Through its inaction the Government confers a degree of impunity upon the killers’. 219 The responsibility of the State is to exercise due diligence.220 20. For armed opposition groups, although traditionally their activities would be seen as criminal, rather than human rights violations per se, it has been argued that complaints can be addressed to them about human rights violations and they can be asked to respect human rights standards.221 21. More generally, States should take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within the jurisdiction.222 This may involve the provision of information regarding a possible risk to life caused by actions of the State,223 and this obligation may extend to discouraging individuals from causing serious risks to their own health.224 22. Further, the positive obligation under the right to life requires that the law must properly prohibit and punish killings, and that unlawful killing must be subject to criminal sanctions, regardless of who carried out the killings. 23. This positive obligation to protect life may under certain circumstances require the State to protect certain individuals from identifiable threats to their lives. On a day-to-day level, these threats may arise from other private individuals, environmental hazards or even from themselves. In some instances, human rights courts have gone further to say that the right may also encompass access to food, shelter and a ‘dignified existence’, an approach recognised by the Arab Charter’s Articles 5, 38 and 40.225 24. The extent of the positive obligation to protect life is not limitless. An appropriate balance must be struck. If law enforcement agencies fail to act, for example, by opting not to arrest someone who then goes on to take a life this will not necessarily violate the right to life. In Osman v UK, the European Court found no violation of the right to life where the police did not arrest an individual who was harassing a family and who then went on to shoot and kill the father of that family. The police, under the circumstances, had no reason to believe such a tragic event might occur.226 25. The right to life should be understood as creating two obligations; a substantive obligation in relation to the guarantee of life itself and a procedural obligation where there has been a loss of life. Both requirements are considered to be of equal importance. 219 Ibid. Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4,; E/CN.4/2000/68, para. 53. Report on targeted killings, A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, para 47; E/CN.4/2005/7, paras 71-74; Human Rights Committee, Communication 859/1999, Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia, 25 March 2002, para 7.3. 221 E/CN.4/2005/7, para 76. 222 LCB v UK, European Court, 9 June 1998. 223 Ibid. 224 Onerylidiz v Turkey, European Court, 30 November 2004. 225 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Villagran Morales v Guatemala, Series C No.63 (1999), at para 144. See also African Commission, Communication 155/96, Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and Centre for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria, 27 October 2001, at paras 44-47. 226 Osman v UK, 28 October 1998. 220 55