If this had been all, it is possible that India could have voted in favour of the resolution. However, the resolution also contains more general condemnations of the death penalty in the preambulatory clauses, which contradict India’s stance on the death penalty, which it still imposes in certain situations (not including apostasy, blasphemy, adultery or homosexual acts).

These include clauses that:

strongly deplored the fact that the use of the death penalty leads to violations of human rights of the persons facing the death penalty and of other affected persons;

acknowledge a report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights which concluded that the death penalty is viewed by many countries as a form of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and

deplore the fact that the death penalty is used against people exercising freedoms, and disproportionately affects poor and economically vulnerable persons.

The resolution also includes an operative clause calling upon States that have not yet ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to do so – a move which would then require them to abolish the death penalty.

India cannot support such statements as this would be contrary to our established foreign policy – we have not supported such resolutions in the past for the same reason. This is the same bind that all States that retain the death penalty (known as retentionists) found themselves in – not one retentionist country among the 47-strong UNHRC voted in favour, including the USA and Japan, even those which didn’t favour this punishment for homosexuality.