Netherlands International Law

Review
http://journals.cambridge.org/NLR

Additional services for Netherlands International

Law Review:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

The Right to Life

B.G. Ramcharan

Netherlands International Law Review / Volume 30 / Issue 03 / December 1983, pp 297 - 329
DOI: 10.1017/S0165070X00011967, Published online: 21 May 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0165070X00011967

How to cite this article:

B.G. Ramcharan (1983). The Right to Life. Netherlands International Law Review,
30, pp 297-329 doi:10.1017/S0165070X00011967

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NLR, IP address: 150.135.239.97 on 09 Jun 2015

THE RIGHT TO LIFE

by B.G. Ramcharan*

1. INTRODUCTION

International law developed originally as a body of norms concerning, and for

the benefit of, States and governments. The protection of the rights of the indivi-
dual was of secondary concern in its early history. Even today, most of its basic
premises, rules and principles are still shaped by the inter-State system characterising
contemporary international relations. However, in modern times, there has been
rising global insistence that States, governments, institutions and laws exist to serve
the people and there is a persistent, universal outcry for the human rights and funda-
mental freedoms of the individual to be respected and assured. The human factor
is emerging, at last, as the factor which should govern in every situation. With this
objective in mind, the norms of international law are coming under persistent
scrutiny from the point of view of whether they are conducive to the promotion
and protection of the rights of the individual. And where the law has not yet devel-
oped responses for dealing with problems, old or new, affecting the rights of the
individual, the international community expects of it that it should quickly show
its capacity for imaginativeness and innovation and that it should demonstrate its
ability to discharge its basic function: respecting, ensuring and advancing the digni-
ty and rights of individuals throughout the world.
The branch of international law concerned with the promotion and protection
of human rights must, therefore, of necessity, be in the forefront of the discipline,
charting new courses, breaking new ground, and establishing new models and
methods. If the international human rights lawyer is doing his job well, he has to be
ahead of his colleagues in postulating new theories, in advocating the recognition of
new norms and in advancing new forms of action for promoting and protecting
human rights. His more traditionalist colleagues will invariably exasperate him by
consistent assertions that "this has not yet been established" or that "that is not

* Special assistant to the Director, United Nations Centre for Human Rights. All views ex-
pressed are those of the author in his personal capacity. This article is an outgrowth of the pro-
ceedings of the Hague Academy of International Law's Centre for Research and Study in Inter-
national Law and International Relations, of which the author was Director in 1983. The
author is grateful to the learned participants of the Centre, whose contributions have assisted
in unravelling a fascinating but difficult topicJ The proceedings of the Centre are being collected
in a book on the "Right to Life", to be published by Martinus Nijhoff in the first part of 1984.

0028/2138/83/01020297-33 $00.20/0
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/The Hague
XXX-NILR. 1983, 297-329

297
part of international law". This is to be expected, but it must not deter the inter-
national human rights lawyer. For he is rooted in the most solid of bases for deter-
mining the validity of international norms; the universal conscience of the world's
peoples, which is by far the best form of the "general recognition" so often reite-
rated as the basis of obligation in modern international law. International human
rights law, then, is "avant garde" international law. Let not the international human
rights lawyer be pulled backwards by his more traditionalist colleagues; rather let
the latter learn to catch up with the former as quickly as possible.
In perhaps no other area of international human rights law are challenges as great
and as urgent today as they are with regard to the right to life. There can be no
issue of more pressing concern to international law than to protect the life of every
human being from unwarranted deprivation. If international law is unable to fulfil
this basic task then for what does it exist? What would be its purpose otherwise?
In the world in which we live, the right to life faces numerous threats and wide-
spread violations: the whole of mankind, as well as some groups such as indigenous
peoples, face threats to their very survival. UNICEF has drawn attention to the fact
that 40,000 children die each day as a result of hunger and malnutrition. Notwith-
standing prohibitions on the use of force laid down in the Charter of the United
Nations, armed conflicts continue to take an increasing toll of human lives,
matched and perhaps exceeded by lives lost through gross violations of human
rights such as arbitrary and summary executions, enforced and involuntary dis-
appearances and torture. In the midst of all this horrendous violence and brutality,
debates continue in many countries about the propriety of abortion, capital punish-
ment and euthanasia. And even if one were to be prepared to accept differences of
views based on conscience, with regard to these three issues, one would neverthe-
less have to be concerned about evidence demonstrating discriminatory rates of
capital punishment carried out against members of minority or disadvantaged com-
munities in some countries.
These threats to, or assaults upon, the right to life, pose many challenges for
international law: How to outlaw the gravest threats and assaults. How to make
them criminal under international law. How to develop techniques, approaches,
and, perhaps, even institutions, to deal with the principle of universal jurisdiction in
this field. How to promote the rule of law universally. How to develop forms of
urgent action by the international community to deal effectively with gross viola-
tions. How to stop co-operation among repressive governments in training torturers
and killers and in perfecting their macabre techniques. How to develop additional
codes of conduct, e.g., for the military. How to promote human rights in the train-
ing of the police, security personnel and the military. How to reinforce and
strengthen the international accountability and responsibility of governments (as
well as of insurgent groups).
An entire catalogue of isssues thus awaits attention on the international agenda
if the right to life is to be effectively respected and ensured and to be protected
against unwarranted deprivation.

298
2. INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ON THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Basic international standards on the right to life are contained in Article 3 of

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 6 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. An
examination of these provisions shows that the statement of the right is framed
in the Universal Declaration, the International Covenant and the European
Convention in terms of "the right to life". The American Convention refers to
the right to respect for life while the African Charter refers to "respect for life".
The International Covenant, the European Convention and the American Conven-
tion require the right to be "protected by law" while the African Charter calls for
the right to life of every human being to be respected. The International Cove-
nant, the American Convention and the African Charter forbid any "arbitrary de-
privation" of the right to life while the European Convention forbids any "intentio-
nal deprivation" of the right to life. The European Convention refers to certain
instances in which deprivations may be permitted under the Convention. The
International Covenant and the American Convention deal with the issue of the
dealth penalty and also provide for amnesties, commutations of or pardons from
sentences involving the death penalty. Guarantees of the right to life are also
provided for in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on humanitarian law, as
well as in the Genocide Convention.
In discussions of the right to life, care is needed as to whether one is discussing
its nature and meaning under a particular international convention, or whether
one is referring to the concept in general international law. It may be considered
that, based on international practice, the provisions of national constitutions and
various international instruments, the "right to life' is a norm of international
customary law or a general principle of international law which transcends parti-
cular statements of the right in specific international conventions. In examining
the nature and meaning of the concept, as a part of general international law,
therefore, one is not necessarily limited by the provisions of particular inter-
national conventions or declarations, but must have recourse to the totality of
the evidence and the practice available within the international community.

3. EVOLUTION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The provisions of treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Poli-
tical Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights have sometimes
provided the basis for assertions that a restrictive ambit should be given to the
concept of the right to life in traditional international law, turning mainly around
protection against intentional or arbitrary deprivation of human life by government
agents.1 For example, Fawcett, dealing with "protection by law" under the Euro-

1. J.E.S. Fawcett, The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford
University Press, Oxford (1969) pp. 30-31.

299
pean Convention on Human Rights, has remarked that this is the kind of expres-
sion which provokes broad and sometimes extravagant constructions:

"It might be argued, tor example, that failure to impose speed limits on the
roads, or to enact safety legislation for industrial work, engaged the responsibili-
ty of a contracting State under Article 2 for accidental deaths on the roads or in
factories. But this argument ignores the fact that it is not life, but the right to
life, which is to be protected by law. This is a legal concept which implies that
no-one may be deprived of his life save on conditions prescribed by law, those
conditions being further defined in the rest of Article 2 so as to set limits to the
taking of life by public authority, and to permit the State to declare killing in
self-defence to be on certain conditions lawful. It could also reasonably be im-
plied that the State must make the deliberate taking of life by individuals a
punishable offence. But the failure to prosecute such offences cannot be made
the grounds of an individual application to the Commission. The question
whether a contracting State is required by the first sentence of Article 2 to pro-
vide by law for the recovery of damages or for compensation for the estate of
the deceased, in case of an unlawful killing, has not arisen for the Commission.
In Great Britain a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was established in
1964."2

As will be seen below, it is our view that in general international law, the
putative distinction between "life" and "the right to life" does not stand up.
Dinstein has also argued that:

"the right to life, in effect, is the right to be safeguarded against (arbitrary) kil-
ling. To be sure, homocide may be carried out through a variety of means,
including starving someone, exposing a person to extreme temperatures or
contamination with disease. But, for example, the mere toleration of malnutri-
tion by a State will not be regarded as a violation of the human right to life,
whereas purposeful denial of access to food, e.g., to a prisoner, is a different
matter. Failure to reduce infant mortality is not within Article 6, while practi-
sing or tolerating infanticide would violate the article."3

In our view, as will be explained below, such a resrrictive approach is no longer

adequate and is contradicted by the available evidence of practice.
Przetacznik is also of the view that a distinction should be made between the
"right to life" in a strict sense, as defined in Article 6 of the International Cove-
nant on Civil and Political Rights and the "right to living", which, he asserts,
"means the system of economic, social and cultural rights that are incorporated in
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights."4 The
tendency to create new labels to encompass a whole set of rights is not a helpful
one, and the "right to living" has never been satisfactorily explained. In any case,
we do not see any validity in this distinction.

