A/HRC/14/24 the coextensive protections of, and complementary relationship between, human rights and humanitarian law.9 40. Another significant element of the mandate’s work in this area has been to study the methods and means of warfare. Thus, for example, the 2007 report to the Council (A/HRC/4/20) examined “mercy killings” and explained the legal basis for their absolute prohibition. Reports have also addressed: the principles of distinction and proportionality; airstrikes; cluster bombs; raids; perfidy; suicide attacks; human shielding; issues arising in urban counter-insurgencies; and killings of persons hors de combat.10 Mission reports on the Central African Republic (A/HRC/14/24/Add.5), Afghanistan (A/HRC/11/2/Add.4, paras. 9 and 23-24), and Israel and Lebanon (A/HRC/2/7, paras. 30 and 68-70), also addressed the requirement of reciprocity and the illegality of reprisal killings. As the discussions on reciprocity explained, one side’s unlawful use of civilian shields, for example, does not affect the other side’s obligation to ensure that airstrikes do not kill civilians in excess of the military advantage of killing the targeted fighters. 41. Over the course of the mandate, the responsibility of rebel or insurgent groups to observe international humanitarian law has repeatedly been explained and emphasized, including in country reports on Afghanistan (A/HRC/11/2/Add.4, para. 71), the Central African Republic (A/HRC/11/2/Add.3, para. 6), Colombia (A/HRC/14/24/Add.2), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (A/HRC/14/24/Add.3), Sri Lanka (E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, paras. 26, 30 and 33) and the Philippines (A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, para. 5). Too often, and especially in insurgency contexts, civilians are trapped between State and rebel forces, or between warring rebel factions, in a struggle to avoid being threatened or killed by one or more sides. This dynamic, together with the obligations of all sides to respect international law, was described in detail in the reports on Afghanistan, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 42. Reports have also addressed the importance of human rights-based security sector reform (A/HRC/11/2/Add.3), military recruitment and vetting of military personnel for war crimes,11 humanitarian law training,12 killings by private security contractors,13 and the need for transparency and accountability mechanisms relating to right-to-life violations during armed conflict and occupation.14 C. Killings during counter-terrorism operations 43. I have often had cause to note that while terrorist acts can have terrible consequences, counter-terrorism responses must not themselves violate human rights and humanitarian law. One example concerns the targeted killings of alleged terrorists. Both international human rights and humanitarian law apply to limit the circumstances under which States may intentionally kill specific individuals both in and outside the context of armed conflict.15 The refusal of States that practice targeted killings, and those on whose territory such killings occur, to respond to allegation letters and requests for information on whether applicable legal standards and procedural safeguards have been complied with, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 10 E/CN.4/2005/7, paras. 48-53; A/HRC/4/20, para. 19; A/HRC/2/7, E/CN.4/2006/53/Add.5, paras. 24-33; and A/HRC/11/2/Add.4. See A/HRC/2/7 and A/HRC/11/2/Add.4. A/HRC/11/2/Add.3 and A/HRC/14/24/Add.3. A/HRC/11/2/Add.3 and A/HRC/11/2/Add.4. Ibid. See, for example, E/CN.4/2006/53, paras. 33-43. A/62/265, para. 27; E/CN.4/2005/7; and A/HRC/11/2/Add.5, paras. 71-73. paras. 15-16;