The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area violation of Article 3 of the ECHR.117 Most recently, on 29 January 2016, in the case of A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, the Court reiterated that the death penalty has become an unacceptable form of punishment that is no longer permissible under Article 2 of the ECHR, and that it amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 3 of the ECHR.118 The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has repeatedly expressed its dismay at death sentences handed down, stated that capital punishment runs counter to the values of the Council of Europe,119 and reaffirmed its beliefs in resolutions and public statements that the application of the death penalty constituted inhuman and degrading punishment.120 For instance, on 20 March 2016, the general rapporteur of PACE on abolition of the death penalty stated that, “the death penalty is inhumane and never justified, irrespective of the circumstances.”121 The PACE has been a driving force in the movement to abolish the death penalty since the 1980s. It gradually has persuaded governments to permanently outlaw the death penalty or to commit to a moratorium on executions. It also examines candidatures of states seeking membership in the Council of Europe; nowadays candidates are required to abolish the death penalty and to ratify Protocol No. 6. The Council of Europe is particularly attentive to individual non-European states, namely those with observer status with the organization, since they are expected to share common values. By way of example, its Resolution 1807 from 2011, reiterates the inhuman and degrading character of the death penalty.122 European Union representatives have stated on various occasions, including at UN and OSCE forums, that the EU finds the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, representing an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity,123 that its abolition contributes to the progressive development of human rights, and that capital punish117  Ibid., para. 136 and 144. 118  European Court of Human Rights, Case of A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia, Application no. 44095/14, judgement 29 January 2016, para. 120, <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-158148#{“itemid”:[“001-158148”]}:>; “the Court does not consider that the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 § 1 continues to act as a bar to its interpreting the words “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” in Article 3 as including the death penalty. 119  See PACE Resolution 1044, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16455&lang=en>; and Recommendation 1246 from 1994, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/ Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=15280&lang=en>; PACE Resolution 1097, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/ XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16508&lang=en>; and Recommendation 1302 from 1996, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=15336&lang=en>; PACE Resolution 1187 from 1999, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16702&lang=en>; See also statement of 24 November 2015, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-en.asp?newsid=5893&lang=2>; statement of 14 January 2016, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-en.asp?newsid=5975&lang=2>. 120  See Parliamentary Assembly, Resolution 1187 (1999), <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16702&lang=en>. 121  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, “Death penalty: concern at the latest events in Belarus and Russia”, 20 March 2015, <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/News/News-View-en.asp?newsid=5491&lang=2>. 122 PACE Resolution fileid=17986&lang=en>. 1807 (2011), <http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?- 123  Secretary General, op. cit., note 22, para. 28. 30