2. Ibid. p. 31.
3. Y. Dinstein, "The Right to Life, Physical Integrity and Liberty", in L. Henkin (Ed.) The
International Bill of Human Rights (1980) pp. 114-116 at p. 115.
4. F. Przetacznik "The Right to Life as a Basic Human Right", IX Human Rights Journal
(1976), pp. 585-609.

300
 International society has evolved considerably since instruments such as the
European Convention and the Covenant were drafted and important pronounce-
ments have since been made on the right to life by organs such as the United
Nations General Assembly. Thus, in a resolution which it adopted on 18 December
1982, the General Assembly expressed its firm conviction that all peoples and all
individuals have an inherent right to life and that the safeguarding of this foremost
right is an essential condition for the enjoyment of the entire range of economic,
social and cultural, as well as civil and political rights. The General Assembly, there-
fore, requested the Commission on Human Rights, in its future activities, to stress
the need to ensure the cardinal right of everyone to life, liberty and security of per-
son, and to live in peace.5
The Commission on Human Rights, for its part, had already signalled the funda-
mental importance of the right to life. In its resolution 1982/7 adopted on 19
February 1982, the Commission had expressed its firm conviction that all peoples
and all individuals have an inherent right to life, and that the safeguarding of this
foremost right is an essential condition for the enjoyment of the entire range of
economic, social and cultural, as well as civil and political rights. The Commission
repeated these statements in its resolution 1983/43 adopted on 9 March 1983. In
the latter resolution, the Commission stated that "for people in the world today
there is no more important question than that of preserving peace and ensuring
the cardinal right of every human being, namely the right to life."
In the general comments which it adopted in 1982 on the basis of its experience
in the examination of reports submitted by States parties under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political rights, the Human Rights Committee described
the right to life enunciated in Article 6 of the Covenant as "the supreme right from
which no derogation is permitted even in time of public emergency..." The Com-
mittee took a broad approach to the right to life and discussed its scope in areas
such as the reduction of infant mortality; increasing life expectancy, especially
by adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics; states of emergency;
wars; acts of mass violations; acts of genocide; thermo-nuclear war; missing and dis-
appeared persons; arbitrary killings and the death penalty. The Committee stated
expressly that "the right to life has often been too narrowly interpreted. The ex-
pression 'inherent right to life' cannot properly be understood in a restrictive
manner and the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive
measures. In this connexion the Committee considers that it would be desirable for
States parties to take all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to in-
crease life expectancy, especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition
and epidemics."
In its annual report for 1980-81 the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights drew attention to serious violations of human rights affecting the right
to life which it had encountered, particularly summary executions; it stressed
that the right to life may never be suspended and called upon governments to
fulfil their responsibilities in upholding respect for this right in all circum-

5. GA Res. 37/189A, paras. 1 and 6.

301
stances. The Commission has also, on various occasions, called upon States to ful-
fil their basic duty to assure satisfaction of the survival requirements of their
people in the area of food and health.
In 1982 the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the United
Nations Economic and Social Council strongly deplored the increasing
number of summary or arbitrary execution taking place in various parts of the
world and appointed a Special Rapporteur to prepare a report on this question.
The rapporteur's first report was submitted in Febraury 1983. A Working Group
of the Commission has been investigating the problem of enforced or involuntary
disappearances, while torture is being combatted by the Commission and by
various human rights bodies. The protection of prisoners and detainees is also
receiving on-going attention as are specific situations of gross violations of human
rights.
According to the World Bank, nearly 800 million persons live below any accep-
table level of human decency. Millions of children die each year on account of
hunger and disease. The Bank has recently reported that "While life expectancy has
improved in most countries over the past three decades, the rate of improvement is
declining and the level remains low relative to developed countries. Low life-ex-
pectancy reflects very high death rates among children under five years of age. In
the poorest regions of low-income countries, half of all children die during the first
year of life. For people who survive beyond age five, life expectancy is six to eight
years less than in developed countries. Among survivors, disability, debility,
and temporary incapacity are often serious problems. It is estimated that one-tenth
of the life of the average person in a developing country is seriously disrupted by
ill-health."6
Can any contemplation of the right to life in the modern world ignore such pro-
blems?

4. BASIC SUBMISSIONS

It is submitted that narrow approaches to the right to life are no longer adequate
and that, indeed, the right to life as a modern concept goes considerably beyond
the traditional view. We would make the following specific submissions: First, that
the right to life is an imperative norm of international law which should inspire
and influence all other human rights. In short, rights such as the right to peace
and the right to a safe environment should take their cue from the imperative norm
of the right to life. Second, in its modern sense, the right to life encompasses not
merely protection against intentional or arbitrary deprivation of life, but also places
a duty on the part of each government to pursue policies which are designed to
ensure access to the means of survival for every individual within its country. If,
after its best efforts, in good faith, a government is unable to meet the survival re-
quirements of its own people, then a residual duty vests upon the international
community to assist through appropriate forms of international co-operation. The

6. World Bank Sector Policy Paper on Health (1980), p. 5.

302
duty of the State to assure satisfaction of the survival requirements of every person
within its jurisdiction must be considered an unavoidable component of the right
to life in its modern sense. Any other conclusion is unacceptable in a world in
which millions of children die each year on account of hunger and disease, and in
which millions of human beings have their lifespan drastically reduced for the same
reasons.
Third, the right to life as it has been progressively developed by the General
Assembly, includes protection against the use of weapons of mass destruction,
such as nuclear weapons. This protection implies, at the very least, a duty to
negotiate in good faith to achieve disarmament and procedural safeguards upon
the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Fourth, the right to life is closely inter-related with rights such as the right
to peace, the right to a safe and healthy environment and the right to devel-
opment. While each of these rights has its specific content, they may nevertheless
share some common elements. However, taking into account the imperative nature
of the right to life, other rights such as the right to peace and the right to a safe
environment must take their cue from, and be governed by the right to life as a
primordial human right. This hierarchical relationship is essential if we are not
to arrive at undesirable conclusions within international human rights law.
Fifth, the effective protection of the right to life is closely related to, and af-
fected by, the implementation of human rights standards directed at regulating
situations in which threats to life are particularly relevant. These include: norms
for the protection of human rights during states of emergency; norms regarding ar-
rests and the use of force by law enforcement officials; norms regarding the treat-
ment of prisoners and detainees; norms regarding torture, disappearances and arbi-
trary or summary executions.
Sixth, if the right to life is to be adequately protected in the future, there is a
range of issues awaiting the urgent attention of international lawyers. More and
more, deprivations of the right to life are carried out by governmental author-
ities or by their cohorts, in such a manner as to circumvent the safeguards provided
for in national laws. The practice of disappearances is a classic example of this.
Faced with such situations, in which national control is deliberately circumvented,
is it not incumbent upon international law to offer a response and to interject inter-
national control where national control has been by-passed? International lawyers
thus need to give greater attention to international responsibility for gross viola-
tions of the right to life, including the criminal responsibility of those responsible.
It would also seem necessary to develop the principle of universal jurisdiction for
the trial of persons guilty of gross violations of the right to life so that, even if such
persons are pardoned by their national governments, for the atrocious crimes which
they have committed, they may, if caught outside their countries, be susceptible to
international proceedings. Can the international community afford to continue per-
mitting persons who engage in serious violations of the right to life to go un-
punished?
Seventh, protection of the right to life is closely related to the promotion and
the protection of human rights in general. The establishment of an environment

303
conducive to respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in general will
diminish the risks of excesses being committed against the lives of individuals.
It will also facilitate the enjoyment of rights closely related to the right to life,
including the rights to food and to health. It is thus necessary to attack not only
manifestations of violations of human rights but their root causes as well, by
working for the overall promotion and protection of human rights.
The rationale of the right to life concept may thus be said to be the protection
of the life of every individual human being from all possible threats. The right seeks
to enable each individual to: have access to the means of survival; realize full life
expectancy; avoid serious environmental risks to life; and to enjoy protection by
the State against unwarranted deprivations of life whether by State authorities or
by other persons within society.

5. CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS AFFECTING THE RIGHT TO LIFE

In contemporary international society, the following major problems affecting

the realization of the right to life may be cited:
(a) Problems of survival
Mankind as a whole is in danger of annihilation by nuclear weapons. Also,
particular groups such as indigenous peoples, in some countries, are in danger of
extinction as a result of their living conditions and whole communities are some-
times placed at risk on account of serious environmental hazards.
(b) Systemic or structural problems
Inequitable national and international orders result in the non-satisfaction of
survival requirements for millions of human beings causing phenomenal loss of life
every single day.
(c) Gross violations of human rights
The right to life is violated on a large scale in situations of armed conflicts;
during states of emergency or exception; in the course of refugee outflows or in
their aftermath; in situations of gross violations of human rights, as well as through
widespread occurrences of arbitrary and summary executions or political killings.
(d) Disregard for due process of law
The right to life is often violated because law enforcement, security and military
personnel disregard elementary principles of due process and fail to have respect for
legality. The excessive use of force by law enforcement officials is a particularly
acute problem.
(e) Issues of social policy
Abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty also raise right to life issues, though,
it is respectfully submitted, not of the same order of magnitude as the preceding
problems. For this reason, discussion of these issues has not been highlighted in the
present work.

