The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 have a responsibility to promote such discussion, not the opposite.”50 More generally, governments and political leaders should consider the extent to which they are under the obligation to strengthen the human rights framework and ensure the protection of human rights of all citizens, even if this includes taking “unpopular” decisions. For instance, the abolition of torture and other ill-treatment has shown that in some states public opinion only shifted towards accepting the prohibition of torture after abolition and only after other methods of investigating crimes and evidence finding were shown to be more effective.51 In a similar way, after the public is made more aware of the possibility of errors and bias in criminal justice systems, as well as the questionable deterrent effect of the death penalty, their support diminishes.52 Crucially, “…perceptions of public opinion cannot lead the debate on the death penalty or justify departure from human rights commitments – political leadership must be exercised.”53 Public perceptions can only be influenced if there is much more awareness about the many serious problems associated with the death penalty as well as its lack of effectiveness in deterring crime, as discussed further below.54 Current rhetoric, also in OSCE participating States, demonstrates a worrying tendency towards “death penalty populism” while states should make relevant information available to the public and contribute to changing the public perception of the death penalty.55 “The death penalty is an effective deterrent for crime” and other arguments for capital punishment Another commonly used argument to maintain capital punishment or to justify its reintroduction is its alleged effectiveness. Widespread public misconceptions are often based on ideas that the death penalty is a deterrent that will stop people 50  “ODIHR Director raises concern over suggestions in some states to reintroduce capital punishment,” op. cit., note 26. 51  See Roger Hood’s examples of South Africa and Germany in terms of public opinion and abolition of death penalty, op. cit., note 39, p. 221; and the examples of France and Greece here: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, High-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, U.N. Doc. A/ HRC/30/21, 16 July 2015, para. 31. 52 Hood, op. cit., note 39, p. 228; and here: “World Congress Against the Death Penalty: Round table on “Why death penalty continues to be applied in Belarus?””, Council or Europe website, 28 March 2019, <https://www.coe. int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/world-congress-against-the-death-penalty-round-table-on-why-deathpenalty-continues-to-be-applied-in-belarus->. 53  The Death Penalty Project, “On the question of public opinion and the death penalty”, op. cit., note 38. 54  Ivan Šimonović succinctly lists what he considers as the social, political and economic costs of retribution through death penalty: Ivan Šimonović, “Introduction – An Abolitionist’s Perspective” in Moving Away from the Death Penalty: Argument, Trends and Perspectives, op. cit., note 9, p. 20. 55  See UN General Assembly, 73/175. Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, U.N. Doc. A/RES/73/175, 17 December 2018, para. 5: “Further welcomes initiatives and political leadership encouraging national discussions and debates on the possibility of moving away from capital punishment through domestic decision-making.” 18