The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area The “death row phenomenon” Another aspect of capital punishment is the “death row phenomenon,” a relatively new concept that has emerged within the context of the implementation of the death penalty and the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment. The phenomenon refers to a combination of circumstances that produce severe mental trauma and physical suffering in prisoners awaiting their execution in death row, including prolonged periods waiting for uncertain outcomes, solitary confinement, poor prison conditions, and a lack of educational and recreational activities. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has held that prolonged periods of time spent on death row awaiting execution violate the prohibition of ill-treatment.64 This decision, however, was based not only on the length of time spent on death row, but also on the personal circumstances of the inmate, including age and mental state.65 The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have similarly held that prison conditions, together with the anxiety and psychological suffering caused by prolonged periods on death row, constitute a violation of the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.66 Most recently, in the final declaration of the 6th World Congress against the Death Penalty, held under the sponsorship of the OSCE participating States Norway and France on 21 to 23 June 2016 in Oslo, the participants, including France, Monaco, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey as members of the Core Group for this event, observed that, “more often than not, as a direct consequence of their status, death row prisoners suffer deplorable incarceration conditions which violate human dignity and often represent an inhuman and degrading treatment.”67 Fair trial safeguards in death penalty cases and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment With regard to the death penalty after an unfair trial, The ECtHR stated in Öcalan v. Turkey from 12 May 2005, that Article 2 of the ECHR precluded the execution of the death penalty in cases when a trial is found unfair. In the Court’s view, “to impose a death sentence on a person after an unfair trial is to subject that person wrongfully to the fear that he will be executed. The fear and uncertainty about the future generated by a death sentence, where there existed a real possibility that the sentence would be enforced, inevitably caused strong human anguish to people. Such anguish could not be dissociated from the unfairness of the proceedings underlying the sentence 64 ECtHR, Soering v. UK, judgment of 7 July 1989, paras. 100 – 111, <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-5761 9&v=1392752313000#{“itemid”:[“001-57619”]}>. 65  Ibid. 66  See, Rep. Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. no. 55/02, Merits, Case 11.765, Paul Lallion v. Grenada, October 21, 2002 paras. 86-90, <http://cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/Grenada.11765.htm>; Rep. No. 58/02, Case 12.275, Merits, Denton Aitken v. Jamaica, October 21, 2002, paras. 133-134, <http://cidh.org/annualrep/2002eng/Jamaica.12275.htm>; Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R, Series C, No. 94, paras.167-168 (Jun. 21 2002), <http://www. corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_94_ing.pdf>. 67  See Final Declaration, <http://congres.abolition.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Final-Declaration-of-the6th-World-Congress-Against-the-Death-Penalty.pdf>. 20