A/HRC/24/47 conflict-resolution in recognition of the risks that an armed response creates for the hostages”. 77 Depending on the context and the actors involved, both negotiation and rescue operations are still either exclusively or jointly used in response to hostage-taking situations. It has been contended that either or both approaches are more likely to succeed when the counter-terrorist team is skilled and well trained in role-playing exercises, when the team has reliable intelligence on the hostage-takers and on the physical layout of the place where the hostages are held, and when they engage with the terrorists in such a way as to avoid provoking them while resisting compliance with unreasonable demands. 78 37. Counter-terrorism strategies in general and in specific cases involving terrorist hostage-taking have benefited from increased cooperation between States, but they remain far from uniform.79 As pointed out by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, countries directly concerned by hostage-taking situations are faced with a dilemma: protecting the human rights of all (including hostage-takers), securing the lives of the hostages and — as far as feasibly possible — avoiding paying ransoms.80 While mostly countries formally profess their commitment to human rights for all, a number of them hold ambivalent positions on the payment of ransoms to free their nationals taken as hostages by terrorist groups. 38. The legality of the payment of ransom to terrorist hostage-takers is generally subject to open debates in different countries. Only a limited number of States responded to the query over their domestic practices in dealing with terrorist hostage-taking for ransom. Colombia listed a number of legislative and policy measures, including the improvement of the security apparatus and international cooperation, used in fighting the scourge of hostage-taking and kidnapping. Canada stated that it held a policy on non-payment of ransom, and hence objected to a source mentioned in the progress report listing it among countries that paid ransom. In a joint commentary, Germany, France and Italy stated that they could not support any statement, conclusion or recommendation in favour of the criminalization of ransom payment, as the matter remained controversial. Contributions by Algeria and Senegal addressed the regional position without touching on domestic measures. 39. For many other States, determining national laws or policies prohibiting negotiation with or payment of ransom to terrorist hostage-takers remains a daunting task. Several States appear to hold contradictory positions on negotiation with terrorists and the payment of ransoms to terrorist hostage-takers. A publicly professed policy of non-concession to terrorists does not prevent them from getting involved in the payment of ransoms to free their nationals held hostage by terrorists.81 To substantiate such involvement is, however, difficult. 40. In 2009, the African Union, referring to existing international instruments proscribing the financing of terrorist, adopted its unequivocal decision to combat the payment of ransom to terrorist groups.82 In its decision, the African Union strongly condemned the payment of ransom to terrorist groups for hostages to be freed, and 77 78 79 80 81 82 14 Alexander and Klein, “Kidnapping and hostage-taking” (see footnote 54). Brian Forst, Terrorism, Crime, and Public Policy (Cambridge/New York, Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 286. David Cortright and George A. Lopez, Uniting against Terror: Cooperative Nonmilitary Responses to the Global Terrorist Threat (Cambridge /London, MIT Press, 2007), pp. 9–11 and 29–46. A/HRC/18/29, para. 22. Walt, “Terrorist Hostage Situations: Rescue or Ransom?” (see footnote 32). Decision 256 (XIII), reiterated in decision 311(XV), paras. 6 and 8.