A/67/279 III. Death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment A. Overview 25. The Special Rapporteur investigated the relationship between the death penalty and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, taking into account the international community’s dialogue on the abolition of the death penalty, including the calls by the General Assembly for a moratorium on executions and previous work on the subject (e.g., A/HRC/10/44 and A/HRC/19/61/Add.4). B. Legal framework 26. Capital punishment is the ultimate exception to the inherent right to life. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and respective regional provisions allow use of the death penalty as the ultimate form of punishment under specific conditions. Accordingly, and despite the global trend towards the abolition of capital punishment, the continued use of the death penalty does not constitute a violation per se of the right to life if imposed and executed in accordance with severe restrictions and safeguards provided by international and domestic law. Simultaneously, international law absolutely prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7 of the Covenant, and arts. 1 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). 2 27. It has long been the view in doctrine and jurisprudence that article 6 of the Covenant (as well as the exclusion of “pain and suffering arising only, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions” from the definition of torture in art. 1, para. 1, of the Convention against Torture) means that the death penalty cannot be considered per se a violation of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. However, as noted by the Special Rapporteur’s predecessor in his 2009 report on the death penalty (A/HRC/10/44) in reference to judicial bodies, such interpretation may change over time, as was the case with the prohibition of corporal punishment. 28. At first glance, the language in article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture appears to carve out an exception under which pain or suffering stemming from lawful sanctions categorically cannot be torture. Yet, this reading of article 1 is belied by extensive treaty body authority findings of a violation of the prohibition in article 1 with regard to various forms of lawful corporal punishment. 3 The proper understanding is that the exclusion refers to sanctions that are lawful under both national and international law. Since it is widely accepted that corporal punishment at least amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, it does not qualify as a lawful sanction and, accordingly, is not immune from being categorized __________________ 2 3 12-45812 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 2; American Convention on Human Rights, art. 4; and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 4. For example, Judgement of 25 April 1978 in Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, Series A, No. 26; and Decision of 11 March 2005 in Winston Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, Series C, No. 123. 5