The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2017 the death penalty.121 Several states, including, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden, reaffirmed their strong opposition to the death penalty at all times and in all circumstances. These states further specified that they consider the death penalty a violation of the right to life and as cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.122 During the same panel, several states issued statements to highlight that the death penalty must be considered torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.123 In addition, in its response to the 2017 ODIHR questionnaire, Montenegro also recalled its statement during the panel, which was aimed to express concern that a number of countries announced their intention to reintroduce the death penalty and opposed reports that making execution methods more “humane” could justify the use of the death penalty. In December 2016, a number of participating States supported the adoption of the United Nations General Assembly resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty A/RES/71/187. Mongolia was one of the co-sponsors of the resolution.124 The governments of France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro, Norway, Romania, Spain, Slovenia and Switzerland emphasized their active engagement in the negotiations of the resolution. Italy explained that, prior to the adoption of the resolution, its task force, which was established in 2014 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, held three meetings in order to strengthen existing synergies and to foster the exchange of information between institutions and civil society on the question of the death penalty. Another noteworthy event held during the reporting period is the Sixth World Congress against the Death Penalty, which took place in Oslo in June 2016, sponsored by the governments of Australia, France and Norway. Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Spain and Switzerland recalled also their active involvement and financial contributions to the Congress. Furthermore, OSCE participating States that are also members of the European Union highlighted the initiatives undertaken under the “2013 EU Guidelines on the Death Penalty”, which present the objectives and elements of EU policy on the universal abolition of the death penalty. The Guidelines further specify that, where abolition is rejected, the EU promotes the use of minimum standards in relation to the death penalty.125 Many EU member States supported initiatives undertaken in 121  Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 26 June 2014, on the question of the death penalty, A/ HRC/RES/26/2 (16 July 2014), https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G14/084/95/PDF/G1408495. pdf?OpenElement; see also Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council, op. cit. note 23. 122  Item 3: Biennial high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, Joint Statement by Finland on behalf of Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, and Norway, 1 March 2017, <https://www. norway.no/en/missions/wto-un/norway-/statements-test/human-rights/human-rights-council/hrc-34th-session27-feb---25-march-2017/item-3/biennial-high-level-panel-discussion-on-death-penalty/>. 123  U.N. Doc. A/HRC/36/27, op. cit. note 24, para 34. 124  U.N. Doc. A/RES/71/187 op. cit. note 61. 125  EU Guidelines on Death Penalty, <https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/guidelines_death_penalty_ st08416_en.pdf>. 36