A/HRC/4/26 page 22 77. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has, in several of his communications with Governments, drawn attention to the increasing reluctance to respect the right to life as a non-derogable human right.65 Several Governments have created their own interpretation of what the use of utmost force means. Such invocations as “targeted killing”, or “shoot-to-kill” are used in order to demarcate a new - officially sanctioned - approach to countering terrorism.66 As noted in 2006 by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, human rights law permits the use of lethal force when it is indispensable to save human life. In his communication with Nigeria, this Special Rapporteur stressed that the resulting emphasis should be on proportionality, on the use of lethal force as an absolute last resort, and only “when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life” (see A/HRC/4/20/Add.1). The Government of Myanmar was reminded that “shoot-on-sight policies” are a deep and enduring threat to human rights-based law-enforcement approaches and that law-enforcement officials should “as far as possible apply non-violent means” before resorting to the use of force and firearms. 78. It is the view of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions that the rhetoric of “shoot-to-kill” should never be used. It risks conveying the message that existing legal standards have been replaced with a vaguely defined licence to kill (E/CN.4/2006/53, paras. 45 and 48). The Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by General Assembly resolution 34/169, and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (1990): succinctly stress the limited role for lethal force in all enforcement operations. These instruments are adequate also in respect of suicide attacks as a form of terrorism. There is no need for new standards in respect of the use of firearms to prevent suicide terrorism. The rhetoric of shoot-to-kill serves only to displace clear legal standards with a vaguely defined licence to kill, risking confusion among law-enforcement officers, endangering innocent persons and rationalizing mistakes, while avoiding the genuinely difficult challenges that are posed by the relevant threat (ibid., para. 45). Regarding the question of proportionate use of force by law-enforcement officials, see also the report to the General Assembly of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (A/61/311, paras. 33-45). 65 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, Principle 9: “In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” Regarding shoot-to-kill policies, see also the report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (E/CN.4/2006/53), paras. 44-54. 66 See Myanmar’s supposed use of a shoot-on-sight policy in Kayin State against the opposition, or Nigeria’s such policy against the supposed armed robbers in Umuhaia in Abia State. After the London metro bombing, the British police shot down an innocent person and reported it as a regrettable security measure error.