A/HRC/20/14 comparable entities can violate human rights. However, he does not share this view. Indeed, it can be argued that allowing victims of terrorism to remain as legally ossified “prisoners of doctrine”7 is an outdated and retrograde analysis that can lead to various forms of secondary victimization.8 14. It is a striking fact that despite the proliferation of international agreements concerned with the suppression of terrorism, there is none that specifically addresses the human rights of the victims and the corresponding obligations of States. The dehumanization of victims of terrorism has been recognized by the General Assembly as a condition conducive to the spread of terrorism.9 The Special Rapporteur considers that international recognition of victims of terrorism as individuals whose fundamental human rights have been violated, and the incorporation of this principle in a specific international instrument on the rights of victims of terrorism will strengthen international efforts towards an effective global counter-terrorism strategy. 15. Chapter I of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy encourages Member States to consider putting in place national systems of assistance that would promote the needs of victims of terrorism and their families and facilitate the normalization of their lives. Chapter IV stresses the need to promote and protect the rights of victims of acts of terrorism.10 The present report aims to contribute to those objectives by recommending that States formally recognize victims of terrorism as victims of international human rights violations, and agree certain minimum principles in a specific international instrument dedicated to securing the protection of their fundamental human rights. 16. For the purposes of this report, the Special Rapporteur identifies four main categories of victims of terrorism:11 • Direct victims of terrorism: Natural persons who have been killed or have suffered serious physical or psychological injury as the result of an act of terrorism.12 Terrorist acts often affect a large number of direct victims, whose most fundamental human rights, such as their right to life and their rights to physical security and moral integrity, have been violated or threatened.13 • Secondary victims of terrorism: Natural persons who are the next of kin or dependents of a direct victim of terrorism. The General Assembly has accepted that the term victim “includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependants of the direct victim.”14 This has been expressly recognized by regional human rights bodies in the context of the State's positive obligations to protect the right to life,15 and has been extended to include de facto marriages and similar personal partnerships.16 Similarly, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Andrew Clapham, Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006), chap. 2.1. See Andrew Clapham, “Human rights obligations of non-state actors in conflict situations,” International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 88, No. 863 (September 2006), pp. 491-523. General Assembly resolution 60/288, annex, chap. I, introductory para. Ibid., annex, chap. IV. See also Rianne Letschert, Ines Staiger and Antony Pemberton (eds.), Assisting Victims of Terrorism: Towards a European Standard of Justice (2010), pp. 16-20. See General Assembly resolutions 40/34 (1985); and 60/147 (2005), annex, chap. V, para. 8. For national practice and legislation, see UNODC (footnote 6 above), paras. 70-129. See footnote 12 above. See European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Osman v. The United Kingdom, no. 87/1997/871/1083. See ECHR, Finogenov and others v. Russia, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, para. 205; also InterAmerican Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), Velasquez Rodrigues v. Honduras, Judgment of 21 July 1989, paras. 50-52; and Aloeboetoe et al. v. Surinam, Judgment of 10 September 1993, para. 71. 5