24. Lawyers must pursue clemency or mercy as a critical last resort, ensuring that all available avenues for relief are meaningfully explored before execution is carried out. A well-prepared clemency petition is not merely a procedural formality but a fundamental safeguard against unjust and disproportionate sentencing, particularly where appeals have been exhausted. A strategic and well-supported clemency application requires lawyers to work closely with families, mitigation specialists, and relevant experts to build a compelling case for clemency or mercy. This includes presenting detailed life histories, evidence of rehabilitation, mental health assessments, and broader socio-economic and political arguments or considerations that underscore the need for leniency. Where systemic discrimination or procedural irregularities have tainted the conviction, clemency applications should explicitly highlight these factors as grounds for relief. Lawyers must insist on full transparency and procedural fairness in the clemency process, advocating for substantive and adequate time for executive review, and the right to an explanation for decisions made. In jurisdictions where clemency is rarely granted, lawyers should work in coalition with civil society organisations and/or international human rights bodies (whenever possible) to challenge restrictive policies and push for more robust, transparent, and accountable mechanisms for executive review. 25. Lawyers must file a stay of execution whenever an execution is (imminently) scheduled. The stay of execution serves as a final and indispensable procedural safeguard, preventing irreparable harm and allowing time for further legal, humanitarian, or procedural challenges. Given the finality of capital punishment, lawyers have a paramount duty to exhaust all available legal mechanisms to delay or halt executions. This includes invoking humanitarian grounds to prevent unjust state-imposed deaths. No execution should proceed while unresolved legal flaws, unexamined mitigating factors, or broader human rights violations persist. Chapter V SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS Legal Precedents and National Framework 26. Lawyers should actively seek to align domestic arguments with international standards and/or comparative law, and strategically utilise national legal frameworks and judicial precedents to build strong defence for individuals facing capital charges. Domestic constitutional provisions, legislative safeguards, and judicial rulings provide critical avenues for challenging the legality of death sentences, particularly where sentencing practices conflict with fundamental rights, procedural fairness, or emerging jurisprudence that restricts capital punishment. Building on established legal precedents and national constitutional safeguards is a strategic necessity for lawyers in death penalty cases. By referencing authoritative judgments and engaging with domestic legal frameworks, lawyers can construct compelling arguments to challenge the validity of capital convictions. This process involves not only leveraging existing case law but also March 2025 15