A/HRC/26/36 offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected offender.”37 69. The pivotal Principle 9 does not use the term “force and firearms”, as do the preceding provisions, but merely refers to the use of firearms. It poses a higher threshold for the use of firearms than for force in general and provides that “Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against an imminent threat of death or serious injury… and only when less extreme measures are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” 70. Principle 9 is a strong affirmation of the principle of proportionality: All uses of firearms against people should be treated as lethal or potentially lethal. The first part of Principle 9 provides that potentially lethal force may be used only to avert a potentially lethal threat or a risk of a similarly serious nature (e.g. self-defence against a violent rape). The second part deals with the intentional lethal use of force, which in any event may only be used when strictly unavoidable to protect life. What will be called the “protect life” principle – a life may be taken intentionally only to save another life – may be described as the guiding star of the protection of the right to life. 71. A common sense understanding of the scope of application of Principle 9 suggests that all weapons that are designed and are likely to be lethal should be covered, including heavy weapons such as bombs and (drone) missiles, the use of which constitutes an intentional lethal use of force. 72. The “protect life” principle demands that lethal force may not be used intentionally merely to protect law and order or to serve other similar interests (for example, it may not be used only to disperse protests, to arrest a suspected criminal, or to safeguard other interests such as property). The primary aim must be to save life. In practice, this means that only the protection of life can meet the proportionality requirement where lethal force is used intentionally, and the protection of life can be the only legitimate objective for the use of such force. A fleeing thief who poses no immediate danger may not be killed, even if it means that the thief will escape. 73. This is where fundamental differences between the general orientation of international law and many domestic human rights systems lie. While international law is aimed primarily at the preservation of life and limb, some domestic legal systems have as their first priority the protection of law and order. Drawing the line for the use of lethal force at violations of law and order, and not asking in addition whether there is a real danger, carries grave risks for lives and for a society based on human rights. The challenge is to bring the blunt generalizations of some domestic systems in compliance with the more principled requirements set by the international standards. (f) Non-discrimination 74. At times, the police exercise higher levels of violence against certain groups of people, based on institutionalized racism or ethnic discrimination.38 Discrimination on these, and other, grounds also impacts on patterns of accountability. States must instead adopt both a reactive and a proactive stance, encompassing all available means, to combat racially motivated and other similar violence within law enforcement operations.39 37 38 39 12 Code, commentary to art. 3. A/HRC/14/24/Add.8. See Nachova (footnote 29 above), paras. 145 and 161.