A/HRC/28/38 IV. Summary of the discussion 29. During the plenary discussion, delegations from Algeria, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Germany, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ireland, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Sudan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) took the floor. 30. Delegates of the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also took the floor: Amnesty International, the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Open Society Institute (on behalf of Open Society Foundations), and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. A representative of ICRC also took the floor. A. General remarks 31. Most delegations welcomed the discussion at the Human Rights Council of the human rights implications of countering terrorism, including the use of armed drones. Some delegations suggested that the issue of armed drones should also be discussed in other forums, to encompass the wide-ranging aspects of the topic. Some States noted that the conduct of military operations in conformity with international humanitarian law was not of primary relevance to the mandate of the Human Rights Council, with one delegation referring to the initiative of Switzerland and ICRC on enhancing compliance with international humanitarian law, as a forum more conducive to engagement on issues involving the law of armed conflict. Other delegations noted that discussions on weapons on a thematic basis would be more appropriate in the context of arms control and disarmament forums, with the informal meeting of experts on the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects noted by way of example. 32. In their responses to the questions and remarks of delegations the panellists all emphasized the relevance of the Human Rights Council to any discussion on the use of armed drones. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions recalled that the essence of the discussion related to targeted killings, which was an issue of primary relevance to the “supreme” human right to life. As the Human Rights Council was the prime international body for the examination of human rights issues, the discussion fell squarely within its jurisdiction. He noted that the international law principles relating to the right to life and the use of force were well established and tested over time and that the Human Rights Council should not relinquish its responsibility as their custodian. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism noted that the discussion was not about arms control, but about the human rights implications of the use of armed drones. That required consideration of the applicable legal regime, to determine whether international human rights law operated alone or together with international humanitarian law, noting that whatever the context, international human rights law applied to the use of armed drones and governed the situation. It was also about the duty to investigate violations of the right to life and the duty to be transparent about the results of the investigations, which was “classic” human rights law territory. 33. Delegations recalled the obligation to respect the general principles of international law in the use of drones. Respect for State sovereignty, territorial integrity, including sovereign air space, and the political independence of all States were referred to. Speakers 10