Everyone has the inherent right to life. This right must be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life based on actual or perceived drug use or involvement in the illicit drug trade. Drug offences do not meet the internationally recognised threshold of ‘most serious crimes’ for which the death penalty – where it exists – may be imposed.
In accordance with this right, States shall:
i. Take immediate action to halt executions, commute death sentences, and abolish the death penalty for drug offences. States may not transform an offence from a non-capital one to a capital one nor expand penalties for existing offences to include the death penalty.
ii. Take measures to prevent both State-perpetrated and private violence, threats to life, and unnecessary or disproportionate use of potentially lethal force based on actual or perceived drug use or involvement in the illicit drug trade, and investigate, prosecute, and hold accountable those responsible for such acts.
iii. Avoid extraditing or otherwise forcibly returning or transferring a person to another State where that person risks being sentenced to the death penalty for drug offences, unless provided with credible and effective assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed.
iv. Avoid extraditing or otherwise forcibly returning or transferring a person to another State where there are substantial grounds to believe that, based on actual or perceived drug use or involvement in the illicit drug trade, the person risks arbitrary deprivation of their right to life, including by non-State actors over whom the receiving State has no or only partial control or whose acts the receiving State cannot prevent.
In addition, States should:
v. Take steps to ensure that they do not aid or assist in the imposition of the death penalty outside of their jurisdiction and that the supply of equipment, personnel, training, and funding for drug law enforcement activities by or in another State, mutual legal assistance between States, and joint operations with other States do not contribute, directly or indirectly, to the imposition of the death penalty.
vi. Take positive measures to increase the life expectancy of people who use drugs, including adequate steps to provide scientific, evidence-based information, facilities, goods, and services on drug use prevention, overdose prevention and response, and harm reduction, including to reduce such harms as overdose, HIV, viral hepatitis, and other infections and injuries sometimes associated with drug use.
The right to life is recognised in many international and regional treaties and instruments.[301] No derogation of the right to life is permitted, even during armed conflict or public emergencies that threaten the life of a nation.[302] The prohibition on the arbitrary deprivation of life is a rule of customary international law and a peremptory, or jus cogens, norm,[303] which means that the obligation to uphold it extends to all States, regardless of treaty ratification.
Arbitrary deprivation of life: Extrajudicial, summary, and arbitrary executions
The deprivation of life is, as a rule, arbitrary if it is inconsistent with international law or domestic law.[304] The Human Rights Committee has explained that a deprivation of life may still be arbitrary even if authorised by domestic law. The notion of ‘arbitrariness’ is not to be fully equated with ‘against the law’; rather, it must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability, and due process of law,[305] as well as elements of reasonableness, necessity, and proportionality.
The duty to protect the right to life ‘by law’ requires that States take all necessary measures to prevent arbitrary deprivations of life by law enforcement officials, including soldiers charged with law enforcement measures and those empowered or authorised by the State to use potentially lethal force.[306] These measures include enacting an adequate domestic legal framework for the use of force by State actors; procedures to ensure that law enforcement actions are planned to minimise the risk to human life; mandatory reporting, review, and investigation of lethal and other life-threatening incidents; and the supplying of ‘less-lethal’ means and adequate protective equipment to obviate the need to resort to lethal force.[307] Law enforcement officials should be trained and bound by relevant international standards, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.[308]
States are under an obligation to rigorously limit and strictly and effectively monitor the use of force by private individuals and entities empowered or authorised to use potentially lethal force. They are responsible for such individuals’ or entities’ failure to comply with obligations under the right to life and must ensure that victims of the arbitrary deprivation of life by such individuals or entities are granted an effective remedy.[309] States also have a responsibility to address ‘attitudes or conditions within society which encourage or facilitate’ violence or killings committed by non-State actors, including killings of members of minority groups and the social cleansing of ‘undesirables’.[310]
The Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, several Special Rapporteurs, and the High Commissioner for Human Rights have all expressed concern about extrajudicial executions by police and armed forces carried out in the course of drug law enforcement activities and about the impunity of perpetrators of such unlawful killings, calling for investigations and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.[311] In some countries, high-ranking government officials have ordered or indirectly encouraged police or the military to ‘shoot to kill’ to combat the trade and use of drugs, a concern that has been raised by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions.[312]
