openness to international inspection of jails and police stations. In the discussion, the necessity of protecting democracy and human rights against terrorism was underlined. In this context, reference was made to the need for implementation of the relevant CSCE commitments, particularly those relating to co-operation among CSCE participating States. In the course of the exchange of information on the question of the abolition of capital punishment, a number of participants noted a trend towards the abolition of capital punishment within the CSCE community and urged that implementation of CSCE commitments in this area be understood to mean efforts towards the abolition of capital punishment. A suggestion was also made that participating States consider declaring a de facto CSCE-wide moratorium on executions. At the same time, it was pointed out that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights accepts the right of States to apply the death penalty, and that international norms are not violated if this is done with stringent procedural safeguards and due process. Some who spoke in opposition to capital punishment raised particular concern over the use of capital punishment for juveniles, and noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits the death sentence for individuals under the age of eighteen. It was pointed out that at least one participating State has entered a reservation to the relevant article of the Covenant. A number of participants suggested that compliance with existing CSCE commitments in this area could be improved by tasking the ODIHR to establish a framework for the exchange of information on the question of the abolition of capital punishment. Many participants raised the need for better implementation of commitments in the field of international humanitarian law. Some felt it was important to strengthen the normative basis for these commitments, particularly to clarify and strengthen the rules of international law applicable to internal disturbances and tensions. Many emphasised the importance of education and the dissemination of information, and encouraged both bilateral and multilateral efforts in this regard. It was suggested that the CSCE could take concrete steps in this area. Such steps might include making preparations, on a preventive basis, for establishing humanitarian corridors. These could include the introduction of arrangements for giving formal effect to the right of access, the establishment of a list of NGOs engaged in the delivery of humanitarian relief, and the establishment of focal points responsible for collecting such information in each participating State. A number of participants referred to the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, and commended the Government of Switzerland for commissioning a study by independent experts to explore practical ways and means for States to promote respect for international humanitarian law. In addition, a number of participants urged the promotion of non-derogable minimum humanitarian standards, which would be applicable in all situations, including internal disturbances and tensions. Specific reference was made to the possible consideration by the United Nations of a declaration of minimum humanitarian standards. Numerous delegations reaffirmed their strong support for the international war crimes tribunal to prosecute those accused of crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia. In view of the discussion, the following informal recommendations can be made: Prevention of torture: - Participating States should make the prevention of torture a priority area of implementation. Participating States which have not acceded to relevant international instruments concerning the prevention of torture should do so. - In view of the factors raised in the course of debate, the ODIHR should serve as a clearing-house for CSCE ODIHR BULLETIN Vol. 2, No. 1 41