A/74/969 or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Slovakia also proposed establishing a mechanism to monitor the implementation of such a protocol. 38. Canada suggested that States might be more willing to support non -binding international standards than to support a binding instrument. Slovakia proposed the adoption of a resolution by the General Assembly if consensus could not be reached on the elaboration of a binding instrument. The United Kingdom also stressed the importance of remaining flexible with regard to the nature of such an instrument, at least until the potential scope and content of any standards became clearer. Brazil considered that the negotiation of an international legally binding instrument in that area was premature, given that it might result in the erection of unnecessary barriers to trade in products that had a legitimate purpose and use. It considered that the major challenge would be to define the scope of common international standards and that such standards should be reflected in trade guidelines or recommendations that would take into account relevant national and international human rights commitments already in place. V. Conclusions and recommendations 39. The prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international law under all circumstances. International, regional and domestic courts have recognized the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as customary international law. Much has been achieved in the fight against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, yet more action is needed to eradicate them fully. All measures taken towards eradicating torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment constitute an advance in the protection of human rights. 40. The information received from Member States revealed an uneven situation at both the regional and the national levels regarding the regulation of the import, export and transfer of goods used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The establishment of common international standards could ensure more effective regulation in this area. In that regard, relevant regional and national regulations may serve as a reference for consideration by Member States. 41. A majority of Member States that provided input expressed support for the establishment of common international standards. In their inputs, Member States outlined legal, practical and other considerations for the possible scope of a range of options to establish common international standards for the import, export and transfer of goods used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 42. With regard to possible categories of goods to be regulated under common international standards, several Member States proposed that goods that have no practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment, torture or other forms of ill-treatment be separated from goods that could be used for such purposes as well as other purposes. 43. A majority of Member States that provided input suggested that an exhaustive list of goods should be adopted in order to ensure consistency in the application of common international standards. Some States considered that such a list might nevertheless need to be updated regularly. The options they provided and the types of goods to be covered by common international standards should be examined in the light of existing international agreements 12/13 20-10185