The use of potentially lethal force for law enforcement purposes is an extreme measure,[313] which should be resorted to only when strictly necessary in order to protect life or prevent serious injury from an imminent threat.[314] The intentional taking of life by any means is permissible only if it is strictly necessary in order to protect life from an imminent threat.[315] The primary purpose of the ‘protect life’ principle is to save life. Accordingly, lethal force may not be used intentionally merely to protect law and order or other similar interests, such as to disperse protests or safeguard property interests.[316] When armed forces participate in law enforcement efforts, including anti-drug operations, they should be trained and bound by international standards on the use of force, in particular the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials.[317] They must also be provided with all necessary instructions, training, and equipment to enable them to act with full respect for this legal framework.[318] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has elaborated upon the obligations of States to restrict the use of armed forces for law enforcement purposes in the context of the ‘war on drugs’, affirming that the maintenance of public order and citizen security is a function reserved primarily for civilian police forces and further emphasising that security forces’ intervention should be exceptional, temporary, and restricted to what is strictly necessary in the circumstances of the case; subordinate and complementary to civil control; subject to human rights law and standards on the use of force and provided with the necessary training to act in full respect of such standards; and overseen by competent, independent, and technically capable civilian bodies.
The International Narcotics Control Board and the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime have also condemned the practice of extrajudicial executions as a violation of fundamental rights and a clear violation of the international drug conventions.[319] The International Narcotics Board has highlighted that the drug conventions, in line with international human rights law, require that suspected drug-related criminality be addressed through formal criminal justice responses, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and internationally recognised due process standards and has appealed to States to act in accordance with these international standards.[320]
The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death provides additional guidance regarding international norms on the prevention and investigation of extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary executions.[321]
Extradition and other forcible return or transfer
The duty to respect and ensure the right to life requires States to refrain from extraditing, deporting, or otherwise transferring individuals to countries in which there are substantial grounds for believing that these persons risk being deprived of their life in violation of international guarantees of this right.[322]
All three UN drug control conventions include provisions on extradition.[323] They also include safeguard clauses specifying that the relevant obligations are subject to domestic and constitutional law[324] and permitting States to refuse to comply with extradition requests ‘where there are substantial grounds leading its judicial or other competent authorities to believe that compliance would facilitate the prosecution or punishment of any person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or would cause prejudice for any of those reasons to any person affected by the request’.[325] Not only do international human rights treaties provide stronger human rights protection than this, but so too do many national laws, constitutions, and bilateral treaties. The drug control conventions explicitly state that extradition is subject to these obligations.[326]
In certain circumstances, diplomatic assurances provided by the requesting State can resolve issues relating to human rights considerations in the extradition process. However, such assurances may be relied upon only if they are a suitable means to eliminate the danger to the individual concerned and only if the requested State actually considers them reliable.[327] Diplomatic assurances should not be used to undermine the principle of non-refoulement.[328] With regard to the death penalty, assurances may be related to the formal legal process and therefore monitored. However, extradition to a country with a mandatory death penalty for the relevant offence raises questions about the reliability of any assurances, as there is a lack of judicial discretion in sentencing. Moreover, assurances where the State cannot control non-State actors, the military, or others from violating an individual’s right to life are similarly unreliable.[329]
The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions recommends that States amend national laws on extradition and deportation to specifically prohibit the forced transfer of persons to States where there is a genuine risk that the death penalty may be imposed in violation of internationally recognised standards, unless adequate assurances are obtained.[330]
Protecting and promoting health to preserve life
The Human Rights Committee has explained that the ‘right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly’ and that governments ‘should take appropriate measures to address the general conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats to life or prevent individuals from enjoying their right to life with dignity’, including ‘degradation of the environment, deprivation of land, territories and resources of indigenous peoples, extensive substance abuse [and] the prevalence of life threatening diseases, such as AIDS’.[331] Protecting the right to life requires measures to ensure access without delay to essential goods and services that may be essential to life, including health care.[332] This obligation thus interacts and is linked with obligations under the right to health, such as the provision in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights directing governments to take steps ‘necessary for … the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic … diseases’, which include those that particularly affect people who use drugs, such as HIV and viral hepatitis. This also means that protecting the right to life requires measures to ensure access without delay to certain goods and services that may be essential to life, including health care.[333] This includes ensuring access to the full range of harm reduction services as outlined by the World Health Organization and to overdose prevention, in addition to removing barriers to such services, including law enforcement practices and criminalisation, in order to reduce rates of HIV and hepatitis infection.
