A/HRC/8/11 page 8 fact that the body of the executed person is not returned to the family for burial.15 The Committee noted its satisfaction to one State party that a de facto moratorium on the death penalty is in force.16 20. The Human Rights Committee also continued the examination of individual cases involving capital punishment under the ICCPR. In several cases adopted during 2007,17 the Committee recalled that the imposition of a death sentence upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of the Covenant have not been respected, constitutes a violation of article 6. In these particular cases, the death sentence was pronounced without the requirements for a fair trial set out in article 14 having been met. The Committee therefore concluded that the right protected under article 6 had also been violated. 21. In July 2007 the Committee adopted General Comment 32 on article 14 of the Covenant (Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial).18 In the general comment, the Committee surveyed the extent of States’ obligations under article 14 of the Covenant, including the relationship between this article and other articles of the Covenant such as articles 4 (derogations during a state of emergency) and 6 (the right to life). The Committee made a number of observations relevant to the application of the death penalty. It reaffirmed the position that scrupulous respect of the guarantees of fair trial is particularly important in trials leading to the imposition of the death penalty, and thus that the imposition of a sentence of death upon conclusion of a trial, in which the provisions of article 14 have not been respected, constitutes a violation of the right to life (article 6 of the Covenant).19 Further, it affirmed that this consequence would not change during a declared public emergency under article 4 of the Covenant, because the right to life is non-derogable under that article.20 The Committee also affirmed the position that those accused of capital offences must be effectively assisted by a lawyer at all stages of the proceedings (including on appeal), and misbehaviour or incompetence on Counsel’s part (for example the withdrawal of an appeal without consultation or the absence during the hearing of a witness in such cases) may entail the responsibility of the State concerned 15 CCPR/C/BWA/CO/1, Botswana, 28 March 2008. 16 CCPR/C/GRD/CO/1, Grenada, 25 July 2007. 17 Communication No. 1043/2002, Chikunova v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 16 March 2007; Communication No. 1108/2002 and 1121/2002, Karimov and Nursatov v. Tajikistan, Views adopted on 27 March 2007; Communication No. 1041/2001, Tulyaganova v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 20 July 2007; Communication No. 1017/2001 and 1066/2002, Strakhov and Fayzullaev, Views adopted on 20 July 2007; Communication No. 1140/2002, Khudayberganov v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 24 July 2007; Communication No. 1150/2003, Uteeva v. Uzbekistan, Views adopted on 26 October 2007. 18 CCPR/C/GC/32. 19 Ibid., para. 59. 20 Ibid., para. 6.