A/HRC/24/47 responses to a terrorist hostage-taking situation is the preservation of life, some may argue that a law that prevents all actors — including family members — from paying ransom for the liberation of their relatives in captivity would be a violation of the latter’s right to life. Beyond the narrow but relevant debates over ransom payment, acts to prevent and eradicate the phenomenon are more likely to succeed if they are part of a global strategy of fighting terrorism that addresses root causes.99 Such strategies should be centred on the needs and interests of individual and collective victims, including hostages and communities living in areas plagued by terrorism. B. Adequacy of international and regional instruments of relevance to hostage-taking, the payment of ransom and victims’ rights 1. International instruments 47. Under the aegis of the United Nations, the global community of States has adopted 14 legal instruments and four amendments intended to prevent terrorist acts. 100 Most of the early international conventions on particular dimensions of international terrorism focused on the strengthening of cooperation between States to prevent acts of terrorism and bring offenders to justice. They hardly addressed the needs of and remedies for the victims. Nonetheless, a number of these conventions have particular relevance for hostage-taking situations. 48. Acts committed aboard aircrafts are covered by the Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and the new Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation (not yet in force). While none of these instruments expressly addresses the situation of terrorist hostage-taking or provides for reparation for victims, this particular dimension of terrorism certainly falls within the prohibited acts under these instruments, which offer grounds for the prosecution of offenders. 49. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents expressly proscribes the intentional commission of murder, kidnapping or other attack upon the person or liberty of an internationally protected person. The use of kidnapping in the instrument may be construed in a broad sense that encompasses certain hostage-taking acts. 50. With regard to victims, article 3 (1) of the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages imposes a duty on the State party in the territory of which the hostage is held to “take all measures it considers appropriate to ease the situation of the hostage, in particular, to secure his release and, after his release, to facilitate, when relevant, his departure”. Moreover, article 3 (2) of the Convention provides for the right to restitution by a State party of “any object which the offender has obtained as a result of the taking of hostages”. It does not address issues of the legality of the payment of ransoms to terrorist hostage-takers. 51. Moreover, acts of hostage-taking for ransom clearly fall within the scope of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, which, in its article 5, 99 100 A/59/565, para. 148; Alex P. Schmid, “Root Causes of Terrorism: Some Conceptual Notes, a Set of Indicators, and a Model”, Democracy and Security, vol.1, 2005, pp. 127–136. See www.un.org/terrorism/instruments.shtml. 17