A/HRC/8/3 page 23 66. Similarly, the Special Rapporteur has encountered situations in which the Government has considered a clemency application solely on the basis of a written report by the trial judge rather than on submissions by the condemned person.84 Reliance on a report from the trial judge reflects an unduly limited understanding of the reasons that pardon and commutation should sometimes be granted. Evidentiary and procedural rules mean that certain considerations central to matters of mercy are marginalized or even excluded in the trial and appellate process. For example, commutation may be thought to be warranted because a murder was triggered by events that make it relatively understandable even if they do not suffice to excuse criminal liability, because a society’s attitudes towards the death penalty have changed since trial, because exonerating evidence has arisen, or because a prisoner, though guilty of murder, has been successfully rehabilitated on death row. A trial judge’s report on a case will not speak to these and other reasons that might move a Government to show mercy. Indeed, sometimes the circumstance that might suggest the desirability of pardon does not even come to pass until after the trial has finished. The safest guarantee that the possibility of pardon or commutation will achieve their goals is for the condemned person to have the opportunity to invoke any personal circumstances or other considerations that might appear relevant to him or her. 67. In conclusion, both law and practice demand that the “right to seek pardon or commutation” be accompanied by essential procedural guarantees if it is not to be turned into a meaningless formality that does little or nothing to further the purposes for which the right was recognized. Those procedural guarantees include the right of the condemned person to affirmatively request pardon or commutation; to make representations in support of this request referring to whatever considerations which might appear relevant to him or her; to be informed in advance of when that request will be considered; and to be informed promptly of whatever decision is reached. C. Prisoners running prisons 68. “There’s a small group that’s in charge within the prison; they beat people; they order killings; they control the drug trafficking.”85 While this comment was made over a decade ago by a female prisoner in Brazil, it is a phenomenon that is common today in many prisons around the world, in both developed and developing countries.86 It is also a problem that the Special Rapporteur has encountered first-hand in several country visits. Because extrajudicial killings frequently occur in such circumstances, it is an issue which demands the attention of the Council. 69. From the perspective of the authorities, the logic of handing the control of prisons to gangs is not difficult to understand. The gangs are close to the ground, well informed and provide their 84 See, e.g., E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.1, pages 232-242. 85 Human Rights Watch, Behind Bars in Brazil (1998), at www.hrw.org/reports98/brazil/ Brazil-12.htm. 86 See e.g. in relation to the United States, Christian Parenti, Lockdown America (1999); and Gerald G. Gaes et al., “The Influence of Prison Gang Affiliation on Violence and Other Prison Misconduct”, 9 March 2001, at www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/ cond_envir/oreprcrim_2br.pdf.