The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area–Background Paper 2019 56 OSCE participating States that have ratified this core instrument of the human rights framework.4 Part I of the 2019 background paper contains an introductory essay written by a member of the UN Human Rights Committee and co-drafter of this General Comment, Professor Christof Heyns.5 Part II of the background paper covers the status of the death penalty in the OSCE region during the reporting period, including new developments and main areas of concern, as well as a thematic discussion of arguments used to retain or even to reintroduce the death penalty in some OSCE participating States. Since 2016, ODIHR has included such thematic discussions on various aspects of the death penalty in this annual background paper in an attempt to further assist OSCE participating States in their exchange of information on the death penalty and the further consideration of its abolition. Throughout the background paper, an abolitionist state is defined as an OSCE participating State in which there is no death penalty, in law, for any crimes. A de-facto abolitionist state is one in which the death penalty is foreseen in law, but in practice the punishment is not imposed. A retentionist state is one that continues to implement this penalty by sentencing and carrying out executions. 2. Introductory Essay: The shrinking foothold of the death penalty in international law Christof Heyns, UN Human Rights Committee6 The wording of Article 6 of the ICCPR on the right to life clearly reflects a compromise between the drafters: on the one hand conveying the message that the death penalty should be abolished over time, yet on the other that, at the time of drafting, an absolute prohibition would not be imposed. Under narrowly defined circumstances, there was still – for the time being – some space for this form of punishment. We have subsequently moved some seven decades forward, toward its eventual vanishing point. In my final report as Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions to the UN General Assembly in 2016, I contended it was no longer tenable to describe international law as “retentionist” but instead that it could better be understood as progressively abolitionist. This was a concept borrowed from thinking 4  Only the Holy See is not a state party to the ICCPR. 5  Christof Heyns is also the former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The opinions expressed in the essay are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the OSCE or ODIHR. 6  Professor of Human Rights Law and Director of the Institute for International and Comparative Law in Africa, University of Pretoria. Heyns served as UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions from 2010-2016, and has been a member of the UN Human Rights Committee since 2017, including during the adoption of General Comment No. 36 on the right to life. 6