The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2017 the abolition of the death penalty would take place gradually by addressing issues of administrative, financial and legal nature.139 2.4 Abolitionist for Ordinary Crimes Only participating States 2.4.1. Kazakhstan Since 2010, Kazakhstan has been defined as a “de-facto abolitionist” in the ODIHR background paper on the death penalty. However, it was previously classified as “partly abolitionist”, meaning that the death penalty was abolished for crimes committed in peacetime, but retained for crimes committed in wartime. In light of a death sentence handed down in 2016, it would be, therefore, more appropriate to reclassify Kazakhstan as “abolitionist for ordinary crimes only.” This is a United Nations designation that refers 140 to countries whose laws retain the death penalty only for exceptional crimes, such as crimes in times of war or those committed against the state, such as treason, terrorism or armed insurrection. 141 An indefinite moratorium on executions has remained in place in Kazakhstan since the issuance of a presidential decree in 2003, when Kazakhstan halted executions and introduced life imprisonment as an alternative to the death sentence.142 Nevertheless, in November 2016, a specialized district criminal court of Almaty city handed down a death sentence on Ruslan Kulekbayev, a Salafi jihadist man found guilty of a shooting spree that ended with the death of eight policemen and two civilians.  During a OSCE Permanent Council meeting in November 2016, several OSCE participating States expressed their concern about the imposition of the death sentence on Kulekbayev.143 As a result of this shooting incident, discussions concerning the death penalty for terrorism related offences have revived in Kazakhstan. In particular, after a meeting held at the Parliament between the Committee on Constitutional Legislation, 139  Human Rights Council Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Twenty-fifth session, 2-13 May 2016, “Draft report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Tajikistan”, U.N. Doc. A/ HRC/WG.6/25/L.8, para. 10, <https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/document/tajikistan/session_25_-_ may_2016/a-hrc-wg.6-25-l.8.pdf>. 140  United Nations Economic and Social Council E/2015/49, “Capital punishment and implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, Report of the Secretary-General”, 13 April 2015,p. 8, <http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/DeathPenalty/E-2015-49.pdf.>; see also “Statement of Penal Reform International Exchange of views on the Question of abolition of capital punishment”, 26 September 2012, page 2, <http://www.osce.org/odihr/94289?download=true>. 141  Amnesty International, op. cit., note 63, p. 42 142  “The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2015” (OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2015)), p. 14. <http://www.osce.org/odihr/184581?download=true> and “The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2016” (OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (2016)), p. 38 at <http://www.osce.org/odihr/266186?download=true>. 143  Permanent Delegation of Norway to the OSCE, “Statement on the death penalty in Kazakhstan” as delivered by Counsellor Hilde Austad to the Permanent Council, 10 November 2016, <http://www.osce.org/ pc/281606?download=true>. 40