• where the state has privatized state activity or the state permits that activity to be carried out in the private sector, the state can be held accountable for violation of human rights by the private actor;229 • where a violation of human rights occurs between two private individuals, the state cannot escape its liability in connection with those violations, if the laws governing the activity that caused the violation are inadequate;230 • where activities that violate an individual’s rights are carried out by private parties, or non-state actors, the state cannot avoid its responsibilities through an assertion of non-involvement.231 In the context of counter-terrorism, this last point is particularly relevant. A state that allows terrorist organizations to flourish might be held responsible for violating human rights standards. Likewise, a state could in some circumstances be held responsible for the actions of private security companies. The European Court of Human Rights has also considered the state’s positive obligations to protect, through proper regulation, against a violation of the ECHR. Spain was found to have violated the right to private and family life when a local authority failed to regulate the operation of a waste treatment plant,232 and Italy violated the right to private life where it failed to provide relevant information about pollution from a factory.233 In a case that was declared inadmissible on other grounds, the European Court of Human Rights found the law in the UK was inadequate to protect interferences with privacy by one private party over another.234 Non-state actors in the terrorism context can be divided into four groups.235 The first of these groups are those who are mandated by government to act, either with the knowledge of government or its acquiescence. These could include paramilitary groups, militias and death squads. Insofar as the government is directly implicated, its legal responsibilities are engaged. The second category includes private contractors or consultants who carry out functions that the state would otherwise have to carry out. This includes prison management, law en229 For example, in a case involving the treatment of a child in an English private school the European Court of Human Rights found that the UK could be held accountable for the actions of a private school, even though no state agency was involved in the possible violation, because the provision of education is an essential state activity; the state cannot opt out of its responsibilities in ensuring compliance with human rights standards, op. cit., note 171, ECtHR, Costello-Roberts v. UK. 230 For example, the laws governing rape and sexual assault in Bulgaria were considered insufficient to guarantee a complainant’s rights to protection from degrading treatment and protection of physical and emotional integrity. This was because the laws required that evidence of resistance was necessary before a case would be prosecuted, see op. cit., note 173, ECtHR, M.C. v. Bulgaria. 231 In a case against Honduras, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Honduras had violated the American Convention of Human Rights in failing to investigate the disappearances that the state argued had been carried out by non-state actors. The Court found a failure on the part of Honduras to fulfil the duties it assumed under the Convention, which obligated it to ensure that the victim had the free and full exercise of his human rights. IACtHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988, (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988); see also African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, The Social and Economic Rights Action Center for Economic and Social Rights v. Nigeria, Communication no. 155/96 (2001), 13-27 October 2001, paras. 58 and 65. 232 ECtHR, López Ostra v. Spain, Case no. 41/1993/436/515, 23 November 1994. 233 Op. cit., note 138, ECtHR, Guerra and Others v. Italy. 234 ECommHR, Earl Spencer and Countess Spencer v. UK, Applications nos. 28851/95 and 28852/95, 16 January 1998. 235 Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, doc. E/ CN.4/2005/7, 22 December 2004, paras. 65-76. In relation to the term “non-state actors” the Special Rapporteur says “although it has not yet come, there will be a time when the international community decides that this category has outlived its usefulness and that it should instead be looking at different ways of dealing with very different actors.” Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 93