For example, the International Narcotics Control Board has noted that the operation of supervised injection sites is consistent with the drug conventions, citing evidence that such facilities have proven effective in protecting the health and lives of marginalised people who use drugs, and public health more generally, without increasing drug use or drug trafficking.[334] The Board has emphasised that the ‘ultimate objective [of such sites] should be to reduce the adverse consequences of drug abuse without condoning or encouraging drug use and trafficking’.[335] To this end, the Board has called on States to ensure that these facilities ‘provide or refer patients to treatment, rehabilitation and social reintegration services … [which] must not be a substitute for demand reduction programs’.[336] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the denial of an exemption to criminal prohibitions on drug possession in order to permit the operation of a supervised injection site without risk of criminal prosecution impermissibly violates the constitutional rights of people with drug dependence, namely their rights to life, liberty, and security of the person.[337]
Death penalty
Under international law, the death penalty, when used, is restricted to the ‘most serious crimes’,[338] which ‘appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing’.[339] Drug offences cannot serve as the basis for the death penalty,[340] and mandatory death sentences are prohibited.[341] States must review their criminal laws to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed for crimes not qualifying as ‘most serious crimes’. They should revoke death sentences issued, and resentence those convicted, for such crimes.[342]
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also imposes an absolute prohibition on the death penalty for pregnant women. Both the International Covenant and the Convention on the Rights of the Child impose an absolute prohibition on the death penalty for offences committed by persons under 18 years of age.[343] The Human Rights Committee has further concluded that States must refrain from imposing the death penalty on people who face special barriers in defending themselves on an equal basis as others, such as people whose serious psychosocial and intellectual disabilities impede their effective defence.[344] The Committee recommends that States refrain from executing people who have a diminished ability to understand the reasons for their sentence and persons whose execution would be exceptionally cruel or would lead to exceptionally harsh results for their families (such as where the person in question has suffered serious human rights violations or is the parent of very young or dependent children).[345] In considering alternative sentencing, the Convention on the Rights of the Child also prohibits minors’ imprisonment without the possibility of release.[346]
In addition, States have a duty to take measures to ensure that the death penalty is never imposed in an unlawful or discriminatory manner. Where the death penalty is pursued or imposed disproportionately against religious, racial, or ethnic minorities; indigenous groups; foreign nationals; indigent persons; LGBTI persons; groups based on their political or other opinions; or any other ‘other status’ groups against which discrimination is prohibited (such as people who use drugs), this may constitute discriminatory application of the death penalty.[347] The General Assembly has urged States to ensure that the death penalty is not applied on the basis of discriminatory laws or as a result of discriminatory or arbitrary application of the law.[348]
The Human Rights Committee emphasises that States can never impose the death penalty for an offence for which such punishment was not provided by law at the time of the act’s commission, but notes that they should apply the abolition of the death penalty retroactively to people already charged with or convicted of a capital offence.[349] Moreover, ‘States parties to the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] who have abolished the death penalty by amending their domestic laws, becoming parties to the Second Optional Protocol … or adopting another international instrument obligating them to abolish the death penalty are barred from reintroducing it’.[350] The Committee has also stated that serious procedural flaws, such as the failure to promptly inform detained foreign nationals of their right to consular notification pursuant to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the failure to afford individuals about to be deported to a country in which their lives are claimed to be at real risk with the opportunity to avail themselves of available appeal procedures, may render the imposition of the death penalty in violation of the Covenant.[351]
States should also take steps to ensure that they do not aid or assist in the imposition of the death penalty outside of their jurisdiction and that the supply of equipment, personnel, training, and funding for drug law enforcement activities by or in another State, mutual legal assistance between States, and joint operations with other States in relation to drug control do not contribute, directly or indirectly, to the imposition of the death penalty. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions has raised concern that international cooperation on criminal and other matters – such as the provision of mutual legal, material, financial, or technical assistance between States, State contributions to multilateral assistance programmes, and the transfer of persons from abolitionist to non-abolitionist States –may contribute to the imposition of the death penalty for drug offences or drug-related crimes, in violation of international law.[352] These forms of inter-State cooperation may also raise questions of complicity where they contribute to the imposition of the death penalty in violation of international standards or issues of non-compliance with the assisting State’s international legal commitments.[353] The Special Rapporteur calls on States to develop guidelines on the provision of financial and technical aid and mutual assistance, especially with regard to drug-related offences, to ensure that they do not support violations of the right to life.[354]
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), art. 6; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5 (1981), art. 4; American Convention on Human Rights, O.A.S. Treaty Series No. 36 (1969), art. 4; Arab Charter on Human Rights (2004), art. 5; [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ETS No. 5 (1950), art. 2; ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, 21st ASEAN Summit, Phnom Penh, 18 November 2012, para. 11; see also Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III) (1948), art. 3.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), art. 4; Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 2.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), paras. 2, 68; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christopher Heyns, UN Doc. A/67/275 (2012), para. 11.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 12.
Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1134/2002: Gorji-Dinka v. Cameroon, UN Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1134/2002 (2005), para. 5.1; Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 305/1988: Van Alphen v. The Netherlands, UN Doc. CCPR/C/39/D/305/1988 (1990), para. 5.8.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), paras. 13, 15; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christopher Heyns, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36 (2014), paras. 46–47; see also Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (2017).
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 13; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christopher Heyns, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36 (2014), paras. 46–47; see also Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (2017).
Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990); UN General Assembly, Resolution 34/169: Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/RES/34/169 (1979); see Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 13; see also Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (2017), para. 34.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 15.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/7 (2014), para. 71.
Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Gambia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GMB/CO/2 (2018), para. 25; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Thailand, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/84/THA (2005), para. 10; Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Philippines, UN Doc. E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6 (2016), paras. 53, 54; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns: Mission to Mexico, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36/Add.1 (2014), para. 8; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Philip Alston UN Doc. A/HRC/11/2/Add.2 (2009), paras. 33, 53; United Nations, ‘UN Experts Urge Philippines to Stop Attacks and Killings in Anti-Drugs Campaign’, 23 November 2017, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=22434&LangID=E; United Nations, ‘Killings of Suspected “drug offenders” in Bangladesh Must Stop – UN Human Rights Chief’, 6 June 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23178.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations: Philippines, UN Doc. E/C.12/PHL/CO/5-6 (2016), para. 53; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53 (2016), paras. 44, 55; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36/Add.1 (2014), para. 8.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 12; UN General Assembly, Resolution 34/169: Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/RES/34/169 (1979), commentary to art. 3.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 12; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para. 9.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 12; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990), para. 9.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christopher Heyns, UN Doc. A/HRC/26/36 (2014), para. 72.
See Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990); UN General Assembly, Resolution 34/169: Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/RES/34/169 (1979).
UN General Assembly, Resolution 34/169: Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, UN Doc. A/RES/34/169 (1979), art. 1.
International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2018 (2019), paras. 326–329, 578, 628, 856; UN Office on Drugs and Crime, ‘Statement by the UNODC Executive Director on the Situation in the Philippines’, 3 August 2016, https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/press/releases/2016/August/statement-by-the-unodc-executive-director-on-the-situation-in-the-philippines.html; International Narcotics Control Board, ‘INCB Condemns Acts of Violence against Persons Suspected of Drug-Related Crime and Drug Use in the Philippines’, 18 August 2017, https://www.incb.org/incb/en/news/press-releases/2017/press_release_20170818.html.
International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2018 (2019), paras. 326–329, 578, 628, 856.
Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (2017).
See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 470/1991: Kindler v. Canada, UN Doc. CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991 (1993), para. 13.1–13.2; see also Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989), para. 5.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended by the 1972 Protocol), 520 UNTS 7515 (1961), art. 36(2)(b); Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1019 UNTS 14956 (1971), art. 22(2); Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1582 UNTS 95 (1988), art. 6.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended by the 1972 Protocol), 520 UNTS 7515 (1961), art. 36(2)(a)(4); Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1019 UNTS 14956 (1971), art. 22(2)(a)(iv), (b); Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1582 UNTS 95 (1988), art. 6(8, 10).
