A/HRC/41/CRP.1 failing to appropriately act on information indicating that a local school teacher was going to harm one of his students and the student’s family.272 336. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) interpreted the protection of the right to life as imposing a duty on government authorities “to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction” and “to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual.” 273 “[W]here there is an allegation that the authorities have violated their positive obligation to protect the right to life in the context of their above-mentioned duty to prevent and suppress offences against the person …, it must be established to its satisfaction that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.”274 In order to sue government authorities for failing to comply with this duty, “it is sufficient for an applicant to show that the authorities did not do all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they have or ought to have knowledge.”275 “This is a question which can only be answered in the light of all the circumstances of any particular case.”276 337. This principle, when applied by a court, has been translated to mean whether authorities did all that could be reasonably expected of them to avoid a real and immediate risk to life of which they had or ought to have knowledge, a question which could only be answered in the light of all the circumstances of any particular case. 338. In determining the question of knowledge, and particularly whether the authorities “ought to have known,” a common feature in rulings around the world is the degree to which State authorities had already recognized a risk of harm to the victim and/or her family members, but had failed to act diligently to protect them.277 In other words, authorities ought to have recognized that “a threat to life exists after following a logical staged process for researching and managing a threat to life by making further enquiries or investigations.”278 (a) The jurisprudence on the implementation of the due diligence principle, and operationalization by Police Forces point to consideration of the following elements: b. Whether there are credible threats objectively verifiable; that is to say supported by reference to a range of sources of information. c. Whether the perpetrators have the intention to implement their threats, whether they are in a position, including physical proximity, whether they have the capabilities, to carry out the threats; d. Whether the risk is immediate, meaning continuing and soon; e. Whether the identity of the victim places him/her in specific situations of vulnerabilities or risks; e. Whether there are patterns of violence against groups of individuals by virtue of their identities. Actions by Other States 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 66 The Osman family brought a case under the European Convention on Human Rights because its negligence case was dismissed in English courts. Osman v. The United Kingdom, ECHR Case No. 87/1997.871/108 (1998) at 32-33. Osman, at 33. Osman at 33. The European Court of Human Rights noted that, under British law, in order for a private citizen to make out a negligence claim based on a government authority’s violation of its duty, she must show that she was “in a relationship of proximity to the [authority], that the harm caused was foreseeable and that in the circumstances it was fair, just and reasonable” to hold the authority liable. Osman at 41. IACHR, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. USA, 2011 https://www.staffordshire.police.uk/media/4673/Threat-to-Life/pdf/Threat_to_Life.pdf