A/HRC/28/38 of violations of international law, States were under an obligation to carry out prompt, independent and impartial investigations, and to make the results publicly available. States had a duty of public explanation to victims and to the international community. States should permit judicial review of the claims alleging grave violations of domestic and international law, and should be more transparent in their use of drones as a precondition to any meaningful accountability, including by providing information about the legal basis for the use of drones and facts about specific strikes. 55. The plight of victims must be recognized, and their rights to effective remedy, including reparation and the right to truth, must be respected. The impact of drone strikes on individuals and communities must also be recognized, including their impact on the right to work, to education, to health, to religion and to association. With regard to individuals suspected of terrorist activity, the rights of due process, to a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, and to respect for the rule of law must also be respected. 56. Finally, the panellists noted that it was important that the Human Rights Council remain actively engaged on issues related to the human rights aspects of the use of armed drones. The starting point of any legal analysis on armed drones should be existing international law, in particular the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life. Modifying well-established rules of international law to accommodate the use of drones might have the unintended long-term consequence of weakening those rules. The existing legal framework was sufficient and did not need to be adapted to the use of drones, rather, it was the use of armed drones that must comply with international law. 16