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1582 UNTS 95 (1988), art. 6(6).
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended by the 1972 Protocol), 520 UNTS 7515 (1961), art. 36(2)(a)(4); Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1019 UNTS 14956 (1971), art. 22(2)(a)(iv), (b); Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1582 UNTS 95 (1988), art. 6(8, 10).
See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, Einhorn v. France, Application No. 71555/01, 19 July 2001; European Court of Human Rights, Salem v. Portugal, Application No. 26844/04, 9 May 2006; European Court of Human Rights, Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, Application Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 24 September 2012; European Court of Human Rights, Rrapo v. Albania, Application No. 58555/10, 25 December 2012.
Committee against Torture, General Comment No. 4: The Implementation of Article 3 in the Context of Article 22, UN Doc. CAT/C/GC/4 (2018), para. 37; Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations: Argentina, UN Doc. CAT/C/ARG/CO/5-6 (2017), para. 33.
See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, Chahal v. United Kingdom, Application No. 22414/93, 15 November 1996, para. 105.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/70/304 (2015), para. 117.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), paras. 3, 26.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), paras. 3, 26.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), paras. 3, 26.
International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2017 (2018), paras. 20(h), 481.
International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2017 (2018), paras. 20(h), 481.
International Narcotics Control Board, Annual Report 2017 (2018), para. 840.
Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society [2011] 3 SCR 134 (Canada).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), art. 6(2).
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 35.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 35; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Viet Nam, UN Doc. CCPR/C/VNM/CO/3 (2019), para. 23; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Lao People’s Democratic Republic, UN Doc. CCPR/C/LAO/CO/1 (2018), para. 17; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Bahrain, UN Doc. CCPR/C/BHR/CO/1 (2018), para. 31; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Thailand, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/84/THA (2005), para. 14; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/5 (2018), para. 29; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/3 (2007), para. 19; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Kuwait, UN Doc. CCPR/C/KWT/CO/3 (2016), paras. 22(b), 23; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Pakistan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1 (2017), paras. 17, 18(a); Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations: Kuwait, UN Doc. CAT/C/KWT/CO/3 (2016), para. 26; Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, UN Doc. A/HRC/47/40 (2021), para. 41; Question of the Death Penalty: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/29 (2012), para. 24; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/20 (2007), paras. 51, 52; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/67/275 (2012), para. 122; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Manfred Nowak, UN Doc. A/HRC/10/44 (2009), para. 66; Question of the Death Penalty: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/HRC/24/18 (2013), para. 78; Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty: Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/73/260 (2018); Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights: Study on the Impact of the World Drug Problem on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/30/65 (2015), para. 63; Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on Implementation of the Joint Commitment to Effectively Addressing and Countering the World Drug Problem with Regard to Human Rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/39/39 (2018); International Narcotics Control Board, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, 2017 (2018), para. 257.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 37; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Sudan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SDN/CO/5 (2018), para. 29; Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 390/1990: Luboto v. Zambia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/390/1990/Rev.1 (1995), para. 7.2; Human Rights Committee Communication No. 1132/2002: Chisanga v. Zambia, UN Doc. CCPR/C/85/D/1132/2002 (2005), para. 7.4; Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1421/2005: Larranaga v. Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/C/87/D/1421/2005 (2006), para. 7.2; Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1077/2002: Carpo v. Philippines, UN Doc. CCPR/C/77/D/1077/2002 (2002), para. 8.3.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 35.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI) (1966), art. 6(5); Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25 (1989), art. 37(a).
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 49; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: Japan, UN Doc. CCPR/C/JPN/CO/6 (2014), para. 13.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 49.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25 (1989), art. 37(a).
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 44; Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations: United States, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4 (2014), para. 8.
UN General Assembly, Resolution 73/175: Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, UN Doc. A/RES/73/175 (2019).
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 38.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 35.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36: The Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36 (2018), para. 42.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/67/275 (2012), paras. 79–81; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/70/304 (2015), paras. 102–107.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/67/275 (2012), para. 79.
Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/67/275 (2012), paras. 128; Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Christof Heyns, UN Doc. A/70/304 (2015), para. 107.
