The Right to Life Under International Law: Scope, Limits and State Duties

Introduction

The right to life is a fundamental guarantee under international human rights law that protects every human being against arbitrary deprivation of life. It prohibits unlawful killing by state authorities and requires states to take appropriate measures against serious threats to human survival, including certain dangers arising from private violence, unsafe institutions, and hazardous conditions. Its protection extends beyond intentional killings to failures of state protection that may expose individuals to avoidable loss of life.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes the principal universal treaty guarantee. Comparable protections appear in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These instruments recognize the protection of human life while establishing different legal standards, jurisdictional conditions, and mechanisms of supervision.

The right is non-derogable under the ICCPR, including during public emergencies, but it does not prohibit every deprivation of life in every circumstance. International law distinguishes arbitrary killings from potentially lawful uses of force, while imposing preventive, investigative, and remedial obligations on states. The content of these duties depends on the applicable legal instrument, the nature of the threat, the conduct of public authorities, and, during armed conflict, the interaction between international human rights law and international humanitarian law.

1. The Right to Life in International Human Rights Law

The modern international protection of human life developed principally through the human rights system established after the Second World War. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted on 10 December 1948, recognizes the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Although the Declaration is not itself a treaty, it provided an influential foundation for the subsequent development of binding international human rights obligations.

The ICCPR, adopted in 1966 and in force since 23 March 1976, transformed this recognition into a treaty obligation for its states parties. Article 6 describes the right as inherent, reflecting the understanding that entitlement to life does not depend on a privilege conferred by the state. Article 2 of the Covenant requires states parties to respect and ensure the protected rights and provide effective remedies for violations. These provisions form part of the wider system of international human rights law, which regulates both the exercise of public authority and certain failures to protect individuals from serious harm.

Article 4(2) ICCPR expressly excludes Article 6 from the rights that may be derogated from during a public emergency. A state cannot suspend its obligations under Article 6 by invoking an emergency threatening the life of the nation. Non-derogability must nevertheless be distinguished from an absolute prohibition of every deprivation of life. Article 6 prohibits arbitrary deprivation, leaving the legality of particular acts to be assessed under the applicable international rules.

The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life is also recognized in customary international law. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights stated in General Comment No. 3 that the prohibition forms part of customary international law and the general principles of law and is recognized as a peremptory norm, or jus cogens (African Commission, 2015, para. 5). This institutional characterization concerns the fundamental prohibition itself. It should not be understood as establishing that every positive or procedural obligation subsequently developed under individual treaties necessarily possesses the same legal status.

The distinction is significant because treaty law and customary international law do not always impose identical obligations. The specific duties concerning investigations, remedies, operational protection, and jurisdiction must be derived from the applicable legal sources. Recognition of the right's fundamental character does not eliminate differences between international human rights systems.

1.1 Article 6 ICCPR and General Comment No. 36

Article 6(1) ICCPR recognizes the inherent right to life of every human being, requires that it be protected by law, and prohibits arbitrary deprivation. The remaining paragraphs establish safeguards concerning capital punishment and preserve states' obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article 6 must also be interpreted alongside the Covenant's general obligations, particularly Article 2.

The Human Rights Committee provided an extensive interpretation of Article 6 in General Comment No. 36, adopted in 2018. The Committee explained that the provision protects individuals against acts and omissions intended or reasonably expected to cause unnatural or premature death. It also interpreted the right as encompassing the enjoyment of life with dignity, recognizing that serious threats to human survival may arise from conditions extending beyond deliberate violence (Human Rights Committee, 2018, paras. 2–7).

This interpretation has consequences for state responsibility. According to the Committee, states must refrain from arbitrary killing, establish appropriate protective legislation, and exercise due diligence against certain threats originating from private persons or entities. The right may also be engaged when a life-threatening situation exists but death has not occurred. Its preventive dimension is especially relevant where individuals face serious dangers that authorities have the capacity and legal responsibility to address.

The Committee's understanding of life with dignity does not mean that Article 6 independently guarantees every social or economic condition associated with human well-being. Rather, certain threats involving deprivation of essential conditions for survival may engage the right to life, alongside other rights protected by international human rights law. The relevant obligations must be identified according to their source, scope, and conditions of application.

General Comment No. 36 is an authoritative interpretation issued by the body entrusted with supervising implementation of the ICCPR. It is not an amendment to the Covenant and does not possess the same legal status as a binding judgment of an international court. Its interpretations carry substantial weight, but they must be distinguished from the treaty provisions themselves, particularly where the Committee addresses disputed questions concerning reproductive rights, socioeconomic conditions, and extraterritorial protection.

