A/67/279 contained in article 14 of the Covenant. The Inter-American Commission has reaffirmed in its report No. 90 (2009) and in constant jurisprudence that a heightened level of scrutiny has to be applied. This is in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee which maintains that legal assistance should be available and that States have an imperative duty to observe rigorously all of the guarantees required for a fair trial. 44 61. Accordingly, in Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden (2005), the European Court of Human Rights held that the applicant had a justified and well-founded fear that the death sentence imposed on him after an unfair trial would be enforced if he were compelled to return to his home country, 45 and that since executions were carried out without any public scrutiny or accountability, the surrounding circumstances would inevitably cause him considerable fear and anguish. The Court concluded that the death sentence imposed following an unfair trial would cause the applicant and his family additional fear and anguish as to their future if they were forced to return to the Syrian Arab Republic and, accordingly, would give rise to a violation of articles 2 and 3 (referring to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention. In Ocalan v. Turkey (2005), the European Court held that the fear and uncertainty about the future generated by a death sentence, when a real possibility existed that the sentence would be enforced, inevitably caused strong human anguish. 46 Such anguish could not be disassociated from the unfairness of the proceedings underlying the sentence, which, given that human life was at stake, became unlawful under the Convention. Consequently, the imposition of the death sentence following an unfair trial by a court whose independence and impartiality were open to doubt was held to amount to inhuman treatment, in violation of article 3 of the European Convention. 62. The death penalty cannot be applied for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age. In Michael Domingues v. United States (2002), the Inter-American Commission canvassed international legal and political developments and State practice concerning the execution of juveniles and reached the conclusion that the state of international law had evolved so as to prohibit, as a jus cogens norm, the execution of persons who were under 18 years of age at the time of committal of their crimes. 47 This is in line with the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that under the evolving standards of decency test, it was cruel and unusual punishment to execute a person who was under the age of 18 years at the time of the murder. 48 Remarkably, in January 2012, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the most persistent retentionist countries, adopted the Islamic Penal Code which established new measures to limit the sentencing to death of juveniles (A/HRC/21/29 and Corr.1, para. 8). The abolition of the death penalty for juveniles is based on the fact that their limited capacity has a direct impact on their effectively benefiting from the right to a fair trial and that it is inherently cruel to execute __________________ 44 45 46 47 48 16 For example, Baboheram-Adhin et al. v. Suriname, communication Nos. 148-154/1983, 4 April 1985; Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, communication Nos. 210/1986 and 225/1987. Judgement of 8 November 2005 in Bader and Kanbor v. Sweden, Application No. 13284/04. Judgement of 12 May 2005 in Ocalan v. Turkey, Application No. 46221/99. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 62/02, Michael Domingues v. United States (2002), paras. 84-87. United States Supreme Court, Donald P. Rooper v. Christopher Simmons, 543 U.S. (2005). 12-45812