Chapter 1. Most Serious Crimes This chapter considers the extent to which China respects Safeguards One and Two. This includes whether the use of the death penalty is restricted to “most serious crimes”, which are intentional and with “lethal or other extremely grave consequences”, and consistent with the evolving understanding of international law. We consider China’s sentencing and approach to most serious crime, including the increasing use of sihuan, two-year suspension of the death penalty, a sentence unique to China. We also outline some issues surrounding violent crime and intentional killing, national security and drug-related offences. International Law International and regional bodies are in agreement on the two requirements of Safeguard One. First, mandatory death sentences are not compatible with the Safeguard and sentencing must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Secondly, “most serious crimes” is limited to those that involve intentional killing. Non-violent crimes such as drug offences do not fall under this. According to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) 2015 Report, a mandatory death sentence is incompatible with Safeguard One because it “fails to take into account the defendant’s personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offence” and therefore “does not permit distinctions to be made between degrees of seriousness of the particular crime for which the penalty is imposed.” Safeguard One was the first attempt to provide a clearer definition of “most serious crimes” as stated in article 6 of the ICCPR. Article 6 states, “in countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes.” The final clause of “with lethal or other extremely grave consequences” was inserted into the safeguard following concerns from the United Nations Secretary-General that the phrase “most serious crimes,” by itself, would be too vague. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has held that “most serious crimes” is capable of objective interpretation; to hold otherwise “would render the relevant international law standard meaningless.”10 General Comment No. 36 on the Right to Life, adopted by the Human Rights Committee in October 2018, explicitly states, in paragraph 35, that, “the term “the most serious crimes” must be read restrictively and appertain only to crimes of extreme gravity, involving intentional killing.” With respect to Safeguard One, “most serious crimes” should thus not encompass drug-related offences, other violent offences or killing that is non-intentional. The Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has also clarified that the definition of “most serious crimes” does not include drug-related crimes. In the Special Rapporteur on Torture’s view, “the imposition of the death penalty on drug offenders amounts to a violation of the right to life, discriminatory treatment and possibly . . . also their right to 10 Alston, Philip. ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions’. 29 January 2007. A/HRC/4/20. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/105/00/PDF/G0710500.pdf?OpenElement 11