counsel, or the use of secret evidence are often justified under the guise of national security but risk undermining the principles of justice and fairness enshrined in international law. The ICCPR permits certain rights to be limited during public emergencies, but these limitations must be strictly necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory. Lawyers play a crucial role in holding governments accountable to these standards, particularly when terrorism laws are applied disproportionately or target specific ethnic or religious groups. By demonstrating that protecting human rights reinforces the legitimacy and efficacy of anti-terrorism efforts, lawyers can advocate for a more balanced approach that respects both security imperatives and the rule of law. • Due process: Article 14 of the ICCPR unequivocally guarantees the right to a fair trial, encompassing access to competent legal counsel, sufficient time to prepare a defence, and impartial adjudication. Any deviation from these safeguards, particularly under the guise of national security, constitutes a grave violation of international human rights standards. • Proportionality in sentencing: the UN Economic and Social Council’s Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty strictly limit the application of the death penalty to intentional killings, reinforcing the principle of proportionality. Many terrorism-related offences, including those that do not involve direct loss of life, fail to meet this threshold. Homicide Homicide remains one of the most universally cited justifications for the death penalty, rooted in the perception that intentional killing constitutes a severe moral and legal violation warranting the ultimate punishment. In many Asian jurisdictions, capital punishment continues to be applied in cases of intentional killing, often with a strong emphasis on retribution and deterrence. However, this approach frequently fails to account for the nuanced and multifaceted realities that underpin many homicide cases, such as the socio-economic, psychological, and systemic conditions that may have influenced the offender’s actions. Mitigating factors such as mental health conditions, histories of abuse, extreme poverty, or coercion often play a critical role in shaping the context of homicide cases but are frequently disregarded in sentencing. Additionally, the argument that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent lacks empirical support, with numerous studies indicating that it does not significantly reduce homicide rates compared to alternative penalties. Ignoring these factors perpetuates systemic inequalities and fails to address the root causes of violent crimes, calling into question both the morality and effectiveness of capital punishment. Sexual Offences Certain Asian countries impose the death penalty for sexual offences, particularly rape, and especially where the victim is a minor. While states have a legitimate interest in deterring and punishing sexual violence, the use of capital punishment raises serious concerns regarding proportionality, wrongful convictions, and compliance with international human rights standards. The UN and various human rights bodies have reaffirmed that the death penalty should be restricted to the “most serious crimes,” which has been interpreted to mean intentional killings. March 2025 20