sanctions and confiscation) appears in Article 3(4) of the related 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.46 This leads to an overwhelming inference that the imposition of the death penalty is excluded as an appropriate or available punishment for narcotics crimes for States, such as the Philippines, which are parties the 1961 or 1988 Conventions. This is not affected by the travaux préparatoires to the two Conventions, which make it clear that it was the intention of the parties that narcotics trafficking be the subject of serious penalties which would adequately deter narcotics trafficking. While it may well be the case that some of the parties to the Conventions retain the death penalty for narcotics offences, it does not follow that the Conventions are capable of an interpretation permitting, today, the fresh imposition of the death penalty for narcotics offences. In any event, there is an obligation under customary international law to move towards abolition, and that obligation is inconsistent with re-imposition by abolitionist States is of death penalty. International law requires States to move towards eventual abolition of the death penalty. Where a State, such as the Philippines, has already abolished the death penalty by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol, any attempt to reintroduce the death penalty is inconsistent with the obligation contained in the ICCPR to move towards abolition. The HRC has considered the question of whether there exists an obligation, independent of the Second Optional Protocol, to move towards abolition of the death penalty. In General Comment No. 6, the Committee states that The article also refers generally to abolition in terms which strongly suggest (paras. 2 (2) and (6)) that abolition is desirable. The Committee 46 Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, opened for signature Dec. 20, 1988, U.N. Doc. E/CONF.82/15 (1988) (entered into force Nov. 11, 1990). Article 3 (4) states (a) Each Party shall make the commission of the offences established in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article liable to sanctions which take into account the grave nature of these offences, such as imprisonment or other forms of deprivation of liberty, pecuniary sanctions and confiscation. (b) The Parties may provide, in addition to conviction or punishment, for an offence established in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, that the offender shall undergo measures such as treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social reintegration. (c) Notwithstanding the preceding subparagraphs, in appropriate cases of a minor nature, the Parties may provide, as alternatives to conviction or punishment, measures such as education, rehabilitation or social reintegration, as well as, when the offender is a drug abuser, treatment and aftercare. (d) The Parties may provide, either as an alternative to conviction or punishment, or in addition to conviction or punishment of an offence established in accordance with paragraph 2 of this article, measures for the treatment, education, aftercare, rehabilitation or social reintegration of the offender. Page 16 of 23