A/HRC/41/36 do not impose disproportionate burdens on them in response to reasonably foreseeable threats to life.13 35. The principle of due diligence as applied to protection against unlawful death has been articulated by a range of courts around the world, which tend to assess due diligence on the basis of: (a) how much the State knew or should have known; (b) the risks or likelihood of foreseeable14 harm; and (c) the seriousness of the harm. 15 36. It is worth highlighting the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v. the United Kingdom, which involved claims against British police for failing to act appropriately on information indicating that a local schoolteacher was going to harm one of his students and the student’s family. 16 The European Court of Human Rights interpreted the protection of the right to life as imposing a duty on government authorities “to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction” and “to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual”.17 Further: Where there is an allegation that the authorities have violated their positive obligation to protect the right to life in the context of their above-mentioned duty to prevent and suppress offences against the person … it must be established to its satisfaction that 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 and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk. 18 In order to sue government authorities for failing to comply with this duty, “it is sufficient for an applicant to show that the authorities did not do all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge”. 19 “This is a question which can only be answered in the light of all the circumstances of any particular case.”20 37. In determining whether authorities did all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they had or ought to have knowledge, and particularly whether the authorities “ought to have known”, a common feature in rulings around the world is the degree to which State authorities had already recognized a risk of harm to the victim and/or the victim’s family members, but had failed to act diligently to protect them. 21 A representative of the Staffordshire police reportedly commented that authorities ought to have recognized that “a threat to life exists after following a logical staged process for researching and managing a threat to life by making further enquiries or investigations”. 38. The jurisprudence on the implementation of the due diligence principle and its operationalization by police forces point to consideration of the following elements: 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 8 Ibid., para. 21. Regional and national jurisprudence includes a test of “immediacy” or “imminence” in addition to foreseeability. European Court of Human Rights, Osman v. the United Kingdom (application No. 23452/94), judgment of 28 October 1998, paras. 115–116. The Osman family brought a case under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) because its negligence case was dismissed in the English courts. European Court of Human Rights, Osman v. the United Kingdom, para. 115. Ibid., para. 116. Ibid. Ibid., para. 139. The European Court of Human Rights noted that, under British law, in order for a private citizen to make out a negligence claim based on a violation by a government authority of its duty, they must show that they were “in a relationship of proximity to the [authority], that the harm caused was foreseeable and that in the circumstances it was fair, just and reasonable” to hold the authority liable. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. v. United States, report No. 80/11, case 12.626, 21 July 2011.