A/HRC/26/36 activated, will select and engage targets in an autonomous way, without further human intervention. The debates in the Human Rights Council thus far on these issues have been fruitful and productive. The Council has also recently adopted a resolution to organize an interactive panel discussion of experts on the topic.69 134. Both armed drones and autonomous weapons systems raise complicated questions and issues of international humanitarian law as well as human rights – and in particular right to life – issues. The detailed arguments made in earlier Special Rapporteur reports to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly will not be repeated here. However, the current moment seems to provide a good opportunity to make brief comments. A. Remotely piloted aircraft (or armed drones) 135. It has been more than 10 years since the first reported armed drone strike in Yemen outside the scope of a traditional armed conflict, took place, on 3 November 2002.70 Since then, and as at February 2014, according to some sources, a minimum estimate of 2,835 individuals have been killed in drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia alone.71 136. In some cases, such armed drone attacks may have been subject to and conformed with the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL), while in others there are serious concerns that they may not have met the IHL requirements. Some attacks also may not have occurred within the confines of an armed conflict, and as such should be measured by the more stringent requirements of international human rights law, which they almost certainly did not meet. There are also cases where there is genuine uncertainty. While there is agreement on most aspects of the international legal framework that is applicable to armed drones, there are some areas where its interpretation is still being debated. 137. Legal uncertainty in relation to the interpretation of important rules on the international use of force presents a clear danger to the international community. To leave such important rules open to interpretation by different sides may lead to the creation of unfavourable precedents where States have wide discretion to take life and there are few prospects of accountability. Such a situation undermines the protection of the right to life. It also undermines the rule of law, and the ability of the international community to maintain a solid foundation for international security. 138. To contribute towards a stronger global consensus on the regulation of armed drone strikes (by international law), it is proposed that the Council, among other relevant bodies, consider expressing its views on the applicable legal framework on drones, as has to some extent already been done by the General Assembly.72 139. The intervention by the European Union (EU),73 with which the United Kingdom aligned itself,74 during the debate in the Third Committee of the General Assembly, in 69 70 71 72 73 74 A/HRC/25/22, para. 4. E/CN.4/2003/3, para. 39. See http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/. On 18 December 2013 the General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution 68/178, which in para. 6 (s) urges States “to ensure that any measures taken or means employed to counter terrorism, including the use of remotely piloted aircraft, comply with their obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, human rights law and international humanitarian law, in particular the principles of distinction and proportionality”. See http://webtv.un.org/watch/third-committee-27th-meeting-68th-generalassembly/2777317047001/#full-text, at 1:30:10; and European Parliament Resolution on the use of armed drones (2014/2567(RSP)). See http://webtv.un.org/watch/third-committee-27th-meeting-68th-general- 21