agreed that the ICCPR, notably article 14, provided the best framework for assessing respect for fair trial rights and the UN’s Minimum Safeguards for those facing the death penalty.8 In addition to a review of legislation, government policies and cases, researchers were encouraged to undertake surveys and interviews, particularly among criminal defence lawyers. Continuing covid-19 related restrictions on meetings and travel limited the extent to which interviews could take place as planned. Another less anticipated limitation was limited cooperation from lawyers in several jurisdictions. Women are underrepresented among criminal defence lawyers across Asia and women lawyers were a very small percentage of the interviewees. With such a small sample it is not possible to draw any conclusions on a gender dimension to defence lawyering. A lack of transparency and the political sensitivity of the research topic, particularly in China, was a further barrier for researchers. Fair trial rights The right to a fair trial lies at the heart of international protections for those facing the death penalty. The principle is generally held to be part of international customary law with minimum standards set out in article 14 of the ICCPR. It is a key protection under the UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty (UN Safeguards) (1984) which require “all possible safeguards to ensure a fair trial at least equal to those contained in article 14.”9 Ensuring the right in practice to a fair trial in death penalty cases is an under-examined topic. As Project 39A observes, “while the right to a fair trial in India is clearly established, the meaning of this right has largely been restricted to having legal representation with little conversation on the quality and standards of legal representation.” ICCPR article 14 states that all individuals are entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. The Human Rights Committee, in General Comment 36 (2018) concluded that the imposition of the death penalty would be arbitrary in nature where it is imposed in proceedings that violate the fair trial guarantees provided for in article 14.10 ICCPR article 6, the right to life, states that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and no state may derogate from article 6 during any time of public emergency (article 4(2)). Justice Project Pakistan (JPP) concluded that despite Pakistan having ratified the ICCPR, the Government of Pakistan’s implementation of the death penalty is arbitrary at its core and fair trial rights cannot be guaranteed. Given the centrality of article 14 protections to our understanding of fair trials all country reviews in this study used this minimum standard to inform their discussion of the role of lawyers in death penalty cases. However, not all the Asian states included in this study have signed or ratified the 8 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI). 16 December 1966. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights 9 Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. Approved by Economic and Social Council resolution 1984/50 of 25 May 1984. https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Safeguards_Guaranteeing_Protection_of_the_Rights_of_those_Facing_the_ Death_Penalty.pdf 10 General comment No. 36 on article 6: right to life. UN Human Rights Committee. 30 October 2018. UN document: CCPR/C/GC/36. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-andpolitical-rights 4