A/HRC/30/21 H. Role of domestic courts, national human rights institutions and other stakeholders 43. Several delegates recommended analysis of cases in which domestic courts had sought to interpret constitutional human rights provisions consistent with regional and international human rights standards, thereby creating rich sources of jurisprudence on capital punishment. Such an analysis could contribute to advance discussion on the abolition of the death penalty and harmonization of death penalty regimes across borders. A 1995 judgement of the Constitutional Court of South Africa was highlighted, in which the Court had declared the death penalty unconstitutional and had stated that: “The rights to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights, and the source of all other personal rights ... By committing ourselves to a society founded on the recognition of human rights we are required to value these two rights above all others.”10 That implied that, by retaining a punishment that did not testify to high regard for human dignity and the value of human life, the State had contributed to the degeneration of the moral fibre of the society. The State as a role model for society had to take the lead not only in preaching respect for the law but in demonstrating regard for human life and dignity. 44. Several delegates emphasized that various stakeholders, including national human rights institutions, civil society, political organizations, parliamentarians, religious bodies, academic institutions and networks, and trade unions, had a role to play in advancing the abolition of the death penalty. It was emphasized that OHCHR should advance the cause of abolition by disseminating factual information, increasing awareness and understanding of the implications of the death penalty, and through technical assistance. The role of the International Commission against the Death Penalty and the World Congress against the Death Penalty in advancing global abolition was also highlighted.11 V. Conclusions 45. In its concluding remarks, the panel emphasized that it was the international community’s responsibility to move towards universal abolition of the death penalty. States had to protect human dignity as part of the overall protection of human rights for all. By abolishing the death penalty, States placed human dignity at the centre. It was also stated that abolition required political and technical support as well. 46. The panel reiterated that regional mechanisms must play their role effectively. As they were closer to the ground and had a better understanding of the regional context, they were well placed to encourage States that maintained the death penalty to respect human rights. The example of Europe illustrated that regional and multilateral organizations were key to advancing abolition. A key lesson learned in Europe was that abolition could become a reality only as a result of increasing awareness and exchange of ideas between countries and societies. Experience gathered in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East showed that it was possible to move gradually towards abolition through dialogue and advocacy and that the death penalty was not about any particular culture or any religion. 47. The panel also encouraged further research, particularly into the socioeconomic profile of those who were subjected to the death penalty, assessing to 10 11 12 South Africa: Constitutional Court, State v. Makwanyane and Another, 1995 (6) BCLR 665. The sixth World Congress against the Death Penalty will be hosted by Norway in 2016.