304
6. THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE SATISFACTION OF SURVIVAL
REQUIREMENTS

To what extent does the right to life contain a component with regard to the
satisfaction of requirements necessary for sustaining life, e.g., food, water and
health protection. It may be conceded that if a State deliberately withholds food
from parts of its population, or knowingly acquiesces in such withholding, and this
results in deaths, then it would be a serious violation of the right to life. However,
beyond this proposition, there are different views with regard to a "survival
requirements" component in the right to life. One line of thought is that there is a
duty upon each government to ensure the establishment of conditions within its
country which would not only guarantee against intentional or arbitrary depri-
vation of life, but would also enable the satisfaction of survival requirements
necessary to sustain life. If, due to lack of resources, the best efforts of a govern-
ment cannot assure the satisfaction of the minimum requirements for sustaining life
then international solidarity and co-operation is called into the picture. The pri-
mary responsibility of the government must, however, be insisted upon. According
to this line of thought, governments are internationally accountable for the satis-
faction of survival requirements, this accountability resting on the Charter of the
United Nations. If this view were upheld, it would prove necessary to define the
"survival requirements" involved. It must be stressed, however, that since more
human beings die daily on account of hunger and disease than are killed, it would
be delusive if a "survival requirement" element were not envisaged in the right to
life.
A second line of thought, however, is that the satisfaction of survival require-
ments is covered under the right to an adequate standard of living contained in Ar-
ticle 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as
well as under rights such as the right to food and to health and that, therefore,
there is no point in introducing a "survival requirement" component into the right
to life concept. In this regard, reference is made to the progressive nature of the
obligations of States under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, as well as under rights such as the right to food and to health and
that, therefore, there is no point in introducing a "survival requirement" compo-
nent into the right to life concept. In this regard, reference is made to the progres-
sive nature of the obligations of States under the International Covenant on Eco-
nomic, Social and Cultural Rights. This is used to add to the doubts that govern-
ments may be internationally accountable for satisfaction of the survival require-
ments of their population. The differing character of economic and social systems
in the various countries is also referred to in this regard.
Can any guidance be obtained from international practice which would help
us to resolve this debate? Let us turn to the drafting of the International Cove-
nant on Civil and Political Rights. On 4 December 1954, the General Assembly of
the United Nations7 invited observations from governments on the draft inter-

7. GA Res. 833 (IX).

305
national covenants on human rights which had been drawn up by the Commission
on Human Rights.8 The Government of Australia, which had been an active
member of the Commission during the drafting of the Covenants, replied in the
following terms:

"Two elements have engaged the attention of the draftsmen during the prepa-
ration of the article. These may be described as, firstly, expression of what might
be termed a traditional imperative of all civilized societies : 'Thou shalt not kill' -
and secondly, some positive provision concerning the right to life which, although
not defined in the Covenant or in the Universal Declaration, may be assumed to
mean the right of every person to preservation and enjoyment of his existence as
an individual. In the earlier drafts, attention was concentrated on the first ele-
ment, but at the sixth session of the Commission, attention was given to the
second element by providing that 'the right to life shall be protected by law'."9

In light of this, the Human Rights Committee appears to have correctly

interpreted the right to life as requiring: "that States adopt positive measures. In
this connexion, the Committee considers that it would be desirable for States Par-
ties to take all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life
expectancy, especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epi-
demics."10
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has expressed similar views.
It has held that:

"The essence of the legal obligation incurred by any Government in this area
is to strive to attain the economic and social aspirations of its people, by fol-
lowing an order that assigns priority to the basic needs of health, nutrition and
education. The priority of the 'rights of survival' and 'basic needs' is a natural
consequence of the right to personal security."11

The European Commission on Human Rights has also held that "the concept
that 'everyone's life shall be protected by law' enjoins the State not only to
refrain from taking life "intentionally but, further, to take appropriate steps
to safeguard life".12
The practice within the United Nations, the European Commission and the
Inter-American Commission tends to suggest, therefore, that the right to life has
negative as well as positive dimensions and that the latter, encompass the right of
everyone to preservation and enjoyment of his existence as an individual.
Governments should follow an order that assigns priority to the basic needs of
health, nutrition and education and should take all possible measures to reduce
infant mortality and to increase life expectancy, especially in adopting measures
to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics.

8 E/2573,annex 1.
9. GAOR, Tenth Session, Annexes X 28-1, p. 12, emphasis added.
10.GAOR, Thirty-seventh Session, Supplement No. 4 (A/37/40), p. 93.
11. Inter-American CHR. Ten Years of Activities, 1971-1981 (1982) p. 322.
12.Decision on Admissibility, Application 7154/75.

306
 It would therefore appear that a government may be internationally accountable
not only for deliberate deprivations of the right to life but also for failing to take all
possible measures to meet survival requirements in the areas of nutrition and health,
or for failing to take all available means at its disposal to reduce infant mortality
and to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics. This responsibility emanates from
the absolutely fundamental nature of the right to life as a norm of jus cogens in
international law.
The imposition of such a responsibility would seem to be warranted in a case
such as the following: In its report on Guatemala, the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights found that "malnutrition and infant mortality are the result of
an unequal distribution of income, and not of a shortage of food. Although the
GDP quadrupled between 1950 and 1970, the unequal distribution of income has
become worse over time, because of the emphasis on increasing exports and expan-
ding capital-intensive industry . . ." I3
It would thus seem to us to be necessary to recognize a "satisfaction of survival
requirements" component in the right to life concept. This does not in any way
weaken the right by over-extending it. While the principle of accountability would
apply to all cases of violation of the right to life, the remedies granted in inter-
national law may vary according to whether a violation takes the form of inten-
tional or arbitrary killing or is the result of systemic deprivation. The distinction
between accountability and remedies would seem to offer a way of dealing satis-
factorily with a more comprehensive approach to the right to life concept.

7. THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE RIGHT TO PEACE

In the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is affirmed

that "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world." Moreover, the advent of a world in which human beings shall
enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been
proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.
In recent times, there have been many discussions about the right to peace.
As recently as on 18 December 1982, the General Assembly of the United
Nations expressed its firm conviction that all peoples and all individuals have
an inherent right to life in peace and that the safeguarding of this foremost
right is an essential condition for the enjoyment of the entire range of econo-
mic, social and cultural, as well as civil and political rights.
In discussions about the inter-relationship between the right to peace and
other human rights, including the right to life, energy is sometimes unnecessarily
expended on the question of which should come first, the right to peace and then
the right to life or vice versa. It is a self-evident proposition that the right to life
is exposed to serious risks and violations during times of armed conflicts. There-

13.Inter-American CHR. Report on Guatemala.

307
fore, efforts to establish peace must indeed be a priority concern on the agenda
of the international community.
Theoretically however, the position regarding the inter-relationship between
the right to life and the right to peace appears to have been correctly stated in the
Preamble to the Universal Declaration, namely that "recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family
is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". From this perspec-
tive, the right to peace would seem to be a derivative of the right to life rather than
vice versa. It is this perspective which appears to have been adopted in the "Istan-
bul Declaration" adopted by the Twenty-first International Conference of the Red
Cross in 1969. In that Declaration it is said, among other things, that "man has a
right to enjoy lasting peace, that it is essential for him to be able to have a full
and satisfactory life founded on respect of his rights and of his fundamental
liberty."
The essential starting point in any discussion of the nexus between the right to
life and the right to peace is therefore Article 3 of the Universal Declaration:
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Every individual
and every organ of society is enjoined by the Universal Declaration to strive to pro-
mote respect for these rights. Notwithstanding this basic affirmation of the right to
life, however - which indeed has been recognized as a right of Jus cogens14 - it is
nevertheless true that armed conflicts do occur and that, while they have been regu-
lated to some extent they have not been outlawed in toto by international law.
During the drafting of what is now Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights on the right to life, references were specifically made to depri-
vations of life during armed conflicts.15 Thus, the version of the draft article
adopted by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its sixth session
stated explicitly that "To take a life shall be a crime, save . . . in the case of enforce-
ment measures authorized by the Charter."16 During the discussions, references
were also made to lives taken in pursuance of the right to self-defence under Article
51 of the United Nations Charter. Indeed, in its written comments on the draft
covenants prepared by the Commission on Human Rights, the Governments of the
Netherlands proposed that Article 6 should include language to the effect that
"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this
article when it results from lawful acts of w a r . . ." 17
From these deliberations, and by virtue of the relevant rules of international
law, it may be concluded that the deprivation of life during legitimate armed
conflicts has been recognized as an exception to the guarantees of the right to life
under contemporary international law. It is necessary to emphasize, however, that
the use of force has been carefully regulated by the Charter of the United Nations
and use of force inconsistent with the Charter and resulting in deprivation of life

14.See A/37/564, para. 22.