1.2 Article 2 ECHR and Regional Human Rights Guarantees

Article 2 ECHR requires that everyone's right to life be protected by law. Unlike Article 6 ICCPR, which prohibits arbitrary deprivation without specifying every circumstance involving potentially lawful force, Article 2(2) identifies particular purposes for which force may be used if it is no more than absolutely necessary. The European Court of Human Rights has interpreted this provision as imposing negative obligations against unlawful killing, positive obligations of protection, and procedural duties to investigate certain deaths.

The European Convention contains a distinct derogation rule. Article 15(2) permits no derogation from Article 2 except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war. This language must be read alongside the Convention's other provisions and the applicable rules of international humanitarian law. It does not establish a general exemption from human rights obligations for military operations.

Regional instruments outside Europe adopt different formulations. Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life and includes a qualified reference to legal protection, in general, from the moment of conception. Article 4 of the African Charter recognizes the inviolability of human beings and prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. The African Commission's General Comment No. 3 provides an interpretation of that guarantee, emphasizing preventive protection and the responsibilities of public authorities.

Children receive additional protection under Article 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recognizes their inherent right to life and requires states parties to ensure their survival and development to the maximum extent possible. This provision connects the protection of life with obligations concerning children's particular vulnerability and developmental needs.

These guarantees share a commitment to protecting human life, but their legal content is not identical. The wording of the applicable treaty, its interpretation by competent institutions, and the conditions under which jurisdiction is established determine the precise responsibilities of the state.

2. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Lawful Lethal Force

The prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of life is the central substantive restriction imposed by Article 6 ICCPR. Arbitrariness is not confined to actions that violate domestic legislation. A killing may be authorized under national law yet remain incompatible with international obligations because the authorization is excessively broad, the force employed is unjustified, or the operation disregards fundamental safeguards protecting human life.

General Comment No. 36 interprets arbitrariness as extending beyond domestic unlawfulness to considerations including necessity, proportionality, predictability, and the circumstances of the deprivation. A deliberate killing by public authorities presents different legal questions from an accidental death, a failure to respond to a foreseeable threat, or the use of force during armed hostilities. The legality of each situation depends on the applicable international standards.

Extrajudicial executions represent a particularly serious form of arbitrary deprivation. The intentional killing of a person by state agents without lawful justification cannot be excused through administrative instructions, national security policies, or the absence of a criminal conviction. Suspicion of terrorism or involvement in serious criminal activity does not remove an individual's protection under the right to life.

Article 2(2) ECHR identifies situations involving force used in defense of persons against unlawful violence, to effect a lawful arrest or prevent escape from lawful detention, or in lawful action to quell a riot or insurrection. These provisions do not create unrestricted powers to kill. As the European Court explained in McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, they principally concern circumstances in which force may be used and death may result, rather than establishing separate general permissions for intentional killing (ECtHR, 1995, para. 148).

The Convention's requirement of absolute necessity is particularly demanding. The European Court has held that force must be strictly proportionate to the permitted aim pursued. Domestic authorization or an official's belief that an operation serves public security cannot independently establish compliance with Article 2.

2.1 Police Operations and the Strict Necessity Standard

Law enforcement authorities may encounter situations in which force threatens human life. International human rights law requires them to distinguish an immediate and serious danger from circumstances in which less harmful measures remain reasonably available. Under the Human Rights Committee's interpretation of Article 6, potentially lethal force employed for law enforcement purposes must meet strict requirements of necessity and proportionality, with intentional lethal force permissible only when strictly necessary to protect life from an imminent threat (Human Rights Committee, 2018, paras. 12–13).

The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, adopted in 1990, provide additional guidance. They emphasize restraint, graduated responses, and the protection of life when firearms are employed. These principles are not a treaty, but they remain important standards for interpreting and implementing law enforcement obligations.

The European Court developed an influential approach in McCann and Others v. United Kingdom (1995). The case concerned the fatal shooting of three suspected members of the Irish Republican Army by British soldiers in Gibraltar. Although the soldiers believed that the suspects might detonate a bomb, the Court found a violation of Article 2 because of deficiencies in the planning and control of the operation.

The Court distinguished the soldiers' beliefs at the moment of shooting from the broader responsibilities of the authorities who organized the operation. It accepted that the soldiers honestly believed lethal force was necessary, but concluded that the authorities had failed to exercise sufficient care in preparing and controlling the operation. The judgment established that the assessment of potentially lethal force cannot always be confined to the immediate actions of the officer who fires.

Operational planning must account for available intelligence, the reliability of assumptions, opportunities for arrest, and foreseeable consequences. An operation that unnecessarily creates circumstances in which lethal force becomes likely may violate Article 2, even where individual agents act on a belief that immediate force is necessary.

