A/67/279 which it confirmed that the death penalty was the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. 69. At the national level, a first and prominent attempt to consider the death penalty as cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment was made by United States Supreme Court Justice Brennan in his dissenting opinion to the judgement in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). 53 He stated that the fatal constitutional infirmity in the punishment of death was that it treated members of the human race as non-humans, as objects to be toyed with and discarded. It was thus inconsistent with the fundamental premise of the clause (on prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment), and that even the vilest criminal remained a human being possessed of common human dignity. He emphasized that foremost among the moral concepts recognized in the cases before the Court and inherent in the clause was the primary moral principle that the State, even as it punished, must treat its citizens in a manner consistent with their intrinsic worth as human beings, and that a punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to human dignity. 70. A significant number of courts of last instance and constitutional courts have found that the death penalty per se violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The South African Constitutional Court in the landmark judgement in State v. Makwanyane and Mchunu (1995) held that the death penalty was contrary to the prohibition by the South African Constitution of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 54 In 2001, the Canadian Supreme Court in United States v. Burns 55 considered capital punishment to amount to cruel and unusual punishment. The Court stated that in Canada, the death penalty had been rejected as an acceptable element of criminal justice, and that capital punishment engaged the underlying values of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Furthermore, the Constitutional Courts of Albania, Hungary, Lithuania and Ukraine have found that the death penalty per se violates the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 56 71. The President of Mongolia justified the abolition of capital punishment by referring to the degrading character of the death penalty. 57 In addition, while reporting back to the Secretary-General concerning moratoriums on the use of the death penalty (A/65/280 and Corr.1), Bulgaria stated that it considered the death penalty to be an extreme form of physical and psychological violence upon human beings and as such it constituted, in the utmost degree, a cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment. Denmark was also firmly convinced that the death penalty was brutal, inhumane and an affront to human integrity and human dignity, no matter how cruel the offence. Similarly, Slovenia considers that the death penalty constitutes cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and a violation of international law. This is a result of the execution itself, as well as the cruelty in forcing the convicted person to wait on death row, often for many years, contemplating execution. Spain considers the death penalty as cruel and inhumane treatment and as an unacceptable violation of human dignity and integrity. Italy in __________________ 53 54 55 56 57 12-45812 Dissenting opinion to judgement in Gregg v. Georgia, United States Supreme Court, 428 U.S. 53 (1976), p. 229. Constitutional Court of South Africa, Judgement of 6 June 1995, State v. Makwanyane and M Mchunu, Case No. CCT/3/94. Supreme Court of Canada, United States v. Burns, 2001, S.C.R. 283, p. 289. Judgement of 12 May 2005 in Ocalan v. Turkey, Application No. 46221/99, para. 177. Speech delivered on 14 January 2010. Available from www.president.mn/eng/newsCenter. 19