40. Where the death penalty exists, States are also required to undertake periodic independent reviews to consider the applicability of international human rights law and evidence which may indicate the innocence of the accused. 252 41. Mandatory death sentences will not be consistent with international human rights law.253 Therefore ‘a mandatory death sentence for a broadly defined offense of murder, without regard to the defendant's personal circumstances or the circumstances of the particular offense’, violated the right to life.254 42. The death penalty should not be applied to juveniles.255 43. Those sentenced to death have a right to seek a pardon or commutation of the sentence.256 44. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial executions has noted the failure of states to provide information on the death penalty will violate international human rights law which includes ‘full and accurate reporting’ of the incidents where it is used.257 45. Extradition of a person to a country where one faces the death penalty can constitute a violation of the right to life.258 E. The Right to Life and Armed Conflict 46. Even in situations which could be categorised as an armed conflict, the right to life remains relevant.259 As the UN has reiterated, ‘the central point is that there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians’.260 Therefore where people have been killed by the armed forces seeking to suppress an armed insurrection failure to properly investigate the loss of life will violate the right to life. The simple assertion that the loss of life was a legitimate consequence of fighting is insufficient. The fact that a criminal file has been opened and an investigation is commenced but then closed will not necessarily, in and of itself, satisfy the procedural requirements of the right to life. 252 E/CN.4/2005/7, para 61. Boyce and Joseph v. The Queen, Privy Council Appeal No. 99 of 2002, Judgment of 7 July 2004, para. 6. See also E/CN.4/2005/7, para 63. 254 Communication 806/1998, Thompson (Eversley) v. St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 18 October 2000, para. 8.2. 255 A/HRC/11/2, paras 29-42. 256 A/HRC/8/3, paras 59-67. 257 E/CN.4/2005/7, para 57 and para 59. 258 Human Rights Committee, Communication 829/1998, Judge v Canada, 5 August 2000. Communication 469/1991, NG v Canada, CCPR/C/49/D/469/1991 (1994). 259 Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, E/CN.4/2005/7, section B. 260 High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (United Nations, 2004), para 160. 253 59