A/HRC/36/27 been and would remain a staunch advocate against the death penalty in Kenya. There was no humane way to extinguish a human life. 11. In response to questions from the moderator, the representative of Thailand to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights made remarks that focused on the following: the impact of a lack of transparency and efforts under way in Asia to address that lack of transparency; the most effective actions and policies for the long-term prevention of secret executions; whether a lack of transparency constituted torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and whether the mandatory use of the death penalty violated the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 12. In relation to the lack of transparency, secret executions carried out without the knowledge of family members constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for the prisoner and his or her family members, whose psychological condition was negatively affected by the lack of information and the abrupt and clandestine nature of the execution. A lack of transparency was symptomatic of a deficiency in the rule of law because transparency entailed a clear regulatory framework and the provision of information, including: a clear and fully disclosed reasoning for the death sentence; a proper procedure for seeking a pardon or commutation of the death penalty; and advance notification of the execution following the denial of pardon. Defendants with access to a lawyer had to have information on the qualifications and experiences of the lawyer and had to be informed that they could change lawyers. Particularly in States members of ASEAN, the existence of a mandatory death penalty, which compelled a court to impose the death penalty without providing defendants with the opportunity to address motivation and mitigating factors, violated defendants’ right to be heard and their right to life. Moreover, the mandatory death penalty precluded the courts from considering the circumstances of the offence and of the offender and any relevant aggravating factors. 13. Thailand had abolished the death penalty for minors and pregnant women and, as it had not executed anyone for eight years, was approaching de facto abolitionist status. However, Thailand should not only continue with its policy of gradually abolishing the death penalty, it should also examine the conditions of the approximately 120 prisoners who had been sentenced to death and who had sought pardons. The duration and condition of their incarceration and whether their long-term imprisonment constituted a form of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should be considered. Guidelines stipulating that prisoners who had been on death row for a certain amount of time should be entitled to an automatic pardon and release should be established. Thailand should engage with other ASEAN member States, especially those that retained the death penalty, to encourage abolition. 14. That was all the more urgent given that efforts had recently been made to reintroduce the death penalty. In that regard, once a State had ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, no reservation was possible, nor was the reintroduction of the death penalty. All States, in particular those that had ratified the Covenant, were called upon to adopt a strong position in favour of abolition. In its draft general comment No. 36, on article 6 of the Covenant, the Human Rights Committee should emphasize that States parties to the Covenant must not increase the number of crimes for which the death penalty could be imposed. All States were urged to reconsider the types of offences for which the death penalty was used and always apply the death penalty with extreme care and safeguards, and only for the most serious crimes. The death penalty should not be used to punish those guilty of drug offences, as capital punishment did not address the root causes of those offences and only offered a short-term solution. Moreover, it had been observed that the death penalty was often sought, in relation to drug offences, for political opponents and individuals from poor and marginalized populations. 15. In terms of future steps, the representative of Thailand to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights called for up-to-date, comprehensive, disaggregated and transparent data, including on the number of executions, the number of prisoners on death row and the time lapse from sentencing to execution. Data should be disaggregated by offence, gender and sexual orientation, nationality and immigration status, 5