A/67/279 as torture. 4 As far back as 1988, the Special Rapporteur appointed to examine questions relevant to torture stated that it was international law, not domestic law, which ultimately determined whether a certain practice might be regarded as lawful, and that practices which might initially be considered lawful might become outlawed and viewed as the most serious violations of human rights (E/CN.4/1988/17, paras. 42 and 44). IV. Actual practices of capital punishment that violate the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 29. Even if considered legal under international law, the actual practice of the death penalty is not left to the unfettered discretion of the State but must itself comply with the other requirements of the Covenant, notably the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, set out in article 7. 5 In practice, executions today often violate the absolute prohibition, either because of the death row phenomenon or because the method applied involves unnecessary suffering and indignity. 30. In paragraph 7 of its resolution 1996/15, the Economic and Social Council urged Member States in which the death penalty might be carried out to effectively apply the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners in order to keep to a minimum the suffering of prisoners under sentence of death and to avoid any exacerbation of such suffering. Taking into account new forensic evidence and discussions concerning the various forms of executions and the situation of persons sentenced to death awaiting execution on death row, the Special Rapporteur urges serious reconsideration of whether the actual practice of the death penalty amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, or even torture. A. Methods of execution Methods of execution that per se violate the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment 31. The jurisprudence of regional human rights bodies and national judiciaries leaves no doubt that death by stoning constitutes torture and is, beyond dispute, a violation of the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In Jabari v. Turkey (2000), 6 the European Court of Human Rights held that death by stoning was a violation of the prohibition on torture and that the possibility of being stoned to death would make deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran contrary to article 3 of the European Convention. At the United Nations, the Commission on Human Rights described execution by stoning as a particularly cruel or inhuman means of execution. 7 During the period from July 2011 until June 2012, __________________ 4 5 6 7 6 Daniel Moeckli, Sangeeta Shah and Sandesh Sivakumaran, eds., International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2010), para. 2.3.2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (A/47/40, chap. VI.A), para. 6; and In the Matter of Sentencing of Taha Yassin Ramadan, Application for Leave to Intervene as Amicus Curiae of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Iraqi Supreme Criminal Tribunal, 8 February 2007). Judgement of 11 July 2000 in Jabari v. Turkey, Application No. 40035/98. Commission on Human Rights resolutions 2003/67, para. 4 (i); 2004/67, para. 4 (i); and 2005/59, para. 7 (i). 12-45812