1. On April 3rd of this year, the 53rd United Nations Commission on Human Rights approved a historic resolution which recognized the question of capital punishment as a matter pertaining to human rights for the first time, thus establishing the moratorium on capital punishment as a political and legal instrument and a means towards the definitive abolishment of the death penalty.

2. The resolution represents an important victory in the battle against the death penalty, contributing in particular to the reinforcement of the ever more popular abolitionist juridical opinion in the international community. In fact, it was a small minority of states which supported the amendments which would deprive the resolution of its significance, and from their arguments the obvious fact emerged that reliance upon capital punishment is a remedy which despite the efforts, they are constrained to use as a last resort against the elevation of criminality.

3. This fact urges the NGO and the member states to dedicate particular attention to those situations in which the application of the death penalty may constitute a violation of the norms that are now considered common international rights.

4. Within this context, the Transnational Radical Party and its campaign in support of the abolition of capital punishment, entitled "Hands Off Cain," reminds us that emergency situations often concur with the violation of the balance of human rights and the equitable application of law, thus robbing those who are convicted of crimes and sentenced to death of the guarantees of protection established in the resolution of the social and economic Council 1984/50 of May 25th, 1984.

5. It is with particular attention that the international community should look upon these situations, which, unfortunately, are on the rise as the result of coup d'etats or civil wars, and in which the death penalty is applied in the absence of standard legal and procedural rights. In these cases, the death penalty is often applied with the characteristics of immediate and exemplary execution and extermination, and delivered according to an individual's allegiance to factions and ethnic groups.

6. The establishment of an International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity would constitute a secure, instrumental guarantee at an international level that would allow for the containment of the phenomenon. Moreover, adding the instrument for the scheduled moratorium provided for by resolution L 20 that was approved by the 53rd Human Rights Commission on April 3rd, the Security Council should impose a moratorium on executions in all those cases in which civil wars, coup d'etats, and other situations that are a threat to the peace and security of the world. Such situations carry the risk of the application of capital punishment beyond the minimal guarantees that a state must provide for those accused of crimes punishable by death. The Security Council should then implement, in the case of suchviolations, all of the sanctions provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.

7. The Transnational Radical Party, in its "Hands Off Cain" campaign, intends to call attention to another worrisome phenomenon - that of the application of the death penalty to minors. For the number of ratification to the treaties (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of Children and the American Human Rights Convention) that forbid similar actions and the general disgust that such a practice is allowed to exist among the member states of the international community, it can be said that a universal convention exists that disallows their practice. Nonetheless, 20 of the supporting states do not prohibit recourse to the death penalty in relation to minors. These states are: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Burundi, Chile, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, India, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, North Korea Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Yemen, Zimbabwe, and the military laws of Argentina, and Cyprus.

8. Regarding the United States, where democratic progress guarantees an increased availability of information, the norm varies from state to state. It is important to remember that in the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma, in 1988, the Supreme Court voted as a majority 'in its verdict that it was unconstitutional to condemn to death a person who was fifteen at the time the crime was committed, and thus firmly rejecting the validity of the application of the death penalty in such cases as a matter of state legislation. In 1989 the Supreme Court challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty in regards to criminals who committed crimes between the ages of 16 and 17. as of one year ago, only 13 states had laws which established a limit of 18 years of age for the application of the death penalty. 21 states had laws setting the limit at 16 years of age, and 4 states set the limit at 17 years of age. And the "Violent Crime Act" of 1994 excludes the death penalty for those who are under 18 years of age.

9. The arguments proposed by supporters claim that the crimes committed by minors are at times severe enough to justify the trial of the minor as an adult. Those who oppose such arguments claim that minors should be excluded a priori, as they are not mature and thus less to subject to blame than adults. On the other hand, one cannot avoid recognizing that arguments based upon retribution are inappropriate when referring to persons who rare not yet responsible for their actions, and those based on deterrence are implausible, as they necessitate that it be urgent, practical, and indispensable to activate rehabilitation for the accused.

10. Since other nations continue to apply the death penalty to minors, it results from the five year report gathered by the states that it is rare that minors condemned to death are actually punished. It is important to remember, however, that six of nine nations in 1980 executed minors despite the ratification of the International Covenant on the rights of children's Article 37 that prohibits recourse to capital punishment in cases involving minors. The fact remains thateventual additions and articles of similar content, as a result of the wide acceptance that the prohibition of the death penalty seems to have among the member states of the international community, especially regarding those proposed by the United States to the International Pact on civil and political rights, should be considered inadmissible.

11. For this reason, the Transnational Radical Party thorough its "Hands Off Cain" campaign asks the Commission and the member states to declare similar addenda invalid, and to consider nations that execute minors as acting beyond the sphere of international rights.