CAPITAL OFFENCES IN ASIA In Asia, the death penalty is predominantly applied to five categories of crimes: drug offences, terrorism, homicide, sexual offences and blasphemy. These offences reflect diverse legal frameworks and political priorities across the region, often influenced by strict state policies and the perceived need to address social or security concerns. However, the application of the death penalty in these cases frequently raises significant human rights implications, particularly regarding fairness, proportionality and adherence to international law. Drug Offences Drug-related offences account for a significant proportion of death penalty cases in Asia, with several countries adopting harsh penalties, including mandatory death sentences, as part of their so-called war on drugs. While governments argue that these measures are essential to combating the illicit drug trade and ensuring public safety, they often come at the expense of fundamental human rights, including the right to a fair trial, proportional sentencing, and protection from arbitrary punishment. By advocating for a paradigm shift that addresses drug-related offences through a public health and socio-economic lens, rather than solely as criminal acts, lawyers can emphasise the importance of evidence-based policies. This includes advocating for harm reduction services, access to voluntary-based treatment programmes, and the decriminalisation of drug use and possession for personal use. Such approaches not only align with human rights principles but also address the root causes of drug-related issues, offering more effective and humane alternatives to punitive measures like the death penalty. • Proportionality principle: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), specifically Article 6(2), limits the application of the death penalty to the “most serious crimes,” which the UN Human Rights Committee has unequivocally clarified as crimes involving intentional killings. Drug offences do not meet this threshold. The imposition of the death penalty in such cases represents a disproportionate response. • Mandatory sentencing violations: General Comment No. 36 of the UN Human Rights Committee emphasises that mandatory death sentences are incompatible with fair trial guarantees under Article 14 of the ICCPR. Lawyers can invoke this standard to challenge the lack of judicial discretion in drug-related cases. • Rehabilitation over punishment: the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) promotes treating drug-related issues as public health concerns rather than purely criminal matters. Lawyers can use this perspective to advocate for alternative sentencing focused on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Terrorism Anti-terrorism laws in Asia often highlight a delicate tension between safeguarding national security and upholding fundamental human rights. While states have a legitimate obligation to protect their citizens from acts of terrorism, such efforts frequently result in the erosion of due process rights and the overreach of state power. Measures such as rushed trials, denial of legal March 2025 19