A/HRC/28/38 50. The Director of International Law and Protection Programmes at the International Commission of Jurists addressed the specific obligations of a State on whose territory a drone strike had taken place, as a result of which there had been casualties, whether the State had consented to the use of drones on its territory or not. He noted that in addition to the obligation to investigate if there was any doubt that the killing was unlawful, the State must ensure, where applicable, that individuals were held criminally responsible if they were within the power or effective control of that State, and ensure the provision of effective remedies and adequate reparation to victims, including in upholding the right to the truth. 51. In response to a question on best practices for accountability and transparency, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions underscored the importance of action at different levels, noting a role for the international community, for regional bodies, for United Nations field offices and for domestic institutions, such as the legislature and national human rights institutions. He also referred to the transparency requirement enshrined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which provided that a State acting in self-defence must report the measures it had adopted in that regard to the Security Council, noting that this could apply to the use of drones. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism emphasized that there was no justification for States to keep secret their own estimates of the number of civilian casualties that had been inflicted by drone strikes. The obligation to investigate and to make public the results was triggered whenever there was a plausible indication from any source that civilian casualties might have been sustained, including when the facts were unclear, or the information was partial or circumstantial. He further noted that to entrust methods of warfare to a secret intelligence agency that by nature cannot confirm or deny the existence of its operations, necessarily frustrated the duties of accountability and transparency and made it impossible for the State involved to make public the results of its post-strike investigations. Military activity that claimed the lives of human beings could never lawfully reach the requirements of accountability and transparency if it was carried out by secret intelligence agencies. V. Conclusions 52. In their concluding remarks, the panellists emphasized that the human rights implications of the use of armed drones was an issue firmly within the remit of the Human Rights Council. They affirmed that the existing legal framework was sufficient and clear. They recalled that international human rights law was applicable at all times and that armed drones were not always used in the context of an armed conflict. In such situations, international human rights law and domestic law were the primary, and often the exclusive, sources of law applicable to the use of armed drones. Where the situation did amount to an armed conflict, international human rights law remained applicable and the right to life was interpreted through the lens of international humanitarian law. 53. The panellists emphasized that current practices in the use of drones raised serious questions regarding compliance with international law, including international human rights law. The right to life must be respected in its two components: the right not to be subject to arbitrary deprivation of life and accountability for violations of the right to life. The violation of either is a violation of the right to life itself. There were serious concerns related to the ability of signature strikes and other such practices to comply with international law that needed to be addressed. 54. The lack of accountability for violations of international human rights law, in particular the right to life, must be addressed. Where there were credible allegations 15