The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area be considered lawful under international law may change over time.52 This can be illustrated with the example of judicial corporal punishment, which is nowadays considered an unlawful sanction amounting to ill-treatment or even torture.53 Therefore, maintaining the distinction between a dynamic interpretation that finds that corporal punishment is prohibited, while upholding that capital punishment is compatible with international law, becomes increasingly difficult. In the OSCE region, 47 out of the 57 participating States are members of the Council of Europe. Therefore, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) is of particular relevance for the OSCE region. The right to life is enshrined in Article 2 and the prohibition of torture in Article 3 of the ECHR. The Council of Europe has adopted two instruments prohibiting the use of capital punishment. All Member States except the Russian Federation have ratified Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime.54 Furthermore, 45 of the OSCE participating States have signed – 44 have ratified – Protocol No. 13 concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances.55 All the 28 member states of the European Union (EU) are also OSCE participating States. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (EU Charter) brings together in a single document the fundamental rights protected in the EU.56 Article 2 (2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights provides that no one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed. This provision is based on the provision of Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR. Article 3 of the EU Charter states that everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity. Its Article 4 prohibits torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Article 19 (2) states that no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a state where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subject to the death penalty, torture or other ill-treatment.57 52  See United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/10/44 (Jan. 14, 2009), <https://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/2482055.87267876.html>; A/67/279, paras. 53-72, <https://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/3937184.5126152.html>; see also Schabas (1996), p. 54: “international human rights treaties are to be interpreted in a dynamic fashion, keeping pace with the progressive development and protection of human rights” 53  Special Rapporteur 2012, op. cit., note 6, para. 27; see also Nigel S. Rodley, Integrity of the Person, in International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press ed., 2000). 54  Council of Europe, Treaty Office, <http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/114/signatures?p_auth=1XRxrxct>. 55  Excluding Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian Federation. 56  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02 (26 October 2012), <http://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12012P%2FTXT>. 57  Article 19(2) is implemented in practice by the inclusion of clauses allowing for the refusal of cooperation in agreements between the EU and third countries on cooperation in criminal matters. Examples include the agreement between the EU and the USA on extradition, 25 June 2003 (article 13 refuses extradition in case of risk of death penalty). According to the EU’s guidance on the Charter or the so-called “Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights,” Article 19 (2) of the EU Charter incorporates the relevant case-law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding prohibition of torture (Article 3) of the ECHR, see “Official Journal of the European Union, Explanations Relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2007/C 303/02), 14 December 2007, <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007X1214(01)>. 18