A/HRC/20/14 Guidelines on the protection of victims of terrorist acts extend the protection of the Guidelines, in appropriate circumstances, to the close family of the direct victim (chap. I - Principles, para. 1). • Indirect victims of terrorism: Individuals who have suffered serious physical or psychological injury as the indirect result of an act of terrorism. This category includes (a) members of the public (such as hostages or bystanders) who have been killed or injured through the use of potentially lethal force against suspected terrorists; (b) eyewitnesses who have sustained serious psychological harm as the result of witnessing a violent terrorist incident or its immediate aftermath; (c) individuals who have been subjected to potentially lethal force by a public authority after being mistakenly identified as a suspected terrorist;17 (d) rescue workers who suffer serious physical or psychological harm as the result of taking part in emergency relief.18 • Potential victims of terrorism: For the purposes of promoting a comprehensive statement of basic rights and obligations in this sphere, potential victims of future terrorist acts are an important additional category. They are the principal beneficiaries of the State’s positive obligations under article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Moreover, the prevention of future acts of terrorism is an important part of the rationale for the State’s obligation, under article 6 of the Covenant, to conduct a prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into any act of terrorism. A. Legal obligation of States to protect the right to life 17. The first obligation of any State, and a key component of its raison d’être, is the duty to protect the lives of its citizens and of all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction (A/66/310, para. 20). The right to life under article 6 of the Covenant19 has been characterized as the supreme human right;20 it is non-derogable within the meaning of article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.21 18. The States’ obligations under article 6 of the Covenant go beyond the duty of refraining from the intentional and unlawful taking of life by public officials. Article 6 also embodies States’ positive duty to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of individuals within its jurisdiction. Regional human rights organs have established longstanding jurisprudence in relation to States’ positive obligation to protect individuals from lifethreatening injury through the criminal acts of third parties. 22 More specifically, they have elaborated standards regarding States’ duty to protect the right to life in the context of acts of terrorism. The Council of Europe Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism refer to the “imperative duty of States to protect their populations against possible terrorist acts,” (Preamble, para. f) while the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 17 18 19 20 21 22 6 This category is typified by the case of Jean Charles de Menenez, who was fatally shot on a London underground train on 22 July 2005, in the mistaken belief that he was one of those responsible for the London bombings. See footnote 12. See also European Convention on Human Rights, art. 2; African Charter on Human and People’s Rights, art. 4; American Convention on Human Rights, art. 4; Revised Arab Charter (2004), art. 5. Manfred Nowak, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary, 2nd edition (Rhein, Engel, 2005), p. 121. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 6 (1982), para. 1. See ECHR, Osman v. The United Kingdom; LC B v. The United Kingdom, no. 23413/94, 9 June 1998, para. 36; IACtHR, Velasques Rodriguez v. Honduras, para. 166.