A/HRC/28/38 that it was essential that States focus on support for victims of terrorism as this would reduce social tensions, as well as other conditions conducive to terrorism. The Legal Director of the Foundation for Fundamental Rights noted that, as part of an effective counter-terrorism strategy, States should bring to justice any person suspected of acts of terrorism, and respect their rights of access to justice and due process. The use of drones, combined with the absence of any accountability and reparation for victims, brought new threats and was in fact counterproductive. C. Accountability and transparency 45. Many delegations emphasized that States must take responsibility for their actions and that there could not be impunity for violations of international law that might result from the use of armed drones. States must make every effort to avoid casualties and take steps to address and investigate the harm caused to individuals because of their use. 46. Many delegations emphasized that lack of transparency created an accountability vacuum and prevented access to an effective remedy for victims. Transparency played an important role in assessing and enhancing respect for the rule of law. It was required for an evaluation of the consequences of the use of armed drones, a determination of the applicable legal framework and, consequently, a determination of the lawfulness of each strike. States that were using drones were urged to be as transparent as possible concerning the use of armed drones, as a significant step towards ensuring accountability. 47. It was emphasized, therefore, that States should release information about their use of armed drones. It was noted that they should publicly disclose the legal criteria governing their lethal targeting operations, including any legal advice received, the records of their targeting decisions and operations, and should specify the safeguards in place to ensure compliance with international law. Speakers also noted that States must make public the identity and number of individuals killed or injured in targeted killing operations and the measures in place to prevent civilian casualties, and ensure redress when such casualties occurred. It was noted that the onus is on the State to provide the basic information and to demonstrate the legality of such operations and any consent or assistance provided. 48. The Senior Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights recalled that transparency was connected to accountability, which was an obligation under international law, not a policy choice. She noted that, despite a commitment to greater transparency, States that used drones had publicly acknowledged very few strikes and had not made their legal standards public. In addition to more transparency about the law and the criteria that governed the use of armed drones, States should also offer public explanations to satisfy the right to truth of victims when investigations were conducted. 49. Delegations also noted that States must facilitate prompt, independent and impartial investigations where civilian deaths or injuries were reported, and victims must have access to an effective remedy. A coalition of NGOs noted that much more could be done by States to provide redress for victims whose harm had been well documented, but who were denied much needed assistance, as well as their basic dignity. Other speakers noted that victims must be appropriately compensated and that there must be judicial accountability at the national level. One delegation noted that its Government was committed, in its use of armed drones, to providing the greatest possible transparency consistent with national security needs. It noted that, where civilians were killed or injured, after-action reviews were conducted to determine why and to ensure that effective steps were taken to minimize the risk of civilians being killed or injured in the future. In addition, condolences or ex gratia payments might be available. 14