Necessity concerns whether force was required in the circumstances, while proportionality addresses its relationship to the legitimate objective pursued. Under Article 2 ECHR, these considerations form part of the demanding absolute-necessity assessment. The seriousness of a suspected offense or the danger associated with an individual does not automatically justify intentional killing.

3. Positive Obligations to Protect Human Life

The right to life places obligations on states even when the immediate danger does not originate from public authorities. A state may violate its protective duties by failing to establish adequate legal safeguards or by neglecting serious threats requiring reasonable preventive action. The relevant omission is attributable to the state itself, even where the underlying violence or hazardous activity originates with a private actor.

Positive obligations operate at both systemic and operational levels. States must maintain appropriate criminal laws, regulatory systems, and institutions capable of protecting individuals against identifiable dangers. In particular circumstances, authorities must also intervene when they know or ought to know that an individual faces a sufficiently serious risk to life.

These obligations do not make states automatically responsible for every preventable death. The assessment depends on the nature and seriousness of the danger, the information available to authorities, the applicable risk threshold, and the measures reasonably within their powers. International law requires appropriate protective conduct rather than an unconditional guarantee that every threat will be eliminated.

3.1 Protection Against Private Violence and Foreseeable Threats

In Osman v. United Kingdom (1998), the European Court recognized that Article 2 may impose an operational duty to protect individuals from lethal violence committed by private persons. The relevant test concerns whether authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual and failed to take measures within their powers that could reasonably have been expected to avoid that risk. The Court found no substantive violation on the particular facts.

The Osman standard does not equate ordinary foreseeability with legal responsibility.

Police cannot predict every criminal offense, and preventive decisions frequently involve incomplete information. The obligation arises when the applicable risk threshold is satisfied and reasonable operational measures are available. A state's failure to prevent a killing does not, by itself, establish that it violated Article 2.

Domestic violence illustrates the importance of examining persistent threats and patterns of official inaction. In Opuz v. Turkey (2009), the European Court found that the authorities had failed to protect the applicant's mother from serious domestic violence culminating in her murder. The Court also found a violation of Article 14, read with Articles 2 and 3, because the authorities' response reflected discriminatory failures in protecting women against domestic violence.

The Grand Chamber refined the application of operational duties in Kurt v. Austria (2021). It required domestic authorities to conduct an autonomous, proactive, and comprehensive assessment of risks associated with domestic violence, taking account of the particular circumstances and possible escalation. Although the Court found no violation of Article 2 on the facts, its reasoning clarified how the Osman obligation operates in this context.

The assessment must consider the available evidence rather than relying exclusively on isolated incidents or assurances from the alleged aggressor. Threats directed against one family member may also create dangers for others, including children. The state's responsibility remains conditional on the applicable legal threshold and the measures reasonably available, but inadequate risk assessment may prevent authorities from identifying an obligation to intervene.

3.2 Deaths in Custody and Medical Protection

Individuals deprived of liberty occupy a particularly vulnerable position because the state controls important aspects of their physical environment, safety, movement, and access to medical assistance. This dependence strengthens the authorities' responsibilities concerning foreseeable dangers. A prisoner who cannot obtain independent treatment or escape dangerous conditions relies substantially on the institutions responsible for detention.

Deaths resulting from custodial violence, untreated medical conditions, dangerous detention facilities, or failures to address known suicide risks may engage Article 2 ECHR and Article 6 ICCPR. In Renolde v. France (2008), the European Court found a violation of Article 2 following the suicide of a prisoner whose psychiatric condition and previous conduct indicated a serious risk. The authorities had not taken adequate protective measures despite information concerning his vulnerability.

Deaths in custody also raise evidentiary difficulties. Relevant records, surveillance material, medical information, and witness accounts may be controlled by the detaining authorities. The European Court has required convincing explanations in circumstances where individuals die or suffer serious injury while under state control. This approach reflects the state's particular responsibility for conditions largely outside the knowledge or control of the victim's family.

Medical protection outside detention requires a more differentiated assessment. In Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal (2017), the Grand Chamber distinguished ordinary medical negligence from exceptional circumstances capable of engaging substantive state responsibility under Article 2. States must establish an adequate regulatory framework protecting patients' lives in public and private hospitals. An isolated medical error or negligent coordination of treatment does not automatically create international responsibility where that framework is adequate.

On the facts of Lopes de Sousa Fernandes, the Court found no violation of the substantive limb of Article 2. It nevertheless found a procedural violation because the domestic system had failed to provide an adequate and timely response to the applicant's arguable complaint concerning her husband's death. The judgment illustrates why the adequacy of health care regulation must be distinguished from the effectiveness of subsequent investigations and legal proceedings.

