A/67/279 which the administration of a second dose of poison was required and where the convicted man took 34 minutes to die. However, the Court rejected the arguments that the lethal injection process created an unacceptable risk of suffering due to a drug combination that masked pain; that the use of potassium chloride could cause an incredibly painful death if the prisoner were not properly anaesthetized; and that other drugs were available that would cause a painless death. The Court also rejected the argument that the lethal injection process was flawed because of deficiencies in the way in which the drugs were administered, lack of the training required for those responsible for administering the drugs, and lack of clinical evidence showing the safety and effectiveness of certain drugs used in executions. Finally, the Court rejected the argument that these defects, in combination with a lack of regulatory oversight by the United States administration and an absence of meaningful State oversight, established that lethal injection constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Remarkably, the Court also stated that a stay of execution might not be granted unless the condemned prisoner established that the State’s lethal injection protocol created a demonstrated risk of severe pain. 40. The method of firing squad has so far been considered as the fastest way of execution and as not causing severe pain and suffering. 20 However, executions conducted in public often expose convicts to undignified and shameful displays of contempt and hatred. Conversely, secret executions violate the rights of the convict and family members to prepare for death. 41. In conclusion, it can be stated that even retentionist States agree that some methods of execution constitute cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and are therefore prohibited under international law (e.g., see A/63/293 and Corr.1, para. 67). In addition, there is a growing trend to scrutinize all other methods of execution so far considered as not causing severe pain and suffering. In this respect, there is no categorical evidence that any method of execution in use today complies with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in every case. Even if the required safeguards (Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50, annex) are in place, all methods of execution currently used can inflict inordinate pain and suffering. States cannot guarantee that there is a pain-free method of execution. B. Death row phenomenon 42. The death row phenomenon is a relatively new concept, albeit one that has become firmly established in international jurisprudence. It consists of a combination of circumstances that produce severe mental trauma and physical deterioration in prisoners under sentence of death. 21 Those circumstances include the lengthy and anxiety-ridden wait for uncertain outcomes, isolation, drastically reduced human contact and even the physical conditions in which some inmates are held. Death row conditions are often worse than those for the rest of the prison population, and prisoners on death row are denied many basic human necessities. Examples of current death row conditions around the world include solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day in small, cramped, airless cells, often under __________________ 20 21 12-45812 Human Rights Committee, decision of 3 April 2003 in Mariya Staselovich (and Igor Lyashkevich) v. Belarus, communication No. 887/1999, para. 9.2. For example, Patrick Hudson, “Does the death row phenomenon violate a prisoner’s rights under international law?”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 11, No. 4 (2000), pp. 834-837. 9