witnesses of the execution.79 Likewise, the Human Rights Committee has considered that public executions are incompatible with human dignity.80 107. United Nations Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty establish that “when the death penalty may be carried out it must be done in a way to keep to a minimum the suffering of prisoners.”81 The Special Rapporteur on Torture, referring to the Safeguards, has indicated that there is no categorical evidence to show that any of the execution methods currently used to implement the death penalty comply with the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and added “even if the safeguards were observed, all currently used methods of execution can inflict pain and excessive suffering.”82 108. The Human Rights Committee has applied this test of “least physical and mental suffering possible” to determine if the method to execute the sentence constitutes cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. In the Case of Ng. v. Canada, the Committee considered that execution by gas chamber may cause prolonged suffering and agony and does not result in instantaneous death since asphyxiation by cyanide gas may take more than 10 minutes. It concluded that this method of execution does not pass the test of "least physical and mental suffering as possible" and constitutes cruel and inhumane treatment inhumane contrary to article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights.83 109. The Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions has indicated with respect to the methods for the execution of the death penalty that “the extraordinary power conferred on the State to end a person’s life through a firing squad, hanging, lethal injection or other means to kill, poses a dangerous risk of abuse. This power can be kept under control only through the public supervision of the public punishment. It is a commonplace that due process serves to protect the accused. However, due process is also a mechanism through which society ensures that the punishments inflicted on their behalf are fair.” 84 110. Also, various States have indicated, within the frame of high level discussions on the question of the death penalty before the United Nations Human Rights Council, that methods of execution such as stoning, beheading, electrocution, or shooting inflict excruciating pain and therefore constitute inhuman or degrading treatments.85 79 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “UN Special Rapporteurs condemn ongoing executions in Iran”, 28 June 2012. 80 Human Rights Committee cited in: International Bar Association, The Death Penalty under International Law: A background Paper to the IBAHRI Resolution on the Abolition of the Death Penalty, p.6. 81Economic and Social Council, Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty. 82 A/HRC/30/18, Human Rights Council, Capital punishment and the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, Yearly supplement of the Secretary-General to his quinquennial report on capital punishment, para.32; also see: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights “Despite progress in abolishing the death penalty, thousands remain on death row. 83 and 16(4.) Human Rights Committee, Case of Ng. v. Canada, Decision of November 5, 1993, Communication No. 469/1991, paras.16(2) 84 A/HRC/30/18, Human Rights Council, Capital punishment and the implementation of the safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, Yearly supplement of the Secretary-General to his quinquennial report on capital punishment, para. 50. 85 A/HRC/27/26, Summary of the high-level panel discussion on the question of the death penalty, Human Rights Council, 30 June 2014, para.25. 19