A/HRC/13/36 granting of amnesties, such impunity itself constituting a violation of international law.12 Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment states that each State party must ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law; this also applies to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. It also states that each State party must make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature. The Convention against Torture contains obligations aimed at punishing perpetrators, preventing torture and assisting victims of torture.13 27. With regards to the right to life, in general comment No. 6 (1982) the Human Rights Committee specifies that not only do States have a negative obligation not to arbitrarily interfere with the individual right to life, but also, States have a positive obligation to adopt all measures that are appropriate to protect and preserve the right to life and to prevent and punish deprivations of life by criminal acts as well as arbitrary killings by their own security forces.14 The police have the duty to prepare and plan counter-terrorism operations so as to avoid any loss of life. Public investigations of any death in which State agents may be implicated are necessary.15 28. Covert actions raise particular challenges for accountability. Since they are secretive types of action, where information is classified, it is difficult for the legislator and the judiciary to be aware of them. It should be recalled that all measures taken by law enforcement agencies must be lawful under national and international law, and compatible with States’ human rights obligations. This means that all activities undertaken by 12 13 14 15 GE.10-10442 See A/56/156. See also A/HRC/10/44/Add.2. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I, chap. IV, paras. 4, 7 and 12. See conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Belgium (CAT/C/CR/30/6). The Committee recommended that Belgium include “a provision in the Penal Code expressly prohibiting the invocation of a state of necessity to justify the violation of the right not to be subjected to torture” (para. 7 (b)). See also CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5. See Human Rights Committee communication No. 1469/2006, Yasoda Sharma v. Nepal, 26 April 2006; communication No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, 10 July 2007, para. 7.10; communication No. 213/1986, H.C.M.A. v. The Netherlands, 30 March 1989, para. 11.6; communication No. 612/1995, Vicente et al. v. Colombia, 29 July 1997, para. 8.8; communication No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, 30 March 2006, para. 11; and communication No. 1297/2004, Medjnoune v. Algeria, 14 July 2006, para. 10. See also footnote 11 supra in relation to Human Rights Committee general comment No. 31 on the kinds of effective remedy necessary in cases of violations of the right to life. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Bulacio v. Argentina, 18 September 2003 — obligation to adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life under the duty to ensure the full and free exercise of the rights by all persons under their jurisdiction. This obligation extends to all State institutions, the police and the armed forces — States must adopt all necessary measures to prevent, try and punish deprivation of life as a consequence of criminal acts carried out by its own security agents, as well as in general. See also Nils Melzer, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford Press, 2009), p. 94. Note 7 supra at para. 18 of general comment No. 31. See also the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (General Assembly resolution 60/147, annex). See also A/HRC/4/33, para. 62: in the leading case on article 14, Guridi v. Spain, the Committee against Torture, without explicit reference to the Guidelines, followed the terminology developed therein in its decision. In that case the perpetrators were subsequently pardoned after they had paid compensation. Despite the payment of compensation, the Committee found a violation of article 14 of the Basic Principles. It held that reparation should cover all the damages suffered by the victim, which included, among other things, restitution, compensation and rehabilitation of the victim, as well as measures to guarantee the non-repetition of the violations, always bearing in mind the circumstances of each case. 11