3.3 Public Health, Environmental Hazards, and Climate Change

The positive obligation to protect human life also extends to certain dangerous activities and environmental conditions. In Öneryıldız v. Turkey (2004), the European Court found violations arising from a methane explosion at a municipal waste site that killed several people. The judgment demonstrated that inadequate regulation and failures to respond to known hazards may engage Article 2 when dangerous activities create sufficiently serious risks to life.

In Budayeva and Others v. Russia (2008), the Court examined the authorities' response to a devastating mudslide. Its reasoning addressed disaster prevention, public warnings, protective infrastructure, and knowledge of recurring natural hazards. The judgment did not establish responsibility for every natural disaster. It assessed whether the authorities had taken reasonable protective measures in circumstances involving an identifiable and serious danger.

The Court developed this jurisprudence further in Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy (2025). The case concerned widespread pollution associated with unlawful waste disposal and burning in the Campania region, commonly known as Terra dei Fuochi. The Court found that a sufficiently serious, genuine, ascertainable, and imminent risk to life engaged Article 2, and that the Italian authorities had failed to take the measures required to protect the applicants whose complaints were declared admissible.

An important aspect of Cannavacciuolo was the treatment of scientific uncertainty. The Court did not require the applicants whose claims were admissible to demonstrate a causal connection between exposure to a particular pollutant and the development of a specific life-threatening illness or death. The serious and persistent environmental danger required an appropriate protective response. The judgment became final on 30 April 2025 and illustrates the distinction between establishing exposure to a danger engaging Article 2 and proving individual medical causation for every alleged injury.

The Court also addressed systemic failures in the authorities' response. It identified the absence of an adequate, coordinated approach to assessing and managing the pollution and applied the pilot-judgment procedure. The judgment required general measures directed toward improving environmental protection, monitoring, and public information. Its findings concerned the circumstances and applicants falling within the Court's admissibility and jurisdictional determinations, rather than establishing individual victim status for every person living in the affected region.

Environmental degradation has also acquired greater importance in international treaty interpretation. General Comment No. 36 connects the protection of life with measures against pollution, environmental damage, and climate change. The Human Rights Committee considers that obligations under international environmental law should inform the interpretation of Article 6 ICCPR, particularly where environmental harm threatens human survival and life with dignity (Human Rights Committee, 2018, para. 62).

The International Court of Justice addressed this relationship in its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, delivered on 23 July 2025. The Court recognized that adverse effects of climate change may impair enjoyment of the right to life and that effective protection may depend on measures taken by states parties to preserve the environment (ICJ, 2025, para. 377).

The Court also concluded that a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is essential to the enjoyment of other human rights, including the rights to life and health (ICJ, 2025, para. 393). Its opinion provides an authoritative judicial interpretation of international obligations, although an advisory opinion is not equivalent to a contentious judgment assigning responsibility or compensation for particular injuries.

These developments strengthen the legal relationship between environmental protection and human rights. They do not establish automatic responsibility for every death, illness, or environmental injury associated with climate change. An alleged violation still requires identification of the applicable obligation, the conduct expected of the state, and the legal conditions governing responsibility.

4. Capital Punishment and the Restrictions on the Death Penalty

Capital punishment presents a distinct question because Article 6 ICCPR expressly regulates the death penalty in states that have not abolished it. The Covenant's original text does not impose an identical abolition obligation on every state party. Article 6(2) instead restricts capital punishment to the most serious crimes and requires that a sentence be imposed according to applicable law and carried out only pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

The Human Rights Committee interprets the expression “most serious crimes” narrowly. General Comment No. 36 considers it limited to crimes of extreme gravity involving intentional killing. Under that interpretation, offenses such as drug trafficking, corruption, economic crimes, and political offenses that do not directly and intentionally result in death cannot justify capital punishment (Human Rights Committee, 2018, para. 35).

The Committee also considers mandatory death sentences incompatible with Article 6 because they prevent individualized consideration of the offense and the offender's circumstances. A capital sentence must satisfy the Covenant's substantive restrictions as well as the procedural guarantees necessary to prevent arbitrary deprivation of life.

Fair trial protection is particularly significant. Article 6(2) must be read alongside Article 14 ICCPR, which guarantees essential criminal procedural rights. Under the Human Rights Committee's interpretation, imposing or carrying out a death sentence following proceedings that violate fundamental fair trial guarantees may constitute an arbitrary deprivation of life. The irreversible nature of execution makes judicial independence, adequate legal representation, and protection against wrongful conviction especially important.

Article 6(4) recognizes the right of anyone sentenced to death to seek pardon or commutation. Article 6(5) prohibits imposing a death sentence for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age and carrying out such a sentence on pregnant women. Article 6(6) further prevents reliance on the Covenant to delay or obstruct the abolition of capital punishment.

International law has increasingly favored abolition through additional treaty commitments. The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR is directed toward abolition among its states parties. Within the European system, Protocol No. 6 to the ECHR addresses abolition in peacetime, while Protocol No. 13 establishes abolition in all circumstances for its parties. The legal effect of these instruments depends on participation and the obligations accepted by the particular state.

Protection also arises when a person faces transfer to another jurisdiction where execution is possible. In Soering v. United Kingdom (1989), the European Court found that extradition exposing the applicant to a real risk of the death row phenomenon would violate Article 3 ECHR. The judgment concerned the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment rather than a finding that capital punishment was categorically prohibited by the Convention at that time.

Subsequent European jurisprudence, including Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (2010), reflects the development of abolition commitments and the relationship between the death penalty and Convention protection. The Human Rights Committee has likewise addressed the responsibilities of abolitionist states concerning transfers that expose individuals to execution, including in Judge v. Canada (2003).

The legality of capital punishment must consequently be assessed according to the state's treaty commitments, the offense, the fairness of proceedings, the circumstances of the accused, and the protections applicable to execution or transfer. Contemporary evidence concerning executions, including Amnesty International's reporting on the death penalty, may assist in evaluating state practice, but reported execution figures do not independently determine whether particular cases comply with international law.

5. Protection at the Beginning and End of Life

The temporal scope of the right to life raises questions that differ from those concerning unlawful killing or failures of state protection. International human rights treaties generally recognize the protection of human life without adopting a uniform definition of when that protection begins. Medical developments, reproductive technologies, and changing approaches to end-of-life care have brought additional questions before international courts and treaty-monitoring bodies.

These questions involve several legally protected interests. Pregnancy and reproductive health engage bodily integrity, privacy, health, and autonomy, alongside disputes concerning prenatal protection. Decisions involving life-sustaining treatment or assisted dying raise different issues concerning medical consent, individual wishes, vulnerability, and safeguards against abuse.

International human rights law does not establish a single legislative model governing these circumstances. Regional courts have developed different approaches, often recognizing discretion for national authorities while requiring compliance with relevant rights and safeguards. The right to life must also be distinguished from related protections, particularly privacy and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.

5.1 Pregnancy, Abortion, and Prenatal Protection

Article 6 ICCPR does not expressly define when human life begins or establish an unconditional right to prenatal protection from conception. Its drafting history does not demonstrate agreement on such a formulation. The Human Rights Committee has subsequently interpreted Article 6 alongside other Covenant rights, particularly those protecting women and girls against life-threatening circumstances, discrimination, and serious physical or mental suffering.

General Comment No. 36 recognizes that states may regulate voluntary termination of pregnancy but considers that such regulation must not endanger the lives of pregnant women and girls or violate their other Covenant rights. The Committee calls for safe, legal, and effective access in circumstances where pregnancy threatens life or health, or where continuation would cause substantial pain or suffering, including certain cases involving rape, incest, or nonviable pregnancy (Human Rights Committee, 2018, para. 8).

These conclusions represent the Committee's interpretation of the Covenant. They should not be confused with an express treaty provision establishing an unrestricted right to abortion under every circumstance. The legal analysis also requires consideration of the rights to privacy, equality, and protection against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

The American Convention contains a more specific formulation. Article 4(1) refers to legal protection of life, in general, from the moment of conception. In Artavia Murillo and Others v. Costa Rica (2012), the Inter-American Court examined this provision in the context of a prohibition on in vitro fertilization. The Court interpreted conception in relation to implantation and rejected an understanding of prenatal protection that would make it absolute at the expense of other Convention rights.

The judgment's interpretation was adopted by the Court and must be distinguished from the individual views expressed in separate opinions. Its reasoning reflects the American Convention's particular text and the Inter-American Court's interpretive approach, rather than a universal definition binding every international human rights system.

The European Court has approached the question differently. In Vo v. France (2004), the Grand Chamber declined to determine in the abstract whether an unborn child constitutes a person protected by Article 2 ECHR. The Court considered the absence of European consensus and the discretion available to national authorities. It did not establish either an absolute prohibition on prenatal protection or a general Convention right to abortion.

International protection consequently differs across treaty systems. The rights of pregnant women and girls, the legal status attributed to prenatal life, and the permissibility of restrictions must be assessed under the relevant instrument. Neither prenatal interests nor reproductive autonomy can be analyzed without considering the particular legal guarantees and competing rights involved.

