The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area Covenant.46 Furthermore, the death penalty may only be imposed, “pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court” and may not be carried out against pregnant women or invoked for crimes committed by persons below the age of eighteen.47 The Covenant also provides that Article 6 may not be invoked to prevent or delay the abolition of the death penalty by states parties.48 This is supplemented by the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty. With the exception of Armenia, Belarus, the Holy See, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Tajikistan and the United States, all OSCE participating States are parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, including Canada, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, which are not state parties to the ECHR. Article 7 of the ICCPR expressly prohibits the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Under Article 1.1 of the Convention against Torture (CAT), torture is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person,” by, or with the instigation or consent of a public official or person acting in an official capacity, so as to intimidate, punish, or obtain information from the person, among other motives.49 Article 16.1 of the CAT prohibits other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment) committed by, or with the instigation or consent of public officials, that cause pain and suffering but do not reach the level of severity of torture nor carry the same motive requirements. The absolute prohibition of torture is a non-derogable, customary and jus cogens norm that no state is allowed to ignore.50 Under Article 1.1 of the CAT, the definition of torture, “does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions”.51 It has long been the view that this means that the death penalty cannot be considered, per se, a violation of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. However, current international debate is pointing to the conclusion that “lawful sanction” should be understood as sanctions that are lawful under both national and international law. As emphasized by various international judicial bodies and reports of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, the interpretation of what sanctions are to 46  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 6, para. 2, <http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx>. 47  Ibid. art. 6, para 5. 48  Ibid. 49  Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51), U.N. Doc. A/19/51 (1984), entered into force June 26, 1987, <http://www. un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/39/46>. 50  Jus cogens is a peremptory principle or norm recognized by the international community as a whole as being fundamental to the maintenance of an international legal order and from which no derogation is permitted. According to Article 38(1)(b) or the Statute of the International Court of Justice a customary norm is defined as “evidence of a general practice accepted as law.” This is usually determined through state practice applied under a sense of legal obligation or opinion juris. Evidence of state practice and opinio juris can be found in the signing and ratification of treaties, policy statements, and the votes and resolutions of political decision-making bodies. 51 CAT, op. cit., note 49,. art. 1, para. 1. 17