The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area by imposing a moratorium on executions as an interim measure.160 Belarus did not support recommendations calling for the ratification of the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and the implementation of the CAT recommendations on arbitrary and secret executions, recommendations calling to ensure respect for the fundamental rights of those persons convicted and their families, and recommendations calling to guarantee that the families of condemned persons have the opportunity to say goodbye and bury the corpses in accordance with international standards.161 On 6 November 2015, in the case of Pavel Selyun’s execution on 17 April 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Committee reiterated its jurisprudence that the imposition of a sentence of death upon the conclusion of a trial that did not meet the required fair trial standards constitutes a violation of the right to life. In the light of the Committee’s findings of a violation of the prohibition of torture, especially in the light of the complainant’s allegations of torture and ill-treatment to force him to confess guilt, which served as a basis for his conviction, the Committee concluded that the final death sentence and the subsequent execution of Mr. Selyun did not meet the requirements of article 14 and that, as a result, his right to life under article 6 of the ICCPR, in particular that a sentence of death may be imposed only in accordance with the law and not contrary to the provisions of the ICCPR, which implies that the procedural guarantees therein prescribed must be observed, has also been violated.162 On 21 January 2016, Belarus stated at the OSCE Permanent Council that the death penalty is being applied temporally until its abolition is decided, and that work on legislation, as well as public discussion on the application of the death penalty in Belarus, continues.163 The statement was made in response to the EU Statement on the death penalty in Belarus on 21 January 2016.164 On 10 March 2016, the Chairman of the Belarusian Parliament’s working group on the death penalty responded to the PACE Rapporteur on the Situation in Belarus’ statement that a moratorium would allow Belarus to return to PACE as a special guest. The response stated that this issue could not be subject to political bargaining, and that Belarusian society is not ready for the abolition of the capital punishment.165 On 10 March 2016 in Minsk, UNDP in Belarus and the Belarusian Foreign Ministry and the British Embassy hosted the conference, Death Penalty: Transcending the 160  Ibid. para. 129.30 and 31. 161  Ibid. para. 129.34 -50. 162  United Nations Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 2289/2013, (9 December 2015), <http:// juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/2034>; See also United Nations Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, <http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fGEC%2f6630&Lang=en>. 163  “Statement of the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Belarus to the OSCE, OSCE Permanent Council 1086th Meeting, 21 January 2016,” PC.DEL/56/16. 164  European Union, OSCE permanent Council No. 1086, Vienna, 21 January 2016, PC.DEL/52/16, <https:// eeas.europa.eu/delegations/vienna/documents/eu_osce/permanent_council/2016/pc_1086_eu_on_death_penalty_belarus.pdf>. 165  Viasna Human Rights Center, “PACE insists on moratorium on the death penalty in Belarus”, 10 March 2016 <http://spring96.org/en/news/82525>. 41