The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 read in conjunction with Article 6, as well as Article 26, as highlighted in the introductory essay. Possibility of wrongful convictions Another cause for concern is the situation of death row inmates who could, in fact, be innocent or who have not committed “the most serious crimes”.140 The possibility of mistakes and conviction of innocent people is particularly relevant when considering the death penalty due to its irreversible nature. On 17 April 2018, a California inmate was exonerated after spending 26 years on death row. Later, on 5 November 2018, another death row inmate in Florida was released after 12 years in prison.141 The reasons for the exoneration of these two individuals include the presence of false or misleading forensic evidence, inadequate legal defense, perjury or false accusation.142 On 28 March 2019, another prisoner, who was sentenced to death and was serving a commuted life sentence in Florida, was exonerated and released after 40 years in prison. After the establishment of the first Conviction Integrity Unit in Florida, the director of this unit reported on various inconsistencies and stated that another man had “confessed to committing the murders.”143 This means that, at the end of the reporting period, the total number of exonerations since 1972 comes to 165.144 Another man was executed in Texas on 16 May 2018, although there were ongoing concerns about his conviction being based on false testimony. It was reported that this man had been represented so badly that he chose to represent himself. In addition, evidence had been found that contradicted testimony and his appellate attorneys requested DNA testing.145 During the reporting period, there were further developments in the case of one death row inmate, who has been on death row for over 42 years. From 25 to 30 November 2018, his case was featured in the Tampa Bay Times, after extensive research by an investigative journalist suggested that he is in fact innocent.146 He has repeatedly asked for DNA testing of evidence to prove his 140  See General Comment No. 36, op. cit., note 10, para. 35 for detailed information about what constitute “the most serious crimes.” 141  Death Penalty Information Center, “The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report”, op. cit., note 76, p. 6-7. 142  “Innocence Database”, Death Penalty Information Center, <https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/innocence-database?filters%5Byear%5D=2018>. 143  Tabak, op. cit., note 63, p. 280. 144  “The Death Penalty in 2018: A Punishment on the Decline”, ACLU Blog, 21 December 2018, <https://www.aclu.org/blog/capital-punishment/innocence-and-death-penalty/death-penalty-2018-punishment-decline>. 145  Death Penalty Information Center, “The Death Penalty in 2018: Year End Report”, op. cit., note 76, p. 13. 146  “Blood and Truth”, Tampa Bay Times, 25 November 2018, <https://www.tampabay.com/projects/2018/narratives/blood-and-truth/>. 32