15.E/1681,p. 15.
16.E/1681,p. 15.
17.A/C.3/L.460 in GAOR, Tenth Session, Annexes (X), 28-1, p. 24.

308
cannot be excused. The duty to respect the right to life imposes upon govern-
ments a duty to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and only when acting in
legitimate self-defence or in pursuance of enforcement measures under the Char-
ter of the United Nations will deprivations of life during armed conflict be excusa-
ble under international law.
Even where armed conflicts do occur, the provisions of international humanita-
rian law must be respected so as to avoid unnecessary loss of life, for example, to
civilian populations, particularly to women and children. Norms of international
law have also been evolved or are in the process of evolution, banning the use of
certain types of weapons and there is a lively debate about the legality of nuclear
weapons. The legality of the testing of nuclear devices for the purposes of develo-
ping nuclear arms has also been challenged.18
The conclusions which may thus be drawn are that, inspired by the right to life,
the right to peace seeks to reduce the possibility of war, to regulate the instances
when the use of force would be lawful, to regulate the conduct of hostilities so as
to lessen loss of life, to place stricter duties upon governments, and to insist upon
their international responsibility (civil as well as criminal) for unlawful deprivation
of the right to life during armed conflicts.
The right to life is the primordial right. It ranks highest as against any other
right. However, it is not an absolute right. The deprivation of life during armed con-
flicts may, subject to certain conditions, be lawful. Examples are the pursuit of
legitimate self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations or
the carrying out of enforcement measures under Article 42 of the Charter.
The right to peace is a corollary of the right to life. The right may be grounded
in the principle of non-use of force contained in the Charter of the United Nations.
The right to peace reinforces this principle which strives to create conditions in
which war would not occur. As a right, it envisages that the international commu-
nity, each government, every people, every group and organ of society and every
individual must strive to promote peace and lessen the chances of war. Its subjects
and its objects are the same: the international community, every people, every
group, each government, every organ of society and every individual. Associated
with the right to peace is the body of humanitarian law which seeks to lessen loss of
life during armed conflicts.
In contemporary international society, the right to peace has an important role
to play in contributing to the protection of the right to life. The right to peace ad-
dresses potentially volatile situations and particularly dangerous weapons. Faced
with an escalating arms race and the invention of increasingly destructive weapons,
advocates of the right to peace call for controls upon those possessing military
might or nuclear arsenals and for the prohibition of weapons of annihilation.
To a certain extent, therefore, the right to life and the right to peace share some
common ground and pursue the same goal. But they are nevertheless distinct rights.
The right to life covers some areas not covered by the right to peace; the latter deals

18.See the Nuclear Test Cases ICJ Reports 1974 p. 253 (Australia v. France) p. 457 (New
Zealand v. Fiance).

309
with one area — albeit the most crucial one — wherein the right to life is threatened.
At the same time, in the modern conception of peace, the right to peace also covers
areas not covered in the right to life.
The strengthening of the right to peace has an important role to play in the in-
creased protection of the right to life. However, the right to life as a human right
may not be subordinated to the right to peace as a right. The relationship is one of
interdependence, with the right to life taking the primordial place.

8. THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND THE RIGHT TO A SAFE ENVIRONMENT

In the period leading up to, and since, the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, there has certainly been greater
national and international consciousness about the importance of safeguarding the
human environment. The Stockholm Declaration affirmed the human right to a
safe environment.
Inasmuch as threats to the environment, or serious environmental hazards may
threaten the lives of large groups of people directly, the connection between the
right to life and the right to a decent and safe environment is an obvious one.
A discussion of the inter-relationship between these two rights should, however,
go beyond this. Environmental deterioration or risks may directly threaten loss of
life or may affect the quality of life. Persistent threats to the quality of life may
affect the realization of an optimal lifespan and are therefore not to be ignored,
but when considering environmental issues from the point of view of the right
to life, the focus should be on environmental hazards which involve direct risks
of immediate loss of life if the hazard is not removed. With regard to this cate-
gory of environmental hazards, what it may be asked, has been the response of
international law so far, and what policies would appear to be indicated if one
approaches the issue from the right to life perspective. International law,
hitherto, has endeavoured to ascribe to States a general duty to safeguard the
environment. Proposals have been advanced to criminalize certain environ-
mental hazards, e.g., Article 19 of the International Law Commission's draft
articles on State Responsibility. UNEP has also been promoting the development
of standards and the implementation of monitoring or 'Earthwatch' programmes.
The inter-relationship between the right to life and the right to a safe environ-
ment may be summarized in the following propositions:
1. There is a strict duty upon States, as well as upon the international communi-
ty as a whole, to take effective measures to prevent and to safeguard against the
occurrence of environmental hazards which threaten the lives of human beings.
2. Every State, as well as the United Nations (UNEP), should establish and
operate adequate monitoring and early-warning systems to detect hazards or
threats before they actually occur.
3. States which obtain information about the possible emergence of an environ-
mental hazard to life in another State should inform the State at risk or at least
alert UNEP on an urgent basis.
4. The right to life, as an imperative norm, takes priority above economic con-

310
siderations and should, in all circumstances, be accorded priority.
5. States and other responsible entities (corporations or individuals) may be
criminally or civilly liable under international law for causing serious environ-
mental hazards posing grave risks to life. This responsibility is a strict one, and
should arise irrespective of whether the act or omission in question is deliberate,
reckless or negligent.
6. Adequate avenues of recourse should be provided to individuals and groups,
at the national, regional or international levels, to seek protection against serious
environmental hazards to life. The establishment of such avenues of recourse is
essential for dealing with such risks before they actually materialize.

9. IMPERATIVE AND NON-DEROGABLE CHARACTER OF THE RIGHT

TO LIFE

An imperative norm of international law is one which is generally recognized by

the international community as a whole as a norm from which no derogations are
permissible. Does any norm of international law satisfy this requirement more than
the right to life? Is not the notion of the sanctity of human life universally shared?
Does not every legal system of the world enshrine this right?
The imperative character of the right to life is adequately supported in internatio-
nal practice. In paragraph 34 of its Judgment in the Barcelona Traction Case,18a
the International Court of Justice cited among the obligations of a State towards
the international community as a whole, the outlawing of genocide and the prin-
ciples and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person. Similarly, in
Article 19 of its draft articles on State responsibility the International Law Com-
mission181' advanced the view that an international crime may result from a serious
breach on a widespread scale of an international obligation of essential importance
for safeguarding the human being, such as those prohibiting genocide. Further-
more, the right to life is non-derogable right under Article 4 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The position has been aptly put by a Special Rapporteur of the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights: "The right to life i s . . . a fundamental right in any
society, irrespective of its degree of development or the type of culture which
characterizes it, since this right forms part of jus cogens in international human
rights law. The preservation of this right is one of the essential functions of the
State and numerous provisions of national legislation . . . establish guarantees to
ensure the enjoyment of this right."19
In asserting that the right to life is an imperative right, it must be explained
that what is peremptory is the right as defined in international law. In other
words, the right is not an absolute right. Certain carefully controlled exceptions
are permitted. However, as defined in international law, and subject to these

18a. ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3.

18b. ILC Yearbook 1976 II (Part II) p. 73 et seq.
19.A/37/564,para. 22.

311
carefully controlled exceptions the right is part of jus cogens. One result of
this is that the categories of exceptions must be considered as closed and that
even where exceptions are recognized, they must be carefully controlled by
international law. Certain violations of the right to life would also, on any
account, qualify as breaches of jus cogens norms. Genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity are obvious examples.
The recognition of the right to life as a right of jus cogens not only has the
effect of making it binding upon States which are not parties to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (or to the regional conventions) but also
applies the rule of non-derogability to all States. This would not be the case if
the right were merely a right in customary international law, for if it were a simple
norm of customary international law, it could be derogated from in exceptional
situations. As a norm of jus cogens, however, the right to life may not be dero-
gated from in any circumstances whatsoever.
As a norm of jus cogens, no government may deny the existence of the right
to life and a higher duty and standard of protection of the right is imposed upon
governments.
A person cannot be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life in a situation of public
emergency. By virtue of Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant, derogation
from Article 6, which protects the "right to life" is not permitted even in times of
public emergency.20
Other regional conventions on human rights have substantially similar provisions.
For example, Article 15 of the European Convention provides:

"(1) In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation
any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligation
under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the
situation provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obli-
gations under international law.
(2) No derogation from Article 2 (which provides for 'right to life' except in
respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (para-
graph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision."

Article 27(1) of the American Convention is worded similarly to Article 15(1)

of the European Convention and its paragraph 2 also provides that Article 4 which
protects the "right to life" is not suspended during the time of war or other public
emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Under the African Charter there is no express clause by virtue of which no
derogation is allowed in respect of the inviolability of human beings and their right
to have their life respected. However, it has been suggested that, in view of the fact
that where derogation is permitted this is expressly stated in the article which
asserts the right, there are strong arguments in favour of the interpretation that,

20.The rest of this section is excerpted from The Report of the Special Rapporteur on Ar-
bitrary and Summary Executions, E/CN.4/1983/16, paras. 29-37.

312
even in the African Charter, no derogation to this right is permitted since such dero-
gation is not expressly stated in Article 4.
Each of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 deals with a particular group of
"protected persons"; the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field (Conven-
tion I); the wounded and sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea
(Convention II); prisoners of war (Convention III) and civilians in time of war
(Convention IV). These four conventions (as supplemented by Additional
Protocols I and II in 1977) prescribe as minimum standards procedural safe-
guards which must be adhered to in death penalty cases in times of war or armed
conflict, including specific provisions for armed conflicts which are not inter-
national.
Each of the Geneva Conventions prohibits murder and other acts of violence
against protected persons. They explicitly provide that "wilful killings" are to
be considered "grave breaches" of the Geneva Convention, that is, war crimes
subject to universality of jurisdiction.
Article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions prohibits "at any
time and in any place whatsoever . . . violence to life and person, in particular
murder of all kinds" of people "taking no active part in the hostilities" in armed
conflict which is not international in character. In respect of people who do not
take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities during an armed
conflict which is not international, Article 4 of Additional Protocol II prohibits
violence to life "at any time and in any place whatsoever". Article 75 of Ad-
ditional Protocol I prohibits "violence to . . . life . . . in particular . . . murder"
against all people (whether or not they are protected persons) who are in the power
of one of the sides in an international armed conflict.
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 also specifically pro-
hibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 6
of Additional Protocol II states that a conviction must be pronounced by a court
offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality and proceeds to
enumerate some of the procedural and substantive guarantees amongst which are:
no-one shall be convicted of an offence except on the basis of individual penal
responsibility; presumption of innocence until proved guilty according to law; the
right of the accused to be tried in his presence; the death penalty shall not be pro-
nounced on persons who were under 18 years of age at the time of the offence and
shall not be carried out on pregnant women or mothers of young children; the pro-
hibition of retroactive legislation. Article 84 also provides for the independence and
impartiality of courts trying prisoners of war and Article 105 provides for the right
and means of defence.
The main purpose of the Protocols and in particular Additional Protocol II was
to provide civilians with better protection against the effects of hostilities. Among
the numerous provisons adopted are that "the civilian population as such, as well
as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack" and, especially, that "Acts
or threats of violence, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the

313
civilian population, are prohibited (Article 51, paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol I
and Article 13 paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol II); there is also the prohibition
on ordering", that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or
to conduct hostilities on this basis" (Article 40 of Additional Protocol I).

10. THE DUTY TO RESPECT AND TO ENSURE THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enjoins

each State party "to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory
and subject to its jurisdiction" the rights recognized in the Covenant. These in-
clude naturally the protection of the right to life contained in Article 6. Com-
menting on the duty to respect and to ensure this right, the Human Rights Commit-
tee has noted "that Article 2 of the Covenant generally leaves it to the States
parties concerned to choose their method of implementation in their territories
within the framework set out in that article. It recognizes, in particular, that the im-
plementation does not depend solely on constitutional or legislative enactments,
which in themselves are often not per se sufficient. The Committee considers
it necessary to draw the attention of States parties to the fact that the obliga-
tion under the Covenant is not confined to the respect of human rights, but that
States parties have also undertaken to ensure the enjoyment of these rights to all
individuals under their jurisdiction. This aspect calls for specific activities by the
States parties to enable individuals to enjoy their rights. This is obvious in a num-
ber of articles . . . but in principle this undertaking relates to all rights set forth
in the Covenant."21
In considering the duty to respect the right to life, due regard must be had to the
nature of the right in question; in other words what is at stake is life itself. This
requires that a very high standard of conduct should be discharged by the States
concerned. The quality of the duty is affected by the nature of the right to be
respected. The duty to respect has negative as well as positive dimensions. In
negative terms it is to take measures to prevent unlawful deprivations of the right
to life by agents of the State, as well as by other persons acting contrary to
the law. In its positive dimensions the State should at least "take all possible mea-
sures to reduce infant mortality and to increase life expectancy, especially in
adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics". The duty to respect
the right to life applies to all branches and organs of the State including the legis-
lative, administrative, executive and judicial branches as well as the law-enforce-
ment, security and military forces.
Insofar as the duty to ensure the right to life is concerned, it requires the State
to guarantee access to the material conditions necessary for supporting life; to take
all possible measures to prevent violations of the right to life by others; to take all
possible measures to safeguard the environment, to control harmful diseases and
to pursue policies of peace within the world community. With regard to disarma-
ment there is a duty to negotiate in good faith.

21. A/36/40.

314
11. PROTECTION BY LAW AND BY OTHER MEANS

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Con-
vention and the American Convention require that the right to life shall be
"protected by law". In its general comments on Article 6 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee insisted that:

"the protection against arbitrary deprivation of life which is explicitly required

by the third sentence of Article 6(1) is of paramount importance. The Com-
mittee considers that States parties should take measures not only to prevent
and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary
killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities
of the State is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore, the law must strictly
control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his
life by such authorities.
States parties should also take specific and effective measures to prevent the
disappearance of individuals, something which unfortunately has become all
too frequent and leads too often to arbitrary deprivation of life. Furthermore,
States should establish effective facilities and procedures to investigate tho-
roughly cases of missing and disappeared persons in circumstances which may
involve a violation of the right to life."22

The primary duty to assure protection by law rests upon each government but
there is a residual responsibility which rests upon the international community
as a whole to verify that this protection is, in fact, taking place at the national
level. This responsibility is discharged by supervisory organs such as the Human
Rights Committee when it examines reports from States parties to the Inter-
national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and it is also discharged by bodies
entrusted with the consideration of complaints such as the Human Rights Com-
mittee, the European Commission on Human Rights and the American Commission
on Human Rights. But, even more, there is a global responsibility upon the United
Nations and upon its relevant organs including the General Assembly and the Com-
mission on Human Rights to ensure that, pursuant to their obligations under the
Charter of the United Nations Member States are, in fact, assuring protection of the
cardinal human right.
Protection by law in all cases requires that laws for the protection of the right to
life should be in existence and that they should be adequate. The right to life
should be guaranteed in the national constitution. It is necessary to emphasize the
need for adequacy of laws for the prevention of torture, disappearances, arbitrary
and summary executions and the excessive use of force. Protection by law should
not only be addressed to the de jure situation but also the de facto situation within
a country, and if, indeed, particular problems are being encountered in assuring
respect for the right to life, the law in its broadest sense must be mobilized to deal
with such problems. The expression "by law" refers not only to the texts of laws
in the constitution or in the statute book but, to the entire system and machinery

22.A/37/40, p. 93.

315
of law, including the legislative, executive and judicial branches. As the Human
Rights Committee has put it, "the law must strictly control and limit the cir-
cumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life." Finally, protection
by law must be effective protection. The emphasis is on results.
Protection by law also requires that there should be adequate and effective
remedies in respect of violations of the right to life. There must be penal sanctions
for taking life arbitrarily and there should also be civil remedies against those
responsible for perpetrating such acts.
With regard to protection by other means attention should be given to all
those means and channels of action available for promoting and protecting
human rights. In tense situations, special efforts, and special campaigns, may
be called for. The role of the mass media may also be crucial, and dissemination of
information to those most likely to commit arbitrary deprivation of life must be
given the highest priority especially the police, security and military personnel.

12. ARBITRARY DEPRIVATIONS OF LIFE: THE CONCEPT OF ARBI-

TRARINESS

Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights contains three very important statements: first, "every human being
has the inherent right to life." It may be noted that this is the only article of
the Covenant where the inherency of a right is expressly referred to. Second,
"This right shall be protected by law." Third, "No-one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of his life."
The word "arbitrary" was one of the most extensively debated terms in the
Universal Declaration and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.23 Numerous views were advanced as to its meaning, merits, and even
its possible inadequacies. What emerges clearly from the debates, however, is
that the word was chosen in Article 6 with the intention of providing the
highest possible level of protection of the right to life and to confine permissible
deprivations therefrom to the narrowest of limits.
In relating the concept of arbitrariness to the right to life, the following
considerations need to be taken into account.
(a) whether a deprivation is arbitrary or not must be determined ulti-
mately by reference to international human rights law;
(b) the inherency of the right to life coupled with the primordial nature of the
value protected require that the most stringent criteria must be applied, irrespective
of the country, situation or context concerned. In short, outside of the permitted
categories of exceptions, the right to life must be protected in every case. There-
fore, the test of arbitrariness in relation to the right to life may be even stricter than
in the case of other rights in relation to which the term has been utilized in the
Universal Declaration and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights;

23.See Hassan, Marcoux.

316
 (c) no arbitrary deprivation of life can ever be lawful under the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
(d) arbitrariness needs to be determined on a case by case basis and, as societies
evolve, so may the concept of arbitrariness. The pronouncements of the Human
Rights Committee will be crucial in providing content to this word over the years.
As the primary organ of interpretation and application, its findings could be almost
decisive;
(e) an international consensus already exists as to deprivations which are mani-
festly arbitrary. These include:
(1) Genocide
(2) Crimes against humanity
(3) War crimes24
(4) Deaths resulting from acts of aggression contrary to the United Nations
Charter
(5) Executions carried out without due process of law
(6) Deaths resulting from torture or from ill-treatment in prison or detention25
(7) Enforced or involuntary disappearances
(8) Deaths resulting from excessive use of force by law-enforcement personnel
(9) Deaths resulting from mass violence.
It could possibly be argued that the following would also represent categories of
arbitrary deprivations of life:
(1) deaths resulting from a serious breach of an international obligation of
essential importance for the safeguarding and preservation of the human
environment;
(2) failure to act in the face of factors or circumstances which could lead to, or
are causing, death on a widespread scale.
(f) The cases cited in (e) above would appear to cover most of the common
causes of arbitrary deprivations of the right to life. However, in cases not
covered, the following additional factors may assist in determining whether
a deprivation of the right to life is an arbitrary one:
(1) "The requirements that the right shall be protected by law and that no-one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life mean that the law must strictly con-
trol and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his
life by the authorities of a State."26 Hence, death resulting from an act
carried out pursuant to a law which fails to satisfy these requirements would
represent an arbitrary deprivation of life.

24.Cf., The general comments of the Human Rights Committee on Article 6 of the Inter-
national Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: "States have the supreme duty to prevent wars,
acts of genocide and other acts of mass violence causing arbitrary loss of life" loc.cit. p. 93,
para. 2.
25.See E/CN.4/1983/16 para 621. "If a person dies as a result of torture or of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment that amounts to "arbitrary execution".
26.Views of the Human Rights Committee concerning communication no. Rll/45 sub-
mitted by Pedro Pablo Camargo on behalf of the husband of Maria Fanny Suarez de Guerro,
Report of the Human Rights Committee to the 37th Session of the General Assembly,
A/37/40, p. 137, at p. 146.

317
 (2) If an action of the police or of a law-enforcement official which results in
death is disproportionate to the requirements of law-enforcement in the
circumstances of the case, then such a deprivation of life would be arbi-
trary.27
(3) Deaths resulting from acts on grounds, or in accordance with procedures,
other than those established by law would represent arbitrary deprivations.
(4) Deaths resulting from deliberately improper application of a law would also
be arbitrary.
(5) Deaths resulting from acts done under the provisions of a law the basic pur-
pose of which is incompatible with respect for human rights28 would be ar-
bitrary.
(6) An act done capriciously, by a law-enforcement official, or which depended
on the will of the actor alone, and which results in death, would be arbitrary.
(7) Deaths resulting from acts done without any reasonable cause would be
arbitrary.
(8) If the means, circumstances or physical force attendant on, e.g., an arrest,
exceeded the reasonable requirements for affecting arrest, and death fol-
lows, then it would be arbitrary.
(9) "The concept of 'arbitrariness' must have regard to the standards and gua-
rantees laid down in Articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights."29
(lO)Where a government has imposed a death penalty but failed to comply with
the procedural safeguards prescribed in international law, it has violated
international law and has arbitrarily deprived a person of his life.30

13. CONTROLS ON PERMISSIBLE DEPRIVATIONS

Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European
Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the
African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, certain categories of permissible
deprivations of the right to life are recognized.31

21.Ibid, p. 146, para. 13.3. See also E/CN.4/1983/16, para. 60: "If a law enforcement agent
uses greater force than is necessary to achieve a legitimate objective and a person is killed that
would amount to an 'arbitrary execution".
28.See E/CN.4/1983/16, para. 54.
29. Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report by Mr. S. Amos Wako, Special Rapporteur
of the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/1983/16.
iQ.Ibid., para. 55.
31.These include: in the "Civil and Political" Covenant, Art. 6: "In countries which have
not abolished the death penalty sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious
crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime". Nor
must such penalty constitute genocidal conduct or deny the right to seek commutation. The
European Convention, although also non-derogable as regards the right to life in Art. 2,
provides in para. 2 three circumstances where deprivation of the right by use of necessary force
is not illegal. The American Convention, Art. 4, follows the Civil and Political Covenant more
closely but allows deprivation as a death penalty lawfully imposed under the terms of the
Convention, which also excludes deprivation for political offences as related common crimes

318
 These categories of permissible deprivations must be subjected to the most strin-
gent controls. The first principle which should be applied is that the categories of
exceptions are closed and that no derogation of the right to life is permissible out-
side of the permitted categories. In each category, international law imposes con-
ditions which must be complied with. It is absolutely fundamental that these
conditions should be strictly complied with. Strict compliance with the conditions
governing permissible deprivations is thus the second important control on such
deprivations. Third, the principle of proportionality applies to every category of
permissible deprivation. Fourth, the permissible deprivations are governed by sub-
sidiary rules contained in instruments such as the UN Code of Conduct for Law
Enforcement Officials. Fifth, within each country there should be in existence an
effective system of checks and controls with regard to each category of permissible
deprivations. A minimum control system should be in place within each country to
assure effective guarantees of the right to life. Sixth, the duty upon a government
is not only to respond to situations or to problems but to anticipate possible situa-
tions in which excesses may be committed and to take all possible measures to safe-
guard against such excesses. Seventh, within every country there should be an
elaborate and detailed system for controlling the use of force by the police and by
other law enforcement officials. There should be detailed codes of conduct at the
national level for members of the police, the security and the military establish-
ments. Eighth, within each country the law should provide for individual criminal
and civil responsibility for violations of the right to life committed by govern-
ment agents. It is only by insisting upon the individual responsibility of those
responsible for committing excesses and by making it known beforehand to all
those concerned that such individual responsibility, criminal and civil may lie
that excesses can be effectively prevented.

14. ACUTE PROBLEMS

In the world today the right to life comes under attack in various situations and
in diverse forms. The right to life is particularly threatened during periods of armed
conflicts, emergencies or internal strife. The right to life is also seriously threatened
when persons are detained or imprisoned en masse on grounds of their political or
other beliefs. Threats to life are also often prevalent where individuals or groups are
striving for greater political, social, or economic justice and governments are
dominated by those who wish to maintain the status quo. The position of marginal
groups, such as indigenous communities or national or ethnic minorities in some
countries often gives rise to threats to life.
With regard to practices, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearances and
arbitrary or summary executions are particularly rampant and have been con-
demned by the international community.

and attaches age limits to those subject to it. (Arts. 4(4); 5). The African Charter says in Art. 4
that no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of his life, but there is no mention of this as a non-
derogable right.

319
 A number of continuing or emerging problems must also be addressed on the
international agenda if arbitrary deprivations of the right to life are to be effectively
curtailed. Among these problems may be mentioned: excessive use of lethal force
by the police or by security or military personnel entrusted with law-enforcement
functions; discriminatory death rates or capital punishment rates affecting dis-
advantaged communities. In the following sections, some of the particularly
acute problems will be outlined.

14.1 Political killings and arbitrary or summary executions

In 1982, the United Nations Director of the then Division of Human Rights
(now the Centre for Human Rights) informed the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights that "the protection of human life is one of the most urgent priori-
ties on the human rights agenda; the deliberate killings of human beings rank
amongst the most severe, extensive, and shocking violations of human rights in the
world today." 32 Following this address, the Commission agreed on the designation
of a Special Rapporteur to examine the problem of arbitrary and summary
executions. In the rapport which the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Com-
mission at its thiry-ninth session, in 1983, he informed the Commission that he
had received information disclosing various patterns of arbitrary and summary
executions. As regards summary executions, he reported that even though exe-
cutions are carried out after certain proceedings, the court procedures them-
selves are so curtailed or distorted that the procedural safeguards as provided
for in Articles 6, 14 and 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Politi-
cal Rights were not observed. The following examples were cited:

(i) The death sentence is delivered often in a special court, special military
tribunal, or revolutionary court which are not bound by any procedural
regulations
(ii) Executions are carried out without allowing time to appeal to a higher
court or to seek pardon or commutation of the sentence.
(iii) Trials are held in secret in many cases, even without allowing close family
members to attend
(iv) The accused person is not given any opportunity to defend himself/her-
self in trials nor is represented by his/her legal attorney
(v) The person is not given any opportunity to consult with his/her legal
attorney before trials
(vi) The courts lack qualified judges to preside over trials and are not indepen-
dent
(vii) Mass public rallies are utilized as trials to deliver the death sentence
(viii) Death sentences are delivered for acts or omissions which did not con-
constitute capital or any criminal offence at the time of their commission

32.TJN Press Release HR 1140,1 February 1982, p. 3.

320
 As regards arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur reported that killings are
carried out by government agents or by civilians with the government's complicity
or tolerance or connivance, bypassing any formal judicial process. In most cases
governments refused t o accept accountability for such deaths. He cited the follow-
ing examples:

(i) The killing of people who are in detention often after torture
(11) The deliberate killings of targeted individuals, who are not under deten-
tion by governments
(iii) The massacre of groups of individuals such as political demonstration, peti-
tioners, people gathering for a meeting
(iv) The systematic killing over a period of time of specific categories of per-
sons such as members of political parties, ethnic and/or religious groups,
social classes or trade union
(v) The killings of persons during military operations which may be in viola-
tion of the Geneva conventions of 1949 and the two Protocols of 1977 for
protection of the civilian population in armed conflicts

With regard t o the targets of killings, he reported that targets of summary or

arbitrary executions range over almost all sectors of the society of a country.
They include members of ethnic, racial and religious groups and social classes such
as workers, peasants, intellectuals and professionals often in conflict or perceived
to be in conflict with those in power. They are in opposition to the government or
at least suspected or perceived t o be so by the government. In a large number of
cases families or entire communities become targets. The following types of targets
were listed :
(1) Ethnic groups
(2) Racial groups
(3) Religious sects and groups
(4) Peasants
(5) Workers, trade unionists
(6) Political leaders
(7) Social reform activists
(8) Church people and lay workers
(9) Refugees
(10) Schoolchildren and students
(1 l)Intellectuals, teachers and artists
(12) Judges, lawyers and members of the legal profession
(13) Doctors and medical personnel
(14) Journalists
(15) Former government officials, military or police personnel33.
The information reported by the Special Rapporteur is also borne out by an-
independent report on Political Killings by Governments which Amnesty Inter-

33.E/CN.4/1983/16, paragraphs 74-75.

321
national published in 1983. The United Nations Special Rapporteur, inter alia,
made the following recommendations:
"An important effort of education world-wide should be undertaken to ensure
that the international standards are known and are applied. This should be aimed
at all levels of society and in particular the police, military, judiciary, executive,
legislative. The international community should launch a campaign to create a
world opinion against summary or arbitrary executions.
Although certain basic standards for determining arbitrary or summary execu-
tions exist and are relatively clear, further standard-setting work needs to be
done in the long-term in some areas, including:
1. Clarification of the definition of summary or arbitrary executions.
2. Clarification of the minimum substantial and procedural guarantees to be
observed by military, special or revolutionary tribunals during public emer-
gency or situations of internal disturbance or tension and the qualification
and tenure of such tribunals.
3. Clarification on the conduct and use of the powers of the police or other law
enforcement agencies during events such as demonstrations, riots and the
exercise of the powers of arrest, and safeguards against torture in obtaining
statements or interrogating persons.
4. Minimum standards of investigation need to be laid down to show whether
a Government has genuinely investigated a case reported to it and that those
responsible are fully accountable.
5. Study of specific types or patterns, for example, execution of arrested
persons or persons in detention, in order to define its characteristics and
conditions of operation more closely and to determine appropriate national,
regional and international standards or other action to eliminate the problem.
6. Examination of the role and responsibilities of groups other than government
for acts leading to deprivation of life in a manner equivalent to that resulting
from summary or arbitrary executions."34

14.2 Enforced or involuntary disappearances

Enforced or involuntary disappearances violate the right to life in various ways.

It is obvious that a person who has been killed and therefore disappears without
trace has had his right to life violated in the grossest possible manner. However,
the 'disappearance' of a family member has been known on occasions to be the
direct cause of the death of other family members - those who cannot withstand
the pressure resulting from the loss of their loved one or persons who may be prone
to heart attacks or other serious ailments. The 'disappearance' of pregnant women
also results in deaths of unborn children. Even in the infrequent cases where a
"diappeared' person is subsequently found, the psychological impact on himself
and his family may have lasting consequences on the quality of their lives. The
majority of 'disappeared' persons are brutally tortured and few ever reappear alive.

34. Ibid.

322
Furthermore, whole societies are terrorised when 'disappearances' are prevalent and
the right of members of that society to live in peace is rendered meaningless. Often
people are so terrorised that even when members of their families 'disappear' they
may not report it due to fear of further reprisals or as a result of intimidation by
death squads. Thus, the number of those who have actually disappeared may
be higher than the reported number. In the face of these evil phenomena the
international community has:
1. To insist on the responsibility of Governments to prevent acts of disappear-
ances, arbitrary and summary executions and torture. Similar duties must also be
insisted upon insofar as insurgent forces are concerned. The ingenuity of inter-
national law will also have to respond to a problem which appears to be emerging
in some parts of the world. In some countries, e.g., in Latin America, while there
may be civilian governments formally in place, effective power really lies with the
military and the civilian government may not even be aware of excesses com-
mitted by the military. This would seem to suggest that while insisting on the
international responsibility of the government, the international community has to
develop forms of action for curtailing excesses by the military: there would seem
to be need for further discussion of Codes of Conduct for the military and the
development of national legislation on the criminal and civil responsibility of the
military for excesses committed by them.
2. In the light of what has just been said, further forms of control by law-
enforcement, security and military personnel must be developed.
3. Particular attention should be paid to the need for controls during states of
emergency.
4. Urgent action mechanisms should be developed and applied to deal with
potential problems.
5. Measures should be taken to develop and strengthen international accountabi-
lity and international responsibility.

14.3 Torture

A leading agent of death in the world today is torture, which continues, alas, to
be one of the distressing scourges of the modern world. And, worse still, the evi-
dence suggests that far from waning, it is even on the increase. The United Nations
Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from being subjected to Torture and
other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment348 defines torture as
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is inten-
tional inflicted by or at the instigation of a public offical on a person. Any act of
torture is declared to be an offence to human dignity and is condemned as a denial
of the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and as a violation of the
human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. It is emphasized that: "no State may permit or tolerate torture. Ex-
ceptional circumstances, such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political

34a. G.A. Res. 3452 (XXX) 1975, Art. 1.

323
instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification for
torture.
Since the adoption of the Declaration against torture in 1975, the United
Nations has followed it up by: (1) publishing the declaration; (2) soliciting from
governments unilateral declarations against torture; (3) reviewing information sub-
mitted by governments, international organizations and non-governmental organi-
zations on the question of torture; and (4) engaging in the drafting of an inter-
national convention against torture. The convention is in an advanced state of
preparation in the Commission on Human Rights. The International Committee of
the Red Cross and NGO's such as Amnesty International also contribute significant-
ly to international action against torture.

14.4 Use of force by law enforcement officials

In a resolution which it adopted on 5 September 1983, the United Nations Sub-

Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities ex-
pressed its serious concern over the numerous occurrences in many countries of
excessive and/or completely unwarranted use of force by law-enforcement officials
and military personnel during public gatherings, resulting in civilian loss of life or
injury and requested that the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control be
invited to consider how the question of restraints on the use of force by law-enfor-
cement officials and military personnel might be effectively examined. A report was
also requested from the Secretary-General on the subject of State policies and
practices regarding restraints on the use of force by law-enforcement officials and
military personnel.35
Article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly in 1979 states that: "Law enforcement officials
may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the per-
formance of their duty". The commentary to this article which the United Nations
Committee drawing up the Code called "an integral part of the code" specifies that:
"In no case should this provision be interpreted to authorize the use of force which
is disproportionate to the legitimate objective to be achieved." The commentary
further states that: "In general, firearms should not be used except when a sus-
pected offender offers armed resistance or otherwise jeopardizes the lives of others
and less extreme measures are not sufficient to restrain or apprehend the suspected
offender."
A draft Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of
Detention or Imprisonment is being currently considered by the United Nations
General Assembly. Principle 30 would provide that: "Whenever the death or dis-
appearance of a detained or imprisoned person occurs during or shortly after the
termination of his detention or imprisonment, an inquiry into the cause of death
or disappearance shall be held by a judicial or other authority, either of its own

35.Sub-Commission resolution 1983/24.

