“may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”130 UN TREATY BODIES 1 Both Committees have also developed substantial jurisprudence regarding two types of punishment which a number of States have claimed fall under the ‘lawful sanctions’ exception; the death penalty, and corporal punishment. 1.3.2.1 The death penalty – ICCPR There is no explicit ‘lawful sanctions’ clause in the ICCPR, but the HRC has frequently been called upon to consider cases involving the death penalty, and in particular the ‘death row phenomenon,’ which refers to the anguish created by prolonged detention on death row. The death penalty is specifically permitted in strictly limited circumstances under Article 6 ICCPR,131 and therefore its imposition following a fair trial does not in principle constitute a breach of Article 7.132 However, the HRC considers it one of the aims of the Covenant to reduce recourse to capital punishment,133 and its comments and jurisprudence increasingly reflect this view. Where a State has abolished the death penalty, the HRC is now of the view that it “may not remove, either by deportation or extradition, individuals from their jurisdiction if it may be reasonably anticipated that they will be sentenced to death, without ensuring that the death sentence would not be carried out.”134 The HRC has also stated that, where the death penalty is carried out, it must be done “in such a way as to cause the least possible physical and mental suffering.”135 In making this determination, the Committee “will have regard to the relevant personal Article 27, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, entered into force Jan. 27, 1980. The approach of the CAT reflects interpretive declarations made by Luxembourg and the Netherlands at the time of ratification stating that the term “lawful sanctions” refers to those accepted by both national law and international law. These declarations were not commented upon by other States. In contrast, a number of States objected to Qatar’s reservation purporting to reject “any interpretation of the provisions of the Convention that is incompatible with the precepts of Islamic law and the Islamic religion.” 131 The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty prohibits capital punishment in all circumstances. However, it is binding only on those States that have ratified it. 132 Where the trial leading to the death sentence is unfair, there is an automatic violation of Article 7. See Larrañaga v The Philippines, HRC Communication No. 1421/2005, 24 July 2006, §7.11. 133 See Errol Johnson v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 588/1994, 22 March 1996. 134 Judge v Canada, HRC Communication No. 829/1998, 5 August 2002, §10.4. The HRC explicitly stated in §10.6 that this decision applies irrespective of whether the State in question has ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. 135 HRC, General Comment No. 20, 1992, §6. 130 32