5.2 Assisted Dying and Withdrawal of Medical Treatment

Questions concerning assisted dying require a distinction between protection of life and individual autonomy in decisions about death. In Pretty v. United Kingdom (2002), the European Court held that Article 2 ECHR could not be interpreted as establishing a right to die or a right to obtain assistance in ending one's life. The Court also considered related questions of personal autonomy under Article 8 but did not require the United Kingdom to permit assisted suicide.

Withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment presents a different legal issue. In Lambert and Others v. France (2015), the Grand Chamber considered the proposed withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration from a patient unable to communicate his wishes. The Court assessed the French legislative framework, the decision-making procedure, and the availability of judicial review. It concluded that implementation of the domestic decision would not violate Article 2.

The Court addressed euthanasia directly in Mortier v. Belgium (2022). The case concerned euthanasia performed under Belgian legislation following a request by a woman suffering from long-standing depression. The Court found no substantive violation of Article 2 concerning the applicable legislative framework or the circumstances in which the euthanasia had been carried out.

It nevertheless found a procedural violation. The subsequent review system did not adequately ensure the independence of the body examining the euthanasia, and the criminal investigation had not met the requirement of promptness. The judgment established that conditional decriminalization of euthanasia is not inherently incompatible with Article 2, provided that suitable and sufficient safeguards protect against abuse.

In Daniel Karsai v. Hungary (2024), the European Court considered restrictions on assistance in ending life in the case of an applicant suffering from a progressive neurological disease. It found no violation of Article 8 or Article 14 read together with Article 8. The judgment recognized the significance of personal autonomy while accepting the substantial discretion available to states concerning assisted dying and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

The Court further addressed end-of-life decision-making in Medmoune v. France (2026). The case concerned withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment despite written advance directives expressing the patient's wish to remain alive. The Court found no violation of Article 2, taking account of the French legal framework and the procedural safeguards governing decisions not to apply directives considered manifestly inappropriate or incompatible with the patient's medical situation.

The judgment demonstrates that advance directives are legally important without necessarily being absolute under the European Convention. The assessment depends on the domestic legal framework, the applicable safeguards, the patient's circumstances, and the Convention's requirements.

Under the ICCPR, General Comment No. 36 also addresses the responsibilities of states that permit medical assistance in ending life. The Human Rights Committee emphasizes strong legal and institutional safeguards ensuring that decisions are free, informed, explicit, and protected against coercion or abuse. International law does not impose one uniform legislative model, but it requires states to observe their applicable obligations concerning the protection of vulnerable individuals.

6. The Right to Life in Armed Conflict and Beyond Borders

The protection of life does not cease when armed conflict begins. Article 6 ICCPR remains applicable during armed conflict, while international humanitarian law establishes specialized rules governing hostilities, occupation, detention, and the treatment of protected persons. The relationship between these bodies of law is particularly important because the legality of lethal force cannot always be assessed according to standards developed for ordinary police operations.

Armed conflict also raises questions of territorial and personal jurisdiction. Military operations may occur outside the territory of the state conducting them, involve persons under foreign military control, or affect individuals in occupied territory. Whether a particular human rights treaty applies depends on its jurisdictional provisions and the interpretation adopted by the competent international body.

The relevant inquiry requires distinctions between jurisdiction, the substantive law governing force, and the circumstances of the alleged violation. The existence of armed conflict does not itself suspend non-derogable obligations. Equally, the concurrent application of international humanitarian law and human rights law does not mean that their rules govern identical conduct through identical legal tests.

6.1 Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law

The International Court of Justice examined the relationship between human rights protection and armed conflict in its 1996 advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Court recognized that Article 6 ICCPR continues to apply during war. It also concluded that the assessment of whether a deprivation of life resulting from the use of weapons during hostilities is arbitrary must be determined by reference to the applicable law of armed conflict (ICJ, 1996, para. 25).

This approach reflects the distinct function of international humanitarian law. Its rules govern the conduct of hostilities and protect persons who do not, or no longer, participate in fighting. The applicable legal obligations arise from humanitarian treaties and customary international law, rather than solely from human rights provisions.

The principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish civilians from combatants and civilian objects from military objectives. Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions establishes this basic rule for the international armed conflicts covered by the Protocol. Article 51 prohibits directing attacks against civilians and regulates indiscriminate attacks. These protections are also reflected in relevant rules of customary international humanitarian law.

Civilians are protected against direct attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. In international armed conflicts, combatants may be targeted subject to the applicable humanitarian rules, but persons who surrender or are otherwise hors de combat must not be made the object of attack. The legal treatment of fighters in non-international armed conflicts requires attention to the applicable treaty and customary rules.

Proportionality in the conduct of hostilities differs from proportionality in ordinary law enforcement. Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian death, injury, or damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Article 57 imposes additional obligations concerning feasible precautions, including target verification, selection of means and methods of attack, and cancellation or suspension of attacks where required.

These rules do not prohibit every incidental civilian casualty. They regulate the conduct of those planning, deciding upon, and carrying out attacks according to the information and circumstances relevant to the operation. The occurrence of civilian deaths does not, without further legal assessment, establish that an attack was lawful or unlawful.

International humanitarian law also prohibits intentional attacks against civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and prohibited means or methods of warfare. Military necessity does not override these prohibitions. An operation directed against a legitimate military objective must still comply with the applicable requirements of distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

The interaction between humanitarian and human rights law must account for circumstances outside active hostilities. Detention, the treatment of civilians under state control, and certain security operations may engage human rights standards alongside humanitarian protections. The principle of lex specialis may assist in interpreting overlapping obligations, but it does not automatically exclude human rights law whenever armed conflict exists.

6.2 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Protection from Return

Human rights treaties are ordinarily implemented through the exercise of state authority within national territory. Their obligations may also apply beyond territorial borders where the relevant jurisdictional conditions are satisfied. The geographical location of an operation does not alone determine whether the state owes duties concerning the protection of life.

Under the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee has interpreted the obligation to respect and ensure Covenant rights as extending to individuals subject to a state's power or effective control in certain extraterritorial circumstances. General Comment No. 36 also addresses persons whose right to life is directly and reasonably foreseeably affected by a state's military or other activities abroad. These interpretations must be understood according to the Committee's mandate and the Covenant's jurisdictional provisions.

The European Court has developed a distinct approach under Article 1 ECHR, particularly concerning effective control of territory and the exercise of state-agent authority. In Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom (2011), the Grand Chamber examined deaths involving British security operations in Iraq. It found that the United Kingdom exercised jurisdiction over the relevant individuals and that the investigative obligations under Article 2 had been violated.

The judgment illustrates why extraterritorial human rights obligations cannot be assessed simply by asking whether the relevant conduct occurred outside national territory. The degree and form of authority exercised by the state may bring an individual within its jurisdiction. The applicable conditions remain treaty-specific.

These principles belong to the wider law concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law, although human rights jurisdiction must be distinguished from a state's authority to legislate, prosecute, or enforce domestic law abroad. Possessing criminal jurisdiction over overseas conduct does not necessarily establish the control required for every extraterritorial human rights obligation.

The right to life may also restrict removal or extradition. In Teitiota v. New Zealand, Views adopted on 24 October 2019, the Human Rights Committee considered the return of a Kiribati national who claimed that environmental degradation and climate change threatened his survival. The Committee did not find an Article 6 violation on the particular facts, but it recognized that sufficiently serious environmental conditions may engage obligations against returning individuals to a real risk of irreparable harm to life.

The International Court of Justice's 2025 climate advisory opinion also addressed this principle. The Court considered that non-refoulement obligations arise where substantial grounds establish a real risk of irreparable harm to the right to life, in breach of Article 6 ICCPR, if individuals are returned to their country of origin (ICJ, 2025, para. 378).

This protection does not automatically confer refugee status on everyone displaced by environmental change. International refugee law and human rights-based non-refoulement have different legal requirements. Protection depends on the applicable obligation, the circumstances of the individual, and the seriousness of the risk established.

7. Investigation, Accountability, and Effective Remedies

The right to life includes procedural obligations intended to ensure that potentially unlawful deaths are examined and that legal responsibility can be established. Without effective investigations, prohibitions against arbitrary killing may be difficult to enforce, particularly where evidence is controlled by authorities implicated in the events. The procedural dimension consequently operates as an important component of legal protection.

International human rights law distinguishes the circumstances surrounding a death from the adequacy of the subsequent institutional response. A state may fail to conduct an effective investigation even where the available evidence does not establish that its agents unlawfully caused the death. Conversely, a thorough investigation does not eliminate responsibility for an independently established substantive violation.

Domestic authorities carry primary responsibility for criminal investigations, judicial proceedings, and remedies. International human rights institutions provide additional supervision within their respective mandates. Their powers differ: some issue binding judgments, while others adopt Views, recommendations, or interpretive documents. These distinctions affect the legal consequences of findings and the mechanisms available to victims and their families.

7.1 The Duty to Investigate Potentially Unlawful Deaths

The European Court has developed procedural requirements under Article 2 ECHR concerning deaths involving state agents and other circumstances requiring an official investigation. The investigation must be capable of establishing the relevant facts and, where appropriate, identifying those responsible. It must possess sufficient independence, proceed with reasonable promptness, and provide adequate examination of the evidence.

