fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person’, will be a violation of the right to life.244 33. The rights of victim’s families are particularly important, including their right to a fair trial to have those responsible for the disappearance prosecuted and punished. As the Human Rights Committee has noted: ‘the anguish and stress caused to the author (wife of the victim) by the disappearance of her husband and the continued uncertainty concerning his fate and whereabouts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to the author's husband as well as the author herself’.245 D. The Death Penalty and the Right to Life 34. Many human rights treaties have stated that abolition of the death penalty, if not prohibited by the treaty itself, is desirable.246 Where the death penalty does exist, certain obligations will apply. 35. The penalty should only be imposed in accordance with a law available at the time the offence was committed.247 36. The sentence must be imposed by a competent court. 37. There is a requirement that states limit it to exceptional circumstances and only to the most serious crimes.248 In its General Comment No. 6, the Human Rights Committee noted that the terms ‘most serious crimes’ must be interpreted ‘restrictively’. The offences for which capital punishment will be applied should not be vaguely defined.249 38. The trial leading to the imposition of the death penalty should be fair and in compliance with the provisions of the relevant treaty in this regard. Failure to do so will not only violate the right to life but also the right to a fair trial.250 39. The death penalty must be carried out ‘in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering’.251 244 Communication 1874/2009, Faraoun v. Algeria , 18 October 2013, para 7(4) Communication 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, 30 March 2006. 246 See Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.6, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6, (2003) para 6. 247 The principle on non-retroactivity. 248 E.g. Article 6(2) ICCPR; Human Rights Committee General Comment No.6, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6, (2003) para 7. 249 Concluding Observations: Viet Nam CCPR/CO/75/VNM (2002), para 7. Similarly Syria, CCPR/CO/71/SYR (2001), para. 9 and Togo CCPR/CO/76/TGO (2002), para 10. 250 Human Rights Committee General Comment No.32, CCPR/C/GC/32 (2007), para 59. See also InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Tibi v. Ecuador. 7 September 2004. Series C No. 114, para 146; See also Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, 27 November, 2003. Series C No. 103, para 93; Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. 18 August 2000, Series C No. 69, par. 104. Human Rights Committee General Comment No.6, HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 127 (2003), para 16. Communication 702/1996, McLawrence v Jamaica, 18 July 1997, para 5.13. 251 Communication 470/1991, Kindler v Canada, 30 July 1993. 245 58