A/67/279 no execution by stoning was recorded and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the new Islamic Penal Code of January 2012 no longer provides for such punishment (A/HRC/21/29 and Corr.1, para. 46). 32. The same can be concluded with regard to execution by gas asphyxiation. In the case Ng v. Canada (1993), the Human Rights Committee concluded that this method of execution results in death in more than 10 minutes and constituted cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and would not meet the test of least possible physical and mental suffering, as required under the Covenant. 8 However, the Committee did not discuss whether other methods of execution would be considered violations of article 7. In any event, the criteria to determine the threshold of pain and suffering beyond which an execution violates international law prohibitions is not limited to the time that it takes for a person to die. Methods of execution that arguably violate the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment 33. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has suggested that hanging, as a matter of law, is contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In 2007, the High Commissioner submitted an amicus curiae application to the Iraqi Supreme Criminal Tribunal because of the real risk that the method of execution would itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 9 Acknowledging that the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment was a core provision of international human rights law, the High Commissioner found that the executions (by hanging), were so flawed as to amount, in their implementation, to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. 34. In Mwamba v. Zambia (2010), the petitioner argued before the Human Rights Committee that hanging constituted cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 10 The Committee did not address the issue, choosing instead to locate a violation of the petitioner’s rights in article 10, concerning human dignity. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have left open the question as to whether hanging constitutes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 11 35. In Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, the petitioners presented evidence that hanging was an ineffectual and extremely painful method of killing such as to amount to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of article 3 of the European Convention. 12 The petitioners submitted three expert reports showing that there was an impermissibly high risk that the victim would suffer an unnecessarily painful and tortuous death by strangulation. They argued that the manner in which hangings were carried out in Iraq was seriously and fundamentally flawed. While the Court of __________________ 8 9 10 11 12 12-45812 Decision of 5 November 1993 in Charles Chitat Ng v. Canada, communication No. 469/1991. In the Matter of Sentencing of Taha Yassin Ramadan, Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Iraqi Supreme Criminal Tribunal, 8 February 2007). Human Rights Committee, 30 April 2010, Mwamba v. Zambia, communication No. 1520/2006. For example, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 58/02, Merits Case 12.275, Denton Aitken v. Jamaica, 21 October 2002, para. 138. Judgement 2 March 2010 in Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, application No. 61498/08, para. 99. 7