2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, the death penalty may be imposed only for the most serious crimes under the law in force at the time the crime was committed and which are not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be enforced on the basis of a final judgment of a competent court. There are two different versions of the theory of interest, which correspond to the above-mentioned issue of the rule of rights. 1. Each State Party undertakes to respect without distinction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, in particular those of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and to guarantee them to all persons within its territory and under its jurisdiction. In most modern legal systems, certain fundamental rights are conferred by the Constitution. This usually gives them some precedence over competing legal considerations, but it can vary from system to system. Sometimes constitutional rights take absolute precedence over any other consideration that is not itself based on a constitutional right.
Sometimes they will prefer a single legal result and not another without dictating it. Considering that, in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the ideal of a free person enjoying civil and political liberty and free from fear and want can be realized only if conditions are created for the enjoyment of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights for everyone, (b) Whether an amicable solution is found on the basis of respect for human rights; as it is now acknowledged, Once the Pact has been concluded, the Commission confines itself to a brief statement of the facts and the solution found; 2. This article shall enter into force when ten States Parties have made declarations in accordance with paragraph I. Such declarations shall be deposited by the States Parties with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other States Parties. A declaration may be withdrawn at any time by notification addressed to the Secretary-General. Such withdrawal shall not affect the consideration of a matter which is the subject of a communication already transmitted in accordance with this Article; Upon receipt by the Secretary-General of the notification of withdrawal of the declaration, no further notification shall be received from a State Party unless the State Party concerned has made a new declaration. Although Mills does not necessarily share the view that all rights are linked to the foundations of well-being, many contemporary authors (e.g., Raz 1984a, 1984b; Wellman 1985, 1995) agree that the basic concept of a law is something common to law and morality, although some have argued that legal authors, particularly Hohfeld, provide a better and clearer starting point for general analysis than previous authors in moral philosophy. The view that the basic concept is common to both seems consistent with the assertion that legal claims concerning justification in practical reasoning should nevertheless be based on moral claims. The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination on 15 grounds: race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, faith, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, disability, receipt of public assistance (home only), criminal record (employment only). Competing rights claims may be related to a Code ground. However, conflict situations often involve creed, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status or disability.
2. Subject to the provisions already provided for in existing legislative or other measures, each State Party undertakes, under the present Covenant, to take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with its constitutional procedures and the provisions of the present Covenant, to enact such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant. One of the most controversial areas in recent years has been whether young children, the seriously mentally ill, non-human animals, endangered landscapes, etc. can legitimately be considered legitimate rights holders. It is clear that anyone entitled to take legal action must have certain rights within the system. However, it does not automatically follow that an entity that fails to do so or that is physically or mentally incapable of bringing an action is not thereby a rights holder.