A/HRC/14/24 creates a situation in which Governments kill without any “verifiable obligation . . . to demonstrate in any way that those against whom legal force is used are indeed terrorists” (E/CN.4/2005/7, para. 41). 44. In response to “shoot-to-kill” policies aimed at suspected suicide bombers, I examined in detail the rules regulating the use of lethal force by law enforcement officials (E/CN.4/2006/53, paras. 44-54). That report emphasized that human rights law provides a framework within which States can reconcile their obligations to protect their populations from terrorism, with their obligations to respect the rights of suspects. D. Killings by non-State actors 45. Human rights and humanitarian law clearly apply to killings by non-State actors in certain circumstances. Thus, for example, country mission reports have investigated killings by rebel and insurgent groups, paramilitary groups, militias, vigilantes, death squads, criminal gangs, bandits, mobs, family members and private individuals. Such killings may be for the purposes of “social cleansing”, to “restore honour”, to punish suspected criminals, or to punish “witches”. They might also be for profit, or be linked to domestic violence familial blood feuds, armed conflict, election violence or inter-communal violence. 46. Because a focus on killings by non-State actors has at times been controversial, the mandate has extensively studied and clarified the legal bases for the responsibility of nonState actors and the State with respect to this category of abuses. In 2004 I identified four general categories of non-State actors and explained the legal implications (E/CN.4/2005/7, paras. 65-76): (a) The State has direct responsibility for the actions of non-State actors that operate at the behest of the Government or with its knowledge or acquiescence. Examples include private militias controlled by the Government (which may, for example, be ordered to kill political opponents) as well as paramilitary groups and deaths squads; (b) Governments are also responsible for the actions of private contractors (including military or security contractors), corporations and consultants who engage in core State activities (such as prison management, law enforcement or interrogation); (c) Where non-State armed groups are parties to an armed conflict, such groups have their own direct legal responsibilities for any killings they commit in violation of international humanitarian law. Where a group exercises significant territorial and population control, and has an identifiable political structure, it may also be important for the Special Rapporteur to address complaints directly to the group and to call for it to respect human rights and humanitarian law norms.16 This has been the approach in reports on Afghanistan, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sri Lanka. (d) The mandate has increasingly addressed fully “private” killings, such as murders by gangs, vigilante justice, “honour killings” or domestic violence killings. In most cases, an isolated private killing is a domestic crime and does not give rise to State responsibility. However, where there is pattern of killings and the Government’s response (in terms either of prevention or of accountability) is inadequate, the responsibility of the State is engaged. Under human rights law, the State is not only prohibited from directly violating the right to life, but is also required to ensure the right to life, and must meet its due diligence obligations to take appropriate measures to deter, prevent, investigate, 16 See A/62/265, paras. 37-44. 11