These principles appear in judgments including McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, Jordan v. United Kingdom (2001), and Ramsahai and Others v. Netherlands (2007). They require the authorities to establish a process capable of examining potentially unlawful deaths effectively. The appropriate level of public scrutiny and involvement of the deceased's relatives depends on the circumstances.

Investigative duties are particularly important when death occurs in custody or during a security operation. Public authorities may control the scene, relevant documentation, weapons, medical records, and witnesses. An investigation conducted by persons institutionally dependent on those potentially responsible may lack the independence required under Article 2. Delayed preservation of evidence can also prevent reliable reconstruction of events.

The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2017, provides detailed guidance on death investigations. It addresses crime-scene examination, forensic procedures, witness interviews, documentation, and the treatment of evidence. The Protocol is not a treaty creating independently binding obligations, but it provides an important standard for implementing investigative duties arising under applicable international law.

Enforced disappearances present additional difficulties because the victim's fate may remain unknown. The absence of a body or confirmed death does not eliminate the obligation to investigate a credible disappearance. Depending on the applicable instrument and circumstances, disappearance may engage the rights to life, liberty, recognition before the law, and protection against torture or other prohibited treatment.

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance establishes specialized obligations for its states parties. Article 3 addresses appropriate measures to investigate acts of disappearance committed without the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state. Article 12 requires examination of allegations and appropriate investigative action, while Article 24 recognizes rights of victims concerning truth, information, and reparation. These obligations supplement rather than simply reproduce the general protection of life.

The investigative duty concerns the adequacy of state action, not an unconditional guarantee that every investigation will result in conviction. Genuine evidentiary difficulties may affect the outcome. Inadequate procedures, unjustified delays, or institutional conflicts of interest cannot, however, be justified solely because prosecution is difficult.

7.2 State Responsibility, Reparation, and International Review

A violation of the right to life may engage the international responsibility of the state. Responsibility may arise from conduct attributable to public authorities or from the state's failure to discharge an applicable protective or procedural obligation. Not every harmful private act is attributable to the state, although a failure to exercise required due diligence against private threats may constitute a separate breach.

Article 2 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts identifies two elements of an internationally wrongful act: conduct attributable to the state and a breach of an international obligation binding upon it (ILC, 2001, art. 2). Proof of material injury or a particular causal connection is not an additional universal element of every breach. Questions of causation and injury become especially significant when determining compensation or other forms of reparation.

Article 2(3) ICCPR requires states parties to provide effective remedies for violations of Covenant rights. Depending on the violation, remedies may include investigation, appropriate compensation, measures directed toward accountability, and safeguards against recurrence. Under the general law of state responsibility, an internationally wrongful act may also entail obligations concerning cessation, guarantees of non-repetition where appropriate, and full reparation for injury caused.

The Human Rights Committee supervises implementation of the ICCPR through reporting and other procedures established under the applicable instruments. It may consider individual communications against states that have accepted the First Optional Protocol, subject to admissibility requirements. The Committee's Views carry substantial interpretive and supervisory authority, but their legal character differs from binding judgments of international courts.

The European and Inter-American systems provide different mechanisms. Under Article 46 ECHR, states undertake to abide by final judgments of the European Court in cases to which they are parties, with execution supervised by the Committee of Ministers. Article 68(1) of the American Convention establishes an obligation to comply with judgments of the Inter-American Court in cases involving the state concerned.

Within the African system, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights exercises jurisdiction under its constitutive Protocol and applicable conditions of access. States parties undertake to comply with judgments in cases to which they are parties. The African Commission also exercises supervisory functions through communications, reporting, and interpretive activities, although its findings and recommendations do not have the same legal character as judgments of the African Court.

International supervision remains subject to institutional limits. Access to particular procedures may depend on treaty participation, acceptance of jurisdiction, exhaustion of domestic remedies, applicable filing periods, and other admissibility requirements. A favorable international decision does not automatically ensure domestic implementation. Effective accountability requires national institutions capable of investigating violations, enforcing judgments, providing remedies, and correcting unlawful practices.

The procedural protection of life is particularly significant where violations occur within systems characterized by institutional secrecy, weak judicial independence, or repeated failures of investigation. The existence of an international complaint mechanism cannot substitute for domestic authorities fulfilling their own obligations. International institutions may identify breaches and clarify legal standards, but effective protection continues to depend substantially on state compliance.

Conclusion

The right to life under international law protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of life and imposes corresponding duties of prevention, protection, investigation, and remedy. Its scope extends beyond deliberate killings by public authorities to circumstances in which identifiable dangers, institutional failures, or inadequate safeguards expose individuals