A/HRC/34/54 notably, the right of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression and the right to life. Further, the Special Rapporteur plans to examine the extent to which the use of certain types of weapons, riot control devices or other means and methods of law enforcement would have to be considered intrinsically cruel, inhuman or degrading in the light of their immediate to long-term consequences. 43. In interpreting the relevant legal provisions, the Special Rapporteur will be guided, among other sources, by State practice, international jurisprudence and two soft law instruments widely recognized to reflect generally recognized conditions and modalities governing the use of force by law enforcement officials: the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials. The Special Rapporteur intends to conduct his thematic work in this area based on consultations and expert meetings with relevant stakeholders and experts, and building on earlier analyses by other special procedure mandate holders who explored similar issues.12 E. Torture and ill-treatment by non-State actors 44. So far, steps taken by the mandate to combat torture have focused almost entirely on States as potential perpetrators. Yet organized armed groups, private military and security contractors, mercenaries, foreign fighters and other non-State actors are increasingly engaged in conduct that adversely interferes with human rights, including the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. For the absolute and non-derogable prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to retain its practical relevance, however, it must also provide for practical protection against violations on the part of non-State actors. 45. This focus area raises questions of the due diligence of States as well as, to a certain extent, of the direct obligations of non-State actors as far as the absolute prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is concerned. It should be recalled that, although non-State actors are not directly bound by human rights treaties, there are other treaty provisions prohibiting torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that may be directly binding on them. Most notably, under international humanitarian law, both States and non-State actors are absolutely prohibited from resorting to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for reasons related to an armed conflict. Moreover, any person resorting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment amounting to a war crime, a crime against humanity, or even genocide is subject to prosecution under international criminal law. Arguably, the universal prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment can also be based on a general principle of law, namely what the International Court of Justice referred to as “elementary considerations of humanity”. According to article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, such general principles of law constitute an independent source of international law along with treaties and custom. 46. As far as the due diligence of territorial States is concerned, the Special Rapporteur is of the view that the exercise of control by an organized armed group as de facto authority over the population of a State does not deprive the people living in this territory of their rights.13 States therefore have a due diligence obligation to protect individuals under their jurisdiction from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on the part of non12 13 As contained, for example, in documents A/66/330, A/HRC/17/28, A/HRC/26/36 and A/HRC/31/66. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 26 (1997) on the continuity of obligations. 11