The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area Lethal injection as a method of execution Some methods of execution have already been declared violations of the absolute prohibition of torture, such as death by stoning or gas asphyxiation.73 As explained by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture, the cruelty of other methods is widely discussed, such as lethal injection or hanging. The United Nations Human Rights Committee refrained from deciding what other specific methods of execution might constitute torture or other ill-treatment, holding instead that the death penalty, in all cases, “must be carried out in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering.”74 There has not been a clear consensus in international opinion and practice on other methods of execution. This is true of execution by hanging, which some international and domestic judicial bodies have indicated does or may constitute other ill-treatment or torture.75 However, in the case Ng v. Canada (1993) of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, dissenting opinions show resounding disapproval of the majority’s attempt to make a distinction among various methods of execution, because the death penalty, as such, constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, regardless of how it is carried out.76 Regarding the use of lethal injection as a method of execution, serious concerns have been raised about its use in the United States. Thirty-four states and the federal government use lethal injection as their primary method of execution.77 In 2008, the United States Supreme Court heard a challenge to Kentucky’s lethal injection process, and allowed its continued use as a method of execution. However, alarming reports about lethal injection procedures continue to emerge. On 15 September 2009, during an attempted execution, Ohio officials spent over two hours attempting to locate a suitable vein to use for the lethal injection before finally postponing the execution.78 In July 2013, an execution was stopped in Georgia only hours before it was to be carried 73  Special Rapportuer 2012, op. cit., note 6 para. 31 and 32; see also European Parliament Resolution, op.cit., note 9; Commission on Human Rights Res. 2003/67, Question of the Death Penalty, E/CN.4/RES/2003/67 at 4(i) (Apr. 24, 2003), <http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=5021>; Human Rights Council Res. 2004/67, Question of the Death Penalty, E/ CN.4/RES/2004/67 at 4(i) (Apr. 21 2004), <http://ap.ohchr.org/ documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=9878>; Human Rights Council Res. 2005/59, Question of the Death Penalty, E/CN.4/RES/2005/59 at 7(i), 4(h) (Apr. 20 2005), <http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=11140; Human Rights Committee, H.R. Comm., Ng v. Canada, Comm. No. 469/1991, 49th Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/ C/49/D/469/1991 at 16.4 (Nov. 5 1993), <http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/415>. 74  Human Rights Committee, Ng v. Canada, Comm. No. 469/1991, 49th Sess., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 at 16.4 (Nov. 5 1993) at 16.2, <http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/415>. 75 See In re Ramadan, Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2007); Republic v. Mbushuu, High Court of Tanzania (Jun. 22 1994). In Interights&Ditshwanelo v. The Republic of Botswana (communication 319/06) 2016 the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights held that execution by hanging constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the prohibition of torture, para. 84-87, <http://www.achpr.org/communications/decision/319.06/>. 76  Special Rapporteur 2012, op. cit., note 6 para. 66 citing Human Rights Committee, communication No. 469/1991. 77  See Death Penalty Information Center, <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf>. 78  NGO submission to the United States of America UPR (1st cycle), The Advocates for Human Rights, <http:// www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRUSStakeholdersInfoS9.aspx. 22