A/HRC/28/38 deprivation of life under international human rights law. He noted that irrespective of the context, there must be accountability if there was arbitrary deprivation of the right to life. That obligation was reflected in customary, international and regional human rights law, and had been elaborated on in non-binding law instruments. Regardless of the language used in the instrument considered, where a case or allegation was made, the State must investigate the situation and the investigation must be prompt, effective, independent and thorough.3 He emphasized the importance of transparency as a precondition to accountability, noting that it was a composite concept that involved public scrutiny and public trust that ensuring accountability was possible. Transparency applied both to the decision-making process to use force, which meant that there must be a legal framework within which force was used, and also to the investigative process. 23. The Director of International Law and Protection Programmes at the International Commission of Jurists looked at the two key requirements to be considered when examining the legality of targeted killings under international humanitarian law. First, the principle of distinction, which must be observed to ensure that the target was either a combatant (within an international armed conflict), or a civilian participating directly in hostilities (within either an international or non-international armed conflict). He noted the position taken by the International Commission of Jurists according to which the lethal use of armed drones by the United States did not currently take place in the context of an international armed conflict. The United States drone programme might therefore in principle only target a civilian who was directly participating in hostilities in the context of a non-international armed conflict. Second, the principle of proportionality of measures in armed conflict, which required a graduated response that was proportional in its effects. Mr. Conte referred to rule 14 of the Study on customary international humanitarian law of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which made it clear that launching an attack, which might be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, was prohibited.4 He further emphasized that violation of that rule might amount to a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.5 24. Mr. Conte stated that the lack of transparency associated with the use of armed drones prevented external and objective verification of whether drone targets were legitimate and the distinction and proportionality requirements were satisfied in each case, giving States “a virtual and impermissible licence to kill” (see A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, para. 88). That lack of transparency also obstructed the right to a remedy and reparation, as well as the requirement to hold persons criminally accountable for crimes under international law. It potentially involved a violation of common article 51 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibited any contracting party from absolving itself of any grave breach of the Conventions. 25. In examining the requirements for transparency, the Senior Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights highlighted the fact that there must be transparency about the law itself. There should be no secret laws relating to the right to life: respect for, and protection 3 4 5 8 The Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials also require that there be transparency in the investigation process, as well as participation by those affected: see principles 22–24. See Jean-Marie Henckaerts, “Study on customary international humanitarian law: a contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict”, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 87, No. 857 (March 2005) and the database on customary international humanitarian law, available from www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home. See article 8 (2 ) (b) (iv) of the Statute.