Thank you for your deliberations.
I really regret that I was not able to be personally present during the discussions,
but of course colleagues from my office were.
But I appreciate this opportunity to make a few remarks at the closing session.
Let me begin by stating unequivocally that as High Commissioner for Human Rights,
I am opposed to the use of the debt penalty in all circumstances and urge those states
that retain this punishment to move swiftly towards abolition.
Under any circumstances, there is a clear need to position the debt penalty debate
within the framework of human rights.
To many of you, this might seem an obvious proposition,
but it is important to reiterate it for at least two reasons.
The first is that there are many who continue to argue that execution of an individual by the state
is not about human rights, but about criminal law.
In my view, however, any lack of clarity on this issue was dispelled with the adoption
of the international covenant on civil and political rights in 1966,
in which the debt penalty was explicitly framed as one of the very few exceptions to the right to life.
While the debt penalty is not prohibited by international law, its use is very narrowly circumscribed
by a number of human rights norms, such as the prohibition on torture,
fair trial rights, and the rights of the child.
A second reason to insist on framing the debt penalty debate within a human rights context
is that such an approach also brings into focus the violations accompanying the execution of the sentence.
In particular, I refer to the violations of human rights occasioned by the conditions on death row,
including an individual's right not to be subject to torture or ill treatment.
I am also increasingly concerned about those who are spared execution only to languish in prison
for the rest of their lives under conditions that violate human rights.
A human rights approach insists that we continue to focus on the impact on the individual,
even after a death sentence has been commuted to a less severe punishment.
Dear colleagues, allow me now to turn to the role of the international community in efforts to curb the use of the debt penalty.
There are some who continue to claim that the debt penalty is a domestic issue with no international element.
While it is true that, broadly speaking, it is up to each state to decide whether or not to include the debt penalty in its laws,
the legality of the use of the debt penalty is regulated by international law,
and beyond the legal framework, legitimate concerns over the use of the debt penalty
motivate advocates all over the world to call for the abolition of capital punishment.
While a society's decision to abolish the debt penalty will be rooted in the national context,
the positive role of a supporting international framework cannot be overestimated.
States have debated the desirability of the ultimate abolition of the debt penalty since the 1960s.
Recently, United Nations General Assembly resolutions have called for moratoria on its use.
At the expert level, human rights mechanisms, such as the treaty bodies monitoring the application of the human rights treaties,
and the independent experts, known as the Special Procedures mandate holders,
have also been engaged in framing the debt penalty issue within a human rights context.
Crucially, UN-sponsored justice mechanisms reject capital punishment, not only in principle, but also in practice.
As a result, neither the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
nor the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, both established by the Security Council, provide for capital punishment.
Moreover, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court does not permit the imposition of the debt penalty.
Mixed tribunals supported by the United Nations have similarly adopted this stance.
In sum, our knowledge base and conceptual and legal frameworks have been hammered out.
Now, we need to persuade retentionist states to make use of both.
For its part, my office, the OHCHR, actively promotes abolition and ratification of the second optional protocol
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which calls for the abolition of the debt penalty.
We carry out advocacy against the debt penalty in individual cases when legal safeguards have not been met.
And we also provide assistance to those states seeking to move towards abolition.
We need to recognize that all too often national debates on capital punishment are mired in misinformation and much apprehension.
To this end, it is essential to debunk myths regarding the presumed deterrent effect of executing criminals.
Research has shown that such an assumption is unfounded.
Further, we need to highlight the real danger of executing innocent people that exists even in the most sophisticated judicial system.
We must insist that the right to life, which is accepted by every state, not be undermined in the name of vengeance.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to close by noting some positive developments.
First and foremost, the trend towards abolition continues and at a rate that may even be slightly accelerating.
In the past two decades, a number of formerly abolitionist states has almost tripled.
They are now the majority.
Moreover, states that retain the debt penalty, with some notable exceptions, significantly reducing the number of individuals executed
or reducing the number of crimes that may carry capital punishment.
The execution of those who were children at the time of the commission of the crime, meaning those under 18 years of age,
is now almost universally regarded with appropriation.
This is not to detract from the significant obstacles that remain,
including the illegal use of the debt penalty for crimes that cannot be considered most serious,
as well as the ongoing challenge of a lack of transparency in the application of the debt penalty in a number of countries.
In 2007, Rwanda, a country that has suffered the ultimate crime and whose people's thirst for justice is still far from quenched,
decided to abolish capital punishment.
In so doing, Rwanda gave a powerful endorsement of the importance of pursuing justice while respecting the right to life
in a context where so many Rwandans lost their lives.
Other states should follow this example.
This is progress along the path of the struggle against the debt penalty,
and it is these results which motivate us to fight on.
Thank you very much.
