A/HRC/20/22 relevant to enhancing journalists‘ bodily security in exercising their profession, such as the rights to physical integrity, not to be tortured or arbitrarily detained, or to be disappeared, in addition to the rights to freedom of expression and to information. 42. International human rights law, at the global as well as the regional levels, requires States to respect and protect the lives of all within their respective jurisdiction from attacks and threats of attacks, and to provide an effective remedy where this has not been the case. The State and its agents are not only required to refrain from engaging in arbitrary killings, but also to protect people from such threats by non-State actors. 43. Impunity, as has been noted, is widely recognized as one of the main causes of the continued killing of journalists. One of the elements of the right to life is accountability where a breach has occurred. It is an inherent aspect of the State‘s due-diligence obligation to prevent, punish, investigate and redress threats to and violations of the right to life. 21 The Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions22 provide that investigations in instances of extrajudicial executions are to be ―thorough, prompt and impartial‖ and conducted by independent bodies.23 Prosecutors are also required to act independently, impartially and expeditiously. 24 States are obliged to enable prosecutors to act independently and free from interference, including, where necessary, ensuring the safety of prosecutors.25 44. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that an investigation: should be initiated by the State of its own volition; should be independent, effective, sufficiently open to public scrutiny and reasonably prompt; and should involve the next of kin/family. 26 Additionally, ―any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to identify the perpetrator or perpetrators will risk falling foul of this standard‖.27 A parallel jurisprudence has been developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and in the 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 See Human Rights Committee general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life; Human Rights Committee communication No. 161/1983, Herrera Rubio v. Colombia, Views adopted on 2 November 1987, para. 10.3; report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (E/CN.4/2005/7), paras. 72-75. Economic and Social Council resolution 1989/65. Principles 7 and 9. See European Court of Human Rights, McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, Application No. 18984/91, Judgement of 27 September 1995, paras. 161-164 and Human Rights Committee communication No. 146/1983, Baboeram-Adhin et al v. Suriname, Views adopted on 4 April 1985. See also Human Rights Committee general comment No. 6; E/CN.4/2005/7, paras. 72-75; and íguez v. Honduras, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OAS/Ser. l./V./III.19, doc. 13 (1988), 28 ILM (1989) 291. Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, paras. 12-13. Ibid., para. 5. See in particular Tanrikulu v. Turkey, Application No. 26763/94, Judgement of 8 July 1999; Osman v. United Kingdom, Application No. 23452/94, Judgement of 28 October 1998; Ergi v. Turkey, Application No. 23818/94, Judgement of 28 July 1998; and Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Application Nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgement of 26 February 2004 (endorsed by the Grand Chamber in its Judgement of 6 July 2005). See also, for example, Piersack v. Belgium, Application No. 8692/79, Judgement of 1 October 1982. European Court of Human Rights, Ramsahai and others v. Netherlands, Application No. 52391/99, Judgement of 15 May 2007, para. 324. 9