A/HRC/14/24 D. Mass graves and State responsibility 68. I have visited or been informed of mass grave sites in Afghanistan, Albania, Colombia and Kenya. In Kenya, around Mt. Elgon, I learned of sites that had not been secured or preserved, and whose victims had not been identified. In Albania, there are numerous reports of alleged undiscovered mass grave sites, related both to communist-era abuses, and separately to allegations of killings after the Kosovo war (A/HRC/14/24/Add.9). In Afghanistan, I visited Dasht-e-Leili, suspected of containing the remains of some 2,000 Taliban fighters killed after surrendering in 2001. Credible reports suggest that those responsible had later removed bodies in order to destroy the evidence (A/HRC/11/2/Add.4, para. 66). 69. States are obligated to investigate alleged violations of the right to life. But what, specifically, does this entail with respect to mass graves? Must certain steps be taken when there are credible allegations of the existence of such a site? What can be learned from the experience of States in dealing with mass graves on their territory? What steps should be taken to secure the site, to prevent tampering and to protect witnesses, to identify bodies and notify family members? How can the Special Rapporteur most productively respond to allegations of mass graves? Should there be some international resources available, beyond those provided by groups like Physicians for Human Rights, to conduct independent and expert investigations? The effectiveness of efforts to prevent impunity depends significantly on answering such questions. E. Civil defence groups 70. The mandate has addressed the use of force by private actors in various contexts. One particular subgroup of non-State actors – civilians who band together to form “civil defence groups” or “village self-defence forces” with a view to exercising force against other armed actors – raises complex issues that merit further research. 71. Such groups are most likely to exist when: (a) Civilians face daily threats to their lives and property in situations of armed conflict, high levels of lawlessness (especially attacks on villages by bandits), or similar heightened insecurity; and (b) The State’s security presence is minimal or entirely absent because, for example, territory is remote, or held or contested by rebel groups or criminal gangs; and/or (c) State forces are themselves a source of threat.30 72. The international community has long been concerned about the existence of such groups, and the risks they pose,31 but there has been little analysis or understanding of how best to mitigate the risks, and when or how such groups should be supported or disbanded. On the one hand, civil defence groups may be the only form of security for local communities. In some circumstances – for instance, out of strict necessity and in defence against imminent threats to life – the formation of such groups may be appropriate, and their use of force may be lawful. 30 31 E/CN.4/1994/7, paras. 719-720; E/CN.4/1994/7/Add.1; A/HRC/4/20/Add.2; A/HRC/11/2/Add.6; and A/HRC/14/24/Add.3. See Commission on Human Rights resolution 1992/57; E/CN.4/1992/18; E/CN.4/1993/34; and E/CN.4/1994/38. 17