While it is clear that conditions of detention on death row may violate Article 10(1) or Article 7 in the same way as conditions of detention elsewhere,139 most members of the HRC have consistently denied that the “death row phenomenon” per se violates these provisions. The Committee expanded on this position in Errol Johnson v Jamaica.140 It reiterated that imposition of the death penalty is permitted in narrow circumstances under Article 6 ICCPR. Detention on death row may be a necessary consequence of imposing the death penalty, and so cannot, of itself, be regarded as a violation of Articles 7 and 10(1) ICCPR.141 Furthermore, making the length of time one waits for execution the determining factor for a violation of Articles 7 and 10(1) would convey a message to States parties that they should carry out the death penalty as quickly as possible after its imposition. As international law requires that the Covenant be interpreted in light of its objects and purposes,142 which include reducing recourse to the death penalty,143 the Committee rejected this interpretation.144 Therefore, in Errol Johnson v Jamaica the HRC, while conceding that keeping prisoners on death row for many years is not acceptable, nonetheless declined to find a violation of Articles 7 and 10(1) for pragmatic reasons. 1 UN TREATY BODIES factors regarding the author, the specific conditions of detention on death row, and whether the proposed method of execution is particularly abhorrent.”136 Thus, the Committee has held that execution by gas asphyxiation would constitute cruel and inhuman treatment in violation of Article 7,137 whereas execution by lethal injection may not.138 In particular cases, aggravating factors may render detention on death row a violation of Articles 7 or 10(1). In this regard, “each case must be considered on its own merits, bearing in mind the imputability of delays in the administration of Kindler v Canada, HRC Communication No. 470/1991, 30 July 1993, §15.3. Ng v Canada, HRC Communication No. 469/1991, 5 November 1993, §16.4. The case involved extradition of Mr. Ng by Canada to the USA. 138 Kindler v Canada (1993), op. cit. See also Cox v Canada, HRC Communication No. 539/1993, 31 October 1994, §17.3. 139 See, for example, Freemantle v Jamaica, HRC Communication No. 625/1995, 24 March 2000, §7.3 140 Errol Johnson v Jamaica (1996), op. cit. §§8.2-8.6. 141 See also Earl Pratt and Ivan Morgan v Jamaica, Nos. 210/1986 and 225/1987, 6 April 1989, §13.6; Barrett and Sutcliffe v Jamaica, HRC Communication Nos. 270/1988 and 271/1988, 30 March 1992, §8.4; 142 Article 31, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 143 To support this position, the HRC referred to its General Comment No. 20, 1992, §16 and the Preamble to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. 144 Errol Johnson v Jamaica (1996), op. cit., §8.2, 8.4. 136 137 33