A/73/207 appalling conditions, exposes irregular migrants to substant ial risks of torture or illtreatment (A/HRC/37/50). 42. With regard to State authorities operating on the “front lines”, such as law enforcement and security personnel, prison staff and immigration officials, misguided institutional cultures are often conducive to the spread of torture and ill -treatment. In far too many national law enforcement systems, torture and ill -treatment are not effectively discouraged, confessions continue to be favoured and investiga tive outcomes are rewarded irrespective of the method used to achieve them. Political pressure to deliver results, appraisal systems focused on the number of crimes “solved” or convictions secured, combined with a lack of resources for forensic support and of training in modern criminal investigation techniques, often lead to coercive interrogation being seen as a “shortcut” to delivering the expected results, despite substantial evidence of its ineffective and counterproductive nature (A/71/298, paras. 10–12 and 16–22). Conversely, a practice-oriented, systematic integration of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment within policing culture not only significantly decreases the risk of excessive use of force a nd other forms of torture and ill-treatment, but also increases the population’s trust and cooperation, making policing more effective and promoting the rule of law. C. Direct challenges to the prohibition 1. Misinterpretation 43. Certain circumstances may give rise to genuine uncertainty regarding the precise scope of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment. In case of uncertainty as to the permissibility of a particular act, omission or situation, the prohibition must be interpreted in good faith and in the light of its object and purpose as reflected, inter alia, in international jurisprudence and the standards and guidelines developed for its implementation. If doubt persists, States should always err on the side of caution, given that the act, omission or situation in question can be permissible only once its qualification as torture or ill-treatment has been affirmatively excluded. Particular interpretive caution is required in circumstances involving persons with specific vulnerabilities, which may increase the likelihood of the prohibition being breached. 44. Under legislation in some States, corporal punishment is still provided for and domestic violence and chastisement, in particular against women and children, are tolerated. That must be regarded as incompatible with a contemporary understanding of human dignity and, therefore, cannot be justified as “lawful sanctions” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 15 Although the death penalty is not formally prohibited under international law, the wording of article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the adoption of its Second Optional Protocol clearly indicate an international commitment to work towards its abolition. It is the considered view of the Special Rapporteur that the circumstances accompanying the practice of the death penalty, including the “death row phenomenon”, almost invariably inflict a degree of pain and suffering on convicts and their relatives, which cannot be reconciled with the prohibition of torture and ill treatment and the underlying principle of human dignity (see A/67/279, paras. 42–51 and 78). __________________ 15 12/23 See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992) on article 7: prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (para. 5), a nd ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. I (Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2009), rule 91. 18-12051