E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6 page 40 sentenced, many of whom are still eligible to appeal, and it denies the rights of family members to know the fate of their closest relatives. Moreover, secrecy prevents any informed public debate about capital punishment within the relevant society.” Paras 57 and 58. Special Rapporteur on Summary, Arbitrary or Extrajudicial Executions, Report to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2005/7, paras 57-58. 73 According to information received, the windowless execution chamber at the back of the van contains a metal bed on which the prisoner is strapped down. Once the needle is attached by a technician, a police officer presses a button and a syringe automatically injects the lethal drug into the prisoner’s vein. The execution can be monitored from a video screen beside the driver and can be recorded. 74 According to the 2004 SPC Work Report, in 2003 alone, the SPC changed the original sentence or ordered retrials in 118 of the 300 death penalty cases that it reviewed, leaving hopes for a reduction in application of the death penalty in China. The obligation of SPC review is set out in both the CL and the CPL (see below), but was undermined by a February 1980 decision by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress by devolving the authority in certain categories of crimes, notably capital crimes of violence, to the higher courts and for drug offences to certain provincial-level higher courts. Pursuant to Articles 199 and 200 of the CPL of China, the SPC is the designated court to review and approve all death sentences rendered by lower courts across the country. According to Article 199, “Death sentences shall be subject to approval by the SPC.” Article 200 stipulates, “A case of first instance where an Intermediate People’s Court has imposed a death sentence and the defendant does not appeal shall be reviewed by a Higher People’s Court and submitted to the SPC for approval. If the Higher People’s Court does not agree with the death sentence, it may bring the case up for trial or remand the case for retrial.” 75 A similar recommendation was made by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, E/CN.4/2005/6/Add.4, 29 December 2004, para 78.