A/67/279 its remarks on the question of the death penalty in April 2012 stated that it considered the death penalty to be inhuman. Finland, in its response to General Assembly resolution 63/168, reported that it considered the death penalty a cruel and inhuman form of punishment. Finally, in a joint contribution to the report of the Secretary-General concerning moratoriums on the use of the death penalty (A/65/280 and Corr.1), the European Union stated that it considered the death penalty to be cruel and inhuman, representing an unacceptable denial of human dignity and integrity. 72. An increasing number of national constitutional courts and political instances have pronounced their conviction that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment not reconcilable with the inherent right to physical and mental integrity and human dignity. It can be said, therefore, that there is an evolving standard whereby States and judiciaries consider the death penalty to be a violation per se of the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. A review of precedents to determine the existence of such a norm as an already established custom is beyond the capacity of the present report. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur is convinced that a customary norm prohibiting the death penalty under all circumstances, if it has not already emerged, is at least in the process of formation. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 73. The evolving practice of States shows a clear trend towards abolition of the death penalty. Even in retentionist countries, practices and opinions have changed. Significantly, the trend to abolish and the trend to restrict are both informed by a stated conviction that capital punishment is cruel, inhumane and degrading, either per se or as applied. 74. To date, the death penalty has been treated under the provisions concerning the right to life, and therein as an exception provided for by international law. A new approach is needed as there is evidence of an evolving standard within international bodies and a robust State practice to frame the debate about the legality of the death penalty within the context of the fundamental concepts of human dignity and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This evolving standard, along with the resulting illegality of the death penalty under such prohibition, is developing into a norm of customary law, if it has not already done so. 75. The Special Rapporteur finds that even if the emergence of a customary norm that considers the death penalty as per se running afoul of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is still under way, most conditions under which capital punishment is actually applied renders the punishment tantamount to torture. Under many other, less severe conditions, it still amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 76. The prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the strict adherence to safeguards constitute absolute limits on the use and enforcement of the death penalty. It may still be theoretically possible to impose and execute the death penalty without running afoul of the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, but the rigorous conditions that States must apply for that purpose make the retention of capital 20 12-45812