The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area 2. Introductory Essay of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Juan E. Méndez The Death Penalty and the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Four years ago, in October 2012, I presented my thematic report to the United Nations General Assembly, exploring the death penalty as it relates to the international prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (other ill-treatment).6 In that report I found that, as also reflected in the OSCE commitments, the death penalty has generally been considered a lawful sanction under the international standards and regulations governing the right to life. And that − also similarly to the OSCE commitments − international law decidedly encourages abolition of the death penalty, but does not require it. However, I demonstrated in my 2012 report that certain circumstances surrounding the actual imposition or execution of the death penalty are already established to constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or even torture. The harshness of the death penalty goes beyond the execution itself. Physical or mental torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment may be inflicted on a convict and his relatives awaiting execution at different stages of her or his time in detention. A convict who has been sentenced to death can be caught in a terrifying limbo and constant uncertainty between imminent death and the hope that her or his appeals for clemency could result in a pardon. The mental trauma to a person on death row is compounded when left waiting for a long time for the execution, which can take decades and sometimes comes unannounced until moments before it happens. For instance, since January 2014, the Supreme Court of India has issued a series of decisions commuting death sentences on the grounds of delay in the disposition of mercy petitions. The court held that such delays caused psychological torture, which could lead to mental illness, thus justifying commutation.7 During that agonizing wait, additional punishment, such as solitary confinement and deprivation of social interaction or poor prison conditions, and lack of educational and recreational activities add to an already extremely harsh punishment. Circumstances that 6  United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report, A/67/279 (9 August 2012), <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/458/12/PDF/ N1245812.pdf?OpenElement>. 7  United Nations Secretary-General, Report on the Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, A/69/288 (8 August 2014), para. 32, <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/500/31/PDF/N1450031.pdf?OpenElement>; Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 55 of 2013 (judgement issued on 21 January 2014), <http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/wpc552013.pdf>; Shriharan and Suthendraraja and Perarivalan v. Union of India and Others, Supreme Court of India, 18 February 2014, <http:// www.sci.nic.in/outtoday/tc12012.pdf>; Devender Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2013) 6 SCC 195, <http://www.sci.nic.in/outtoday/40266.pdf>. 7