Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is a text drawn up by the Council of Europe. It aims to restrict the application of the death penalty by abolishing it in peacetime. It is the only optional protocol to the Convention that is signed and ratified by all members of the Council of Europe. [1]
It was subsequently supplemented by Protocol No. 13, which abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances, including in times of war or threat of war.
In its 2010 judgment in the case of Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, the Court concluded that Article 2 of the Convention prohibits the death penalty, due to the general trend towards its abolition among the States Parties to the Convention [2] . Thus, the ratification of these two protocols is now essentially symbolic: it reflects the voluntary commitment of the State Party to the abolitionist trend in Europe, without it being a requirement to which it is compelled to conform.
Protocol No. 6 is one of the so-called additional protocols, the purpose of which is to add more rights to the list of those initially proclaimed by the Convention. For this reason, States that have ratified the Convention are free to sign it or not. For the same reason, it is not necessary for all States parties to the Convention to ratify the protocol for it to enter into force. This provides flexibility to States, although at the cost of generating differences between them. [3]
Protocol No. 6 adds a single right to the list of human rights contained in the Convention, although it is set out in several main articles. [4] [5]
Summary of ratifications of the substantive additional protocols
All but two of the member States have now signed Protocol No. 13 and all but three of the States which have signed it have ratified it. These figures, together with consistent State practice in observing the moratorium on capital punishment, are strongly indicative that Article 2 has been amended so as to prohibit the death penalty in all circumstances. Against this background, the Court does not consider that the wording of the second sentence of Article 2 § 1 continues to act as a bar to its interpreting the words "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in Article 3 as including the death penalty.