general presumption of state responsibility in such cases.46 Without prejudice to the obligations of the State, the same presumption of responsibility will apply to the authorities managing private prisons. Particular circumstances in which the State will be held responsible for the death, unless it is proven to the contrary, include, for example, cases where the person suffered injury while in custody or where the deceased was, prior to his or her death, a political opponent of the government or a human rights defender; was known to be suffering from mental health issues; or committed suicide in unexplained circumstances. In any event, the State is under the obligation to provide all relevant documentation to the family of the deceased, including the death certificate, medical report and reports on the investigation held into the circumstances surrounding the death.47 18. Consonant with its responsibilities under international law, the State also has a duty to investigate all potentially unlawful death caused by individuals, even if the State cannot be held responsible for failing to prevent such deaths.48 19. The duty to investigate applies wherever the State has a duty to respect, protect and/or fulfil the right to life, and in relation to any alleged victims or perpetrators within the territory of a state or otherwise subject to a state’s jurisdiction.49 Each State should ensure that an appropriate avenue is available for allegations of potentially unlawful death to be made and for relevant information to be provided. Where the duty to investigate applies, it applies to all States that may have contributed to the death or which may have failed to protect the right to life. 6 20. The duty to investigate a potentially unlawful death – promptly, effectively and thoroughly, with independence, impartiality and transparency – applies generally during peacetime, situations of internal disturbances and tensions, and armed conflict. In the context of armed conflict, the general principles set out in Paragraphs 15–19 and 22–33 must, however, be considered in light of both the circumstances and the underlying principles governing international humanitarian law (IHL). Certain situations, such as armed conflict, may pose practical challenges for the application of some aspects of the Protocol’s guidance.50 This is particularly the case with regard to the obligation on a State, as opposed to another actor, to investigate deaths linked to armed conflict when they occur on territory the State does not control. Where context-specific constraints prevent compliance with any part of the guidance in this Protocol, the constraints and reasons for non-compliance should be recorded and publicly explained. 21. Where, during the conduct of hostilities, it appears that casualties have resulted from an attack, a post-operation assessment should be conducted to establish the facts, including the accuracy of the targeting.51 Where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a war crime was committed, the State must conduct a full investigation and prosecute those who are responsible.52 Where any death is suspected or alleged to have resulted from a violation of IHL that would not amount to a war crime, and where an investigation (“official inquiry”) into the death is not specifically required under IHL, at a minimum further inquiry is necessary. In any event, where evidence of unlawful conduct is identified, a full investigation should be conducted. 46 Human Rights Committee, Barbato v. Uruguay, Views (Comm. No. 84/1981), UN doc. CCPR/C/OP/2 at 112 (1990), para. 9.2. 47 ECtHR, Opuz v. Turkey, Judgment, 9 June 2009, para. 150. 48 See, e.g., Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, op. cit., para. 10; ACHPR, General Comment No. 3 on the Right to Life, November 2015. See also ECtHR, Hassan v. UK, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 16 September 2014, para. 78. 49 See, e.g., ECtHR, Jaloud v. The Netherlands, Judgment (Grand Chamber), 20 November 2014, para. 164: “It is clear that where the death to be investigated occurs in circumstances of generalised violence, armed conflict or insurgency, obstacles may be placed in the way of investigators… Nonetheless, even in difficult security conditions, all reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that an effective, independent investigation is conducted into alleged breaches of the right to life.” 50 See The Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010, Second Report: Turkel Commission, “Israel’s mechanisms for examining and investigating complaints and claims of violations of the laws of armed conflict according to international law”, February 2013 (hereafter, Turkel II), paras. 48–50, pp. 102–03. 51 See ibid. 52 For a discussion of the duty to investigate violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) see ICRC Customary IHL Study, Rule 158 (Prosecution of War Crimes): “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory… They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” In the case of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the exercise of universal jurisdiction is mandatory. See the 1949 Geneva Conventions: Geneva I, Art. 49; Geneva II, Art. 50; Geneva III, Art. 129; Geneva IV, Art. 146; the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Art. 85; and see also the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN General Assembly Resolution 60/147, 21 March 2006; Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, UN doc. A/68/382 13 September 2013, para. 101. See also, e.g., Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism, UN doc. A/68/389, 18 September 2013, para. 42. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016)