A/HRC/20/14 duty to plan such operations in a manner that minimizes the risk of physical injury to the greatest possible extent.38 27. Where lethal force is deliberately inflicted by State officials, there may be a threat not only to the life of the suspect, but also to the life of any innocent bystander. This is particularly so where firearms are used. In a case involving terrorist hostage-taking, the European Court of Human Rights has held that “the primary aim of the [rescue] operation should be to protect lives from unlawful violence.”39 Counter-terrorist operations that result in loss of life must therefore be subjected to penetrating judicial or other independent scrutiny to determine not only whether the actions of the State officials who administered lethal force were lawful, but also whether the operation as a whole, including its planning and control, was strictly proportionate.40 28. The Special Rapporteur is profoundly conscious of the multifaceted difficulties States encounter in protecting their populations from terrorist violence, and expresses his recognition of the complexity of the problem. More specifically, one must bear in mind the difficulties involved in policing modern societies, the unpredictability of human conduct and the operational choices which must be made in terms of priorities and resources. 41 The choice of means may depend on the extent to which the authorities are in control of a particular situation.42 Nonetheless, the conscientious discharge of these important and difficult duties is a central responsibility of Statehood. 29. In addition to the law enforcement measures defined in chapter II of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,43 States have a responsibility for implementing preventive initiatives aimed at reducing the risk of future acts of terrorism. This can be seen as a dimension of the State's positive obligation under article 6 of the Covenant to take steps to protect the lives of future potential victims of acts of terrorism. States must tackle not only the manifestations of terrorism, but its causes, as foreseen in chapter I of the Strategy. Conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, as identified by Member States, include prolonged unresolved conflicts; dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations; lack of the rule of law; violations of human rights; ethnic, national and religious discrimination; political exclusion; socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance.44 30. The Special Rapporteur considers that the capacities of the United Nations in conflict prevention, negotiation, mediation, conciliation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding 45 should be more actively sought and deployed in national counter-terrorism strategies. In this connection, he welcomes the initiative by the CTITF Working Group on preventing and resolving conflicts to issue guidelines for United Nations mediators.46 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 See also ECHR, Finogenov and Others v. Russian Federation, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, paras. 243-262. ECHR, Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, para. 191; also IACtHR, Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of 25 November 2006, para. 228(d); and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (Havana, 27 August to 7 September 1990), available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/firearms.htm. See ECHR, McCann v. the United Kingdom, no. 18984/91, paras. 150 and 205. As to the scope of this investigative obligation see section B below. See also ECHR, Makaratzis v. Greece, no. 50385/99, para. 69; Maiorano and Others v. Italy, para. 105. See ECHR, Finogenov and Others v. The Russian Federation, nos. 18299/03 and 27311/03, para. 213. General Assembly resolution 60/288, annex, chap. II, para. 3. Ibid., annex, chap. I. Ibid., annex, chap. I, para. 1. See “Guidelines for UN Mediators – Terrorism,” available at http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/ 9