The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 raises questions about the United Kingdom’s own commitment to the abolition of the death penalty.277 On 18 January 2019, it was reported that the mother of one of these men was unsuccessful in challenging the Home Office “decision to share evidence with the US without seeking assurances that her son and another suspected jihadist terrorist would not face the death penalty.”278 Situations surrounding the repatriation of foreign terrorist fighters279 have also continued to attract widespread attention during the reporting period.280 Many foreign terrorist fighters are facing the possibility of trial and execution in Iraq. The ongoing debates in numerous abolitionist OSCE participating states about whether and how to repatriate foreign fighters and their families, highlight the many different approaches being taken and a lack of agreement about how to proceed.281 In this context, it is important to remind states about their international human rights obligations, including ensuring fair trials and the commitment to the eventual abolition of the death penalty.282 2.3 De-facto abolitionist participating States The Russian Federation and Tajikistan remain the only de-facto abolitionist countries in the OSCE region, while Kazakhstan is abolitionist for ordinary crimes, as will be discussed below. Both states retain capital punishment for crimes committed in peacetime, but executions are not carried out on the basis of moratoria, established in 1996 and 2004, respectively. Within the reporting period, neither the Russian Federation nor Tajikistan have ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, regarding abolition of the 277  Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, “Abolition of the death penalty in Council of Europe member and observer states, Belarus and countries whose parliaments have co-operation status – situation report”, 11 October 2018, p. 14, <http://website-pace.net/documents/19838/4228475/AS-JUR-2018-44-EN.pdf/91a2bcd1-5de04df3-9f37-9b0faff0e137>. 278  “Mother of alleged Isis killer loses legal fight against Home Office”, The Guardian, 18 January 2018, <https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/jan/18/mother-of-alleged-isis-hostage-killer-loses-legal-fight-home-office-death-penalty>. 279  For the controversies relating to this term, and associated human rights issues, see section 3.1: OSCE ODIHR, “Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” within a Human Rights Framework”, 2018, <https://www.osce.org/odihr/393503?download=true>. 280  For example, on 21 February 2019, the US President called for EU states to “take back” IS fighters: “Trump tells European countries to take back IS fighters”, BBC news, 21 February 2019, <https://www.bbc.com/news/ world-middle-east-47269887>. 281  Recent cases from various OSCE participating States are discussed here: “The Repatriation of Foreign Fighters and Their Families: Options, Obligations, Morality and Long-Term Thinking”, Tanya Mehra LL.M, Dr. Christophe Paulussen (ICCT), 6 March 2019, <https://icct.nl/publication/the-repatriation-of-foreign-fighters-and-their-families-options-obligations-morality-and-long-term-thinking/>. 282  For more information on responding to foreign terrorist fighter related challenges and threats from a human rights perspective, see: OSCE ODIHR, “Guidelines for Addressing the Threats and Challenges of “Foreign Terrorist Fighters” within a Human Rights Framework”, op. cit., note 279. 53