A/HRC/15/33 15. The European Court of Human Rights identifies the right to protection as part of the right to life. In Kiliç v. Turkey,27 the Court observed that there is a “positive obligation on the authorities to protect an individual or individuals whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual and a State must take positive operational measures when the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party.” In some cases, the Court dealt directly with the intimidation of victims and witnesses in the context of interference with article 34 (formerly article 25) of the European Convention on Human Rights which sets out the right of individual petition, and requires the contracting parties to “undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”28 16. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has similarly addressed protection as a prerequisite for the fulfilment of other rights, including the right to be heard,29 and the right to an effective recourse.30 The Court has ruled that failure to provide protection to victims and witnesses impedes effective access to justice under articles 1.1, 8 and 25 in both criminal and civil proceedings. In La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, the Court articulated the integral connection between the obligation to investigate, within the framework of the guarantees of due process, the right to the truth, the right to justice, and the protection of all those involved in the criminal proceedings.31 17. Similarly, in Kawas-Fernandez v. Honduras, the Court held that by failing to provide protection to the witnesses, the State had “not guaranteed true right to justice for the relatives of the deceased victim.”32 In addressing protection within the context of articles 1.1, 8 and 25, the Court not only emphasized the obligation of the State to provide protection, but also considered protection as a necessary condition for the effective enjoyment of the right to participate and to be heard.33 In a number of cases at the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, protection measures have also been seen as the fulfilment of the right to a remedy through the guarantee of non-repetition, and as part of reparation awards.34 18. Practice and jurisprudence of international ad hoc criminal tribunals, special hybrid courts and the International Criminal Court have also emphasized the importance of protecting the individuals who are involved in the investigation and prosecution of cases within their jurisdiction. For example, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court recently ruled that protection should, in principle, be available to anyone put at risk by the investigation of the Prosecutor, and noted that “the specific provisions of the Statute and the Rules for the protection not only of witnesses, victims and members of their families, but also other persons at risk on account of the activities of the Court, are 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 8 European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), application No. 22492/93. See Aksoy v. Turkey (ECHR, application No. 21987/93); Kurt v. Turkey (ECHR, application no. 15/1997/799/1002); Sarli v. Turkey (ECHR, application no. 24490/94). American Convention on Human Rights, article 8. Ibid., article 25. Case of La Rochela Massacare v. Colombia (Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), 2007 C Series No. 163, paragraph 171). IACHR, case of Kawas-Fernandez v. Honduras (2009); Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala (2003); Ituango Massacare v. Colombia (2006). IACHR, case of Mapiripan Massacre v. Colombia (2005). IACHR, case of Kawas-Fernandez v. Honduras (2009), paragraph 193; La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, paragraph 297. GE.10-15173