• applying the standard of proof of “beyond reasonable doubt”, the failure by a government to disclose in full the criminal investigation file without a satisfactory explanation could give rise to the drawing of inferences against the state. If no justification is given for the use of lethal force, then there is a violation of the right to life, even in the context of an armed conflict;285 • in relation to aerial attacks, the use of indiscriminate or excessive force cannot be considered compatible with the standard of care prerequisite to an operation involving the use of lethal force;286 • even assuming that the military operations pursued a legitimate aim, such as defence from unlawful attack, such operations must be planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilians;287 • in relation to the procedural obligations regarding the right to life, the failure to conduct an effective investigation violates those rights. Considerable delays and other flaws in the investigation process would contribute to that violation.288 Other issues arising out of the right to life Amnesty and impunity Amnesty and impunity have a particular resonance in the context of the right to life. Whether an amnesty is compatible with the right to life will depend upon the relevant factors in each circumstance.289 The victim’s rights and the rights of the next of kin should be taken into consideration. The granting of an amnesty could effect the rights of victims. A general amnesty for officials involved in human rights violations may violate the rights of victims to a fair trial and to an effective remedy.290 As has already been mentioned, the HRC has expressed profound concern in relation to impunity for violations of the right to life, as well as other rights, in the counter-terrorism context. For example, the Committee has held that counter-terrorism operations cannot justify 285 Cf. op. cit., note 269, ECtHR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, para. 172; op. cit., note 269, ECtHR, Isayeva v. Russia, para. 177; ECtHR, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, Applications nos. 57942/00 and 57945/00, 24 February 2005, para. 134. As regards these cases, it is noteworthy that no state of emergency had been declared in Chechnya at the time, and no derogation had been entered under Article 15 ECHR. Accordingly, the ECHR applied in full, and the military operations had to be judged against a normal legal background. 286 “To sum up, even assuming that that the military were pursuing a legitimate aim in launching 12 S-24 non-guided air-to-ground missiles on 29 October 1999, the Court does not accept that the operation near the village of ShaamiYurt was planned and executed with the requisite care for the lives of the civilian population”, ibid., ECtHR, Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, para. 199. 287 Ibid. 288 Ibid., paras. 214-225. Cf. also op. cit., note 285, ECtHR, Khashiyev and Akayeva v. Russia, para.166. 289 In the Dujardin case, it was held that an amnesty to persons convicted or suspected of homicide did not violate the right to life because in the circumstances it reflected a proper balance between the interests of the state and the general need to protect life, ECommHR, Dujardin and Others v. France, Application no. 16734/90, 2 September 1991. 290 IACtHR, Chumbipuma Aguirre and Others v. Peru (Barrios Altos case), Serie C No. 75, 14 March 2001, para. 42. On the issue of incompatibility of amnesty laws with international human rights law in cases engaging serious violations such as torture, summary, extrajudicial or arbitrary executions, enforced disappearances, the Court considered that: “[…] all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law”, ibid., para. 41. 110 Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights