“Rules on the Handling of Criminal Cases by Lawyers” (2000) in order to regulate the handling of criminal cases and guide lawyers’ defence, but there is only one chapter focused on defence work in death penalty cases. Following ABA engagement with Chinese counterparts there was interest in several provinces in developing standards for death penalty cases. In around 2010, lawyers’ associations in Shandong, Henan and Guizhou formulated “piloting” defence guidelines for death penalty cases. These pilot guidelines provided suggestions on the selection of defence strategies, advice on operational issues including interviews, reading files, investigation and evidence collection as well as challenges for the defence during first-instance, second-instance and review procedures, and risks to lawyers. Some scholars argue that the pilots played a positive role in improving defence quality, but it seems that nothing has happened after the pilot projects ended. For many lawyers the topic of performance standards was a sensitive issue. More participatory research among lawyers is needed to understand the sensitivities, but the issue highlights concerns that go well beyond the motivation and performance of lawyers to include obstacles facing lawyers in the criminal process, low remuneration rates and lack of support from their professional bodies. Lawyers in Indonesia, surveyed by ICJR, were very supportive of the idea that the Bar associations should establish specific guidelines on providing effective defence in death penalty cases. Lawyers and judges in Taiwan, interviewed by TAEDP, however, felt that there was no need, at this stage, to establish a code of ethics or guidelines specifically for taking death penalty cases. Lawyers are guided by the general Lawyers’ Code of Ethics and there are no guidelines regarding criminal cases. Lawyers observed that there was no comprehensive training or education programmes for defence lawyers in Taiwan so requiring them to adhere to a higher code of ethics or defence guidelines would be unfair. However, lawyers did note that two lawyers had been disciplined by the Legal Aid Foundation for providing poor quality pleadings in a death penalty case, with one also dismissed from his legal aid job. Defence lawyers in Taiwan felt that there was a lack of comprehensive training and education programmes so requiring them to adhere to a higher code of ethics or defence guidelines [in death penalty cases] would be unfair. Conclusion The lack of a regional human rights mechanism is an obstacle to developing a common discourse on the human rights implications in Asia of using the death penalty. In the absence of such a mechanism The Rights Practice and our partners in Asia hope that sharing experience across the region will stimulate debate on the use of capital punishment and establish higher expectations of the criminal justice system within retentionist countries. Decisions to introduce a moratorium or take other steps to reduce the use of the death penalty lie with each country’s national authorities, but we believe that developments and trends in the region can inform public understanding and shape the climate for policy making. 20