and past victimhood might mitigate against the application of the death penalty. The death penalty should not be imposed on individuals who faced special barriers in defending themselves on an equal basis with others, such as persons whose serious psychosocial and intellectual disabilities impeded their effective defence, and persons who had limited moral culpability. Mr. Shany concluded his opening remarks by noting that the Human Rights Committee maintained an ongoing dialogue with retentionist States aimed at persuading them to abolish the death penalty and thereby fulfil the vision of the drafters of the Covenant. 16. In response to the moderator’s request that he explain the process that led to the complete abolition of the death penalty in Nepal, making it a leader in the Asian region, Mr. Gyawali began by noting that, in Nepal, the right to life was considered sacred and inviolable, and the basis of all other human rights. Respect for personal liberty, integrity, the dignity of human life and human rights lay at the core of the choice by Nepal to completely abolish the death penalty. It was a conscious national choice and a reflection of shared values. Mr. Gyawali noted that there was no consensus yet at the international level on the question of the death penalty, with arguments on both sides and national jurisprudence based on national perspectives. 17. Mr. Gyawali presented the background to abolition in Nepal. The first moratorium on the death penalty had come in 1931, with some exceptions related to the army and sedition. Even at times when the death penalty had not been abolished, it had been used only in the rarest of cases. Legal reforms following political changes in the country had always taken an abolitionist approach. The death penalty had been abolished in law by an amendment to the National Code in 1964, but remained for serious military crimes and crimes of sedition, which were governed by a separate law. There had been a setback in 4