This chapter examines the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s capital drug law and its application, using the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as the normative framework. The 2017 amendment to Iran’s capital drug law is examined against the aims and likely motivations behind the amendment. Judicial legitimacy is assessed by examining how judges apply drug laws in capital cases and the extent to which fair trial guarantees are observed, and by assessing the structure of the judiciary in which these judgments are delivered. We use 10 judgments – rarely available in the public domain – handed down by the judiciary during 2014–2020 to argue that there have been positive developments in improving fair trial guarantees. Nonetheless, capital drug cases fall below the standard required under the ICCPR. The amendment sought to limit the application of the death penalty to major drug syndicates, but our analysis shows serious issues that may hamper the realisation of the amendment’s objective.

The Singapore Government is well known for its stout defence of the use of capital punishment in the face of international criticism. It recently released studies to support claims of its effective deterrence against drug offending. However, domestic support for the death penalty, evidence for its effectiveness in controlling drug offences, and case law on capital drug offences are more nuanced than what appears at first sight. This chapter examines recent social, political, judicial, and regional developments, which may shape Singapore’s future death penalty policy and practice for drug offences.