324
motion or at the instance of a member of the family of such a person or any
citizen who has a reliable knowledge of the case."
In the Farrel Case, the European Commission on Human Rights is currently
seized expressly with the question of the extent of force which may be used in
making an arrest. In the Guerrero Case, where seven persons lost their lives as
result of the deliberate action of the police, the United Nations Human Rights
Committee held: "The deprivation of life was intentional. Moreover, the police
action was apparently taken without warning to the victims and without giving
them any opportunity to surrencer to the police patrol or to offer any explanation
of their presence or intentions. There is no evidence that the action of the police
was necessary in their own defence or that of others, or that it was necessary to
effect the arrest or prevent the escape of the persons concerned. Moreover, the
victims were not more than suspects of the kidnapping which had occurred some
days earlier and their killing by the police deprived them of all the protections of
due process of law laid down by the Covenant . . . For these reasons it is the Com-
mittee's view that the action of the police resulting in the death of Mrs. Mari'a
Fanny Suarez de Guerrero was disproportionate to the requirements of law
enforcement in the circumstances of the case and that she was arbitrarily deprived
of her life contrary to Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Inasmuch as the police action was made justifiable as a matter of
Colombian law by Legislative Decree No. 0070 of 20 January 1978, the right to life
was not adequately protected by the law of Colombia as required by Article 6(1).'>36

15. THE RULE OF LAW

It is almost invariably the conclusion of those who examine situations of politi-

cal killings, arbitrary and summary executions, disappearances, torture and exces-
sive use of force by law enforcement officials that their underlying root cause is
the breakdown of the rule of law. The one simple factor which can stamp out these
barbarities would be the universal reinstatement of the rule of law. As Amnesty
International stated in its report on torture ". . . wherever the rule of law has been
suspended, the torturer finds it easy to move in. When the citizen has a free access
to habeas corpus, to legal aid, to a free press, he is better protected. It is not im-
possible for the state to torture him: but it is much more difficult..."
"It is therefore the suspension of the rule of law, often accompanied by putting
a specific group of individuals beyond the limits of a society, which seems to create
the matrix for the growth of torture." 37
Similarly, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Dis-
appearances has emphasized that "An insistence on the rule of law would make
enforced or involuntary disappearances extremely difficult. If the rule of law were
universally effective, the Working Group's mandate would not require renewal."38

36. Report of the Human Rights Committee (1982), A/37/40, pp. 146-147.
37.Amnesty International, Report on Torture, Second Edition 1975, pp. 241-242.
38.E/CN.4/1983/14.

325
Arbitrary and summary executions and excessive use of force by law-enforcement
officials would all soon be brought under control if those likely to commit such acts
knew that they would come under the scrutiny of the law and its sanctions as well.
Therefore, in order to protect the right to life effectively in the long term, efforts
must be continued to strengthen the rule of law universally.

16. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GROSS VIOLATIONS OF

THE RIGHT TO LIFE

Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international respon-

sibility of that State. There is an internationally wrongful act of a State when con-
duct consisting of an action or omission is attributable to the State under inter-
national law and that conduct constitutes a breach of an international obligation of
the State. The wrongfulness of the act of a State is determined by international law.
A characterization of wrongfulness by international law cannot be affected by the
characterization of the same act as lawful by internal law. The conduct of any State
organ amounts to an act of the State under international law.
An act of a State which constitutes a breach of an international obligation is an
internationally wrongful act regardless of the origin, whether customary, conven-
tional or other. An act of a State which constitutes a breach of an international
obligation is an internationally wrongful act, regardless of the subject matter of the
obligation breached.
An internationally wrongful act which results from the breach by a State of an
international obligation so essential for the protection of fundamental interests of
the international community that its breach is recognized as a crime by that com-
munity as a whole constitutes an international crime. Any wrongful act which is
not an international crime, as just defined, constitutes an international delict.
There is breach by a State of an international obligation requiring it to adopt
a particular course of conduct when the conduct of that State is not in conformity
with that required of it by that obligation. There is a breach by a State of an
international obligation requiring it to achieve by means of its own choice, a
specified result if, by the conduct adopted the State does not achieve the result
of it by that obligation. However, when the conduct of the State has created a
situation not in conformity with the result required of it by an international
obligation, but the obligation allows that this or an equivalent result may never-
theless be achieved by subsequent conduct of the State, there is a breach of the
obligation only if the State also fails by its subsequent conduct to achieve the
result required of it by that obligation. When the result required of a State by an
international obligation is the prevention, by means of its own choice, of the
occurrence of a given event, thre is breach of that obligation only if, by the
conduct adopted, the State does not achieve that result.39

39. This summary of the relevant rules on State responsibility is based on the articles on
State responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission in 1979.

326
 The right to life is a norm guaranteed in international customary law as well
as in international conventions. It is a right which has the character of jus
cogens. It has many facets and violations thereof may take various forms.
Care must therefore be exercised when dealing with international responsibility
for gross violations of the right. Closely related to the concept of responsibility
is the concept of accountability which should also be kept in mind. It is sub-
mitted as a general proposition that international accountability lies in all
cases of violations of the right to life where such violations are attributable to the
State. Beyond accountability, international responsibility stricto sensu also lies
in many instances.
With regard to accountability, it may be recalled that under Article 56 of the
United Nations Charter, "All Members pledge themselves to take joint and sepa-
rate action in co-operation with the Organization for the achievement of the
purposes set forth in Article 55." These purposes include higher standards of living
and conditions of economic and social progress and development; solutions of
international economic, social, health and related problems; and universal respect
for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. In any
situation wherein human lives are being lost or are being threatened, the Orga-
nization is entitled, it is submitted, to require explanations and accounting on
the part of the Government concerned. Based on these and other provisions of
the Charter it has become firmly established that the United Nations may examine
any alleged situation of gross violations of human rights, may assess the conduct of
the government concerned and may recommend measures for correcting adverse
situations. The competence of the United Nations extends to violations of all
human rights, civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural. Therefore,
if the right to life is being grossly violated, either through deliberate killings or
by whatever means, the United Nations is entitled to call upon the Government
concerned to account for the situation and to take such corrective measures as are
necessary to remedy it.
As regards international responsibility for gross violations of the right to life, a
special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has
examined the responsibility of a government for enforced and involuntary
disappearances which took place in its country and has found the government inter-
nationally responsible.40

17. AN AGENDA FOR ACTION

It is suggested that attention needs to be given urgently to the following

legal issues in order to enhance international protection of the right to life:
1 - The Right should be enshrined in every national constitution.
2. The non-derogability of RTL as a norm of jus cogens should be reinforced.
3. The international criminality of gross violations of the right to life should be
studied and developed.

40.F. Ermacora. A/34/583/Add.l, Chap. V.

327
 4. International responsibility for gross violations of the right to life should
also be given further attention.
5. The application of universal jurisdiction for perpetrators of gross violations
of the right to life should be advanced.
6. The right to food should be further studied and developed.
7. The right to health should be further studied and strengthened.
8. The right to an adequate standard of living should be further developed and
strengthened.
9. The duty to negotiate in good faith with regard to disarmament questions
should be further studied and developed.
10. The need for legal safeguards which must be followed before any decision
to use weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear weapons, should be
further studied.
11. The doctrine of "no first use" of nuclear weapons should be studied as a
legal doctrine.
12. Ratification of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions should
be given priority.
13. Standards for the protection of refugees in armed conflict situations and
for prevention of military attacks upon refugee camps should be elaborated.
14. International Codes of Conduct for Military and Security Personnel called
upon to carry out law-enforcement functions should be elaborated.
15. Model national laws on the criminal and civil responsibility of law-enforce-
ment, security and military personnel responsible for excesses resulting in
loss of life should be prepared.
16. Further international norms for safeguarding human rights during states of
emergency or exception should be examined.
17. Model national laws against torture and on the criminal responsibility of
those responsible for perpetrating it should be prepared.
18. The proposed United Nations convention against torture should be included
as soon as possible and its enforcement should be pursued vigorously.
19. The legal significance of unilateral declarations against torture so far depo-
sited by Governments with the UN should be studied.
20. The UN Draft Body of Principles for the Protection of Prisoners and De-
tainees should be concluded as soon possible and its application pursued
vigorously.
21. An international code of behaviour with regard to the use of force by the
police or by law-enforcement officials should be promulgated.
22. A checklist of the obligation of Governments to respect and to ensure the
right to life should be drawn up.
23. A checklist of the obligation of Governments to protect the right to life
by law should be drawn up.
24. A catalogue of protection measures which exist in different countries should
be drawn up. Each country should have a minimum protection system to
ensure respect for the right to life.
25. A catalogue of control measures and institutions which exist in the various

328
 countries of the world in order to protect the right to life should be drawn
up so as to offer models to Governments wishing to establish systems of
control. A minimum system of controls should be in place in every country.
26. A catalogue of acts which would qualify as arbitrary deprivation of life
should be drawn up, based on international and comparative practice.
27. A catalogue of acts which would amount to arbitrary and summary exe-
cution should also be drawn up, based on international and comparative
practice.
28. A model system of safeguards against arbitrary and summary executions
should be studied and developed for governments wishing to ensure that
such actions do not take place without their knowledge or control.
29. A catalogue of acts by law-enforcement officals which would amount to
torture should be developed, based on international and comparative
practice.
30. A model system of safeguards should be studied and developed for govern-
ments wishing to protect against torture being carried out by their agents
without their knowledge or control.
31. Model national laws against disappearances and on the criminal responsibi-
lity of those guilty of such acts should be studied and developed.
32. The duty of States to set in place monitoring and early warning systems to
detect serious environmental hazards and urgent action systems to deal
with such threats should be further studied.
33. Threats to the lives of indigenous populations should be urgently examined
and measures taken for dealing with them.
34. The proposed Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Politi-
cal Rights on the question of the death penalty should be concluded as
soon as possible.
35. Situations of discrimination in the application of the death penalty against
minority or disadvantaged groups should be given attention.
36. The ratification and implementation of the International Covenants on
human rights should be pursued vigorously.
37. The practice of granting retrospective amnesties to law enforcement offi-
cials or security personnel who have committed excesses should be studied.

329