A/HRC/28/38 graduated use of force – could be employed. Those international human rights standards governed the use of armed drones in law enforcement situations. 7. The Deputy High Commissioner’s second point dealt with the human rights impact of the use of drone strikes. Research had highlighted the grave and wide-ranging impact strikes were having on individuals – including children, the elderly and disabled – and their communities. In some situations, drone strikes had compromised the daily life of the society affected and the enjoyment by individuals of their human rights including their right to peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of religion, education and health, among others. She stressed that irrespective of claims related to their precision, the use of armed drones created an atmosphere of fear in affected communities. In addition to the documented loss of life through individual casualties, including bystanders, in some places the fear of drone strikes had had a negative impact, resulting in education being interrupted, as families kept children home from school; in interrupted cultural and religious practices, as community members avoided gathering in groups for fear of being targeted; or in reluctance to assist victims, for fear of being caught in secondary strikes. 8. Third, the Deputy High Commissioner referred to the concepts of transparency and accountability. She noted that both were key to ensuring the enjoyment by victims of human rights violations of their associated right to a meaningful remedy. Lack of transparency concerning the circumstances in which armed drones were used, as well as the involvement of intelligence agencies in their use, created obstacles to determining the applicable legal framework and ensuring compliance. It also hampered the delivery of justice and redress for victims, and was a barrier to preventing violations from occurring in the first place. The Deputy High Commissioner recalled that the previous High Commissioner had expressed particular concern at the lack of transparency surrounding drone strikes, for those reasons. It was important that State policies on the use of armed drones be spelled out more clearly, including the legal basis that would legitimate specific attacks. The Deputy High Commissioner also recalled that the Secretary-General had urged States to take all necessary measures to ensure that attacks involving drones complied with applicable international law. She emphasized that States had an obligation to carry out prompt, independent and impartial investigations whenever there were credible indications of a serious violation of international human rights law and, where applicable, international humanitarian law, which had allegedly occurred because of an armed drone strike. As an inherent part of the right to life, international human rights law required accountability for any violation of that right. Perpetrators of any such violation must be held to account. 9. Finally, the Deputy High Commissioner drew attention to the important work that had been done on those issues by the special procedures mandate holders. She recalled that, 12 years earlier, the then Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions had raised concerns about targeted killings through the use of drone strikes in Yemen. In 2010, her successor had conducted a critical study on targeted killings, including through the use of armed drones. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that the panel discussion would benefit from the analysis of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, as they had continued to address those issues. Finally, the Deputy High Commissioner highlighted that, as more States and non-State actors obtained the technology that enables the deployment of armed drones, compliance with international human rights law and accountability for their use would become increasingly urgent. 4