A/HRC/20/14 52. Where a public official is directly or indirectly responsible for a violation of the right to life or physical integrity, on the principles of either the positive or negative obligation to respect the relevant rights, the position is straightforward. On orthodox principles of State responsibility, the State is obliged to make reparation to the victim in one or more of the forms identified in the preceding paragraph, suitably tailored to the circumstances. 53. The Special Rapporteur considers that the same principle should apply to all victims of terrorism or their next-of-kin, without distinction. As emphasized in paragraphs 11 and following above, it must now be recognized that a death or serious injury resulting from an act of terrorism amounts to an interference with the rights to life and/or physical security, whether or not the acts or omissions of a public official caused or contributed to the death. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur urges States to voluntarily accept a binding international obligation to provide reparation to the victims of all acts of terrorism occurring on their territory in which a natural person has been killed or has suffered serious physical or psychological harm irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim, and thereby to fill an existing protection gap. 54. There are sound reasons of principle in favour of recognizing that States should now accept a special obligation to victims of terrorism. It is inherent in the nature of terrorism that it involves the use or threat of force aimed at influencing a State or group of States or an international organization.86 The Special Rapporteur concurs with description put forward by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) of victims of terrorism as human beings who have made an involuntary sacrifice “on behalf of the State.”87 There is almost always a direct or indirect motivational connection (however misguided) between acts of terrorism and policies of state. A terrorist killing is thus different in character from a purely private murder. 55. There are additional practical reasons for adopting the approach advocated in this report. Where bystanders or hostages are killed in the course of counter-terrorism operations, it may be impossible to determine whether the acts of a public official were both causative and culpable. Similarly, the determination of State responsibility for an alleged failure to take positive operational steps to prevent an act of terrorism can be fraught with evidential difficulties. If the approach advocated by the Special Rapporteur is followed, States will be under an obligation to provide reparation without imposing an additional burden on the victims or their next-of-kin to prove conclusively that public officials were at fault. 56. Perhaps the most fundamental point is that the direct perpetrator of a terrorist act is unlikely ever to be in a position to compensate the victims. The perpetrator will usually have been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment (if they have not been killed or evaded capture). A victim-centred approach does not permit reliance on an indigent, deceased or untraceable individual to provide reparation for death or serious injury. 57. Many States have voluntarily accepted an international law obligation to establish schemes to provide State-funded compensation to the victims of all crimes of violence resulting in death or serious physical or psychological injury.88 Such schemes already make 86 87 88 16 See A/HRC/16/51, para. 28, practice 7, para. 2. UNODC, The Criminal Justice Response to Support Victims of Acts of Terrorism (New York, 2011). See Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts; see also European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes (1983), art. 3, which imposes an obligation on States to compensate the victims of violent crimes resulting in bodily injury or death, where the offence was committed on the territory of the State concerned, regardless of the nationality of the victim. The Convention entered into force on 1 February 1988; as at 30 April 2012, 25 European States had ratified the Convention and implemented its provisions.