the creation of new laws that exempt law-enforcement and military personnel from liability for harm caused during counter-terrorist operations.291 The HRC has also pointed out in the context of substantiated reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearances and torture, including rape, in counter-terrorism operations that while police and military personnel have been prosecuted for crimes committed against civilians, the charges and sentences handed down must correspond with the gravity of the acts as human rights violations. The Committee has acknowledged that abuse of, and violations against, civilians can also involve non-state actors, but that this does not relieve the state party of its obligations. Of significant concern to the UN is the impunity of mercenaries who commit terrorist acts. The Special Rapporteur on the use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination has pointed out that those who plan terrorist acts do not always rely on fanatical devotees to the cause. The allegation of the involvement of mercenaries in the commission of terrorist acts must always be investigated.292 Witnesses and collaborators of justice In the context of countering terrorism, ensuring a successful conviction may depend upon providing effective protection of witnesses and their right to life before, during and after the trial. Intimidation of such witnesses, which can result in their loss of life, should be addressed.293 This can mean developing special mechanisms for delivering evidence, which in turn may have an impact on an individual’s right to a fair trial. This issue is also dealt with in the section on fair trials. Proportionality between the nature of the protection measures and the seriousness of the intimidation of the witness/collaborator of justice should be ensured. The death penalty and the right to life OSCE commitments currently refer specifically to the right to life only in the context of the death penalty. OSCE commitments do not require the abolition of the death penalty. However, OSCE participating States have committed themselves to impose the death penalty only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and in a manner not contrary to their international commitments. OSCE participating States have also committed themselves to making information regarding the use of the death penalty available to the public.294 291 See HRC, Concluding observations: Russian Federation, doc. CCPR/CO/79/RUS, 6 November 2003, para. 13. In this regard, the Committee is concerned about the provision in the Federal Law On Combating Terrorism. 292 See Report of the Special Rapporteur on the use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination, Enrique Bernales Ballesteros, doc. E/CN.4/2004/15, 24 December 2003, paras. 35-36. 293 See CoE, Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the protection of witnesses and collaborators of justice, Rec(2005)9, which provides a helpful structure to witness protection, adopted on 20 April 2005, especially paras. 10-28. 294 Op, cit, note 29, 1989 Vienna Document, para. 24 and op. cit., note 6, 1990 Copenhagen Document, paras. 17.2-17.8. See also the ODIHR’s yearly background paper, The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area, which provides updates on the status and use of the death penalty in OSCE states. Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 111