A/HRC/28/38 III. Contributions of the panellists 10. In response to questions from the moderator, the panellists’ initial remarks focused on issues linked to the international legal framework applicable to the use of drones. They highlighted the aspects of international human rights law relating to the use of armed drones, including the human rights standards applicable to the use of lethal force. 11. The Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that, while armed drones are not illegal per se, because of the ease with which they could unlawfully be used for targeted killings, they created specific challenges and were therefore necessarily subject to special scrutiny. He noted that armed drones were used in the counter-terrorism and military contexts, but also increasingly in ordinary policing and law enforcement contexts, when they might be weaponized with, inter alia, tear gas and tasers. He stated that the key issue was the legality of the use of armed drones and emphasized that the law should not follow drones; rather, the use of drones must follow the law. 12. Regarding the protection of the right to life under international human rights law, the Special Rapporteur noted that international human rights law applied to all positive actions of the State. As a rule of customary international law and a general principle of international law, the obligation to protect the right to life applied at all times, including when a State was acting on the territory of another State, irrespective of the treaties they were bound by. He noted that the right to life included a prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. That implied that an agent of the State might take or endanger the life of an individual only if it was strictly necessary and proportionate to protect against an imminent threat to life. There must be no other means than the use of lethal force, such as capture or incapacitation, to protect the life of another person. In its second component, however, the right to life also required that those responsible for violations be held to account. He reiterated a point made by the Deputy High Commissioner that where there were allegations that the right to life had been violated, States had a duty to carry out prompt, independent and impartial investigations and, where applicable, punish those responsible. A failure to do so would in itself constitute a violation of the right to life. In cases where it had been established that an armed conflict existed, international human rights law continued to apply, but the protection afforded to the right to life was interpreted in accordance with international humanitarian law. Accountability for the arbitrary deprivation of the right to life was also a key element of international humanitarian law, including a duty to investigate and, where appropriate, punish those responsible. 13. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism recalled that in situations of armed conflict, international human rights law and international humanitarian law both applied and overlapped – it was not a question of choosing between the two. He noted that the notion of targeted killings had a very different connotation, depending upon the prism of law through which it was approached. Under international humanitarian law, “targeting” was usually considered positively, whereas under international human rights law, the targeting of individuals was rarely lawful. The critical question when examining targeted killings in this context was whether the use of armed drones had taken place within a situation of armed conflict. 14. The Special Rapporteur noted that the key criteria for determining whether a noninternational armed conflict existed between a State and a non-State armed group, or between two non-State armed groups, were the intensity and length of the conflict and the degree of organization of the parties. He explained that those criteria were based on an assumption of territorial limitation. By way of example, intensity was a relative criterion traditionally measured by analysing the frequency and severity of an armed attack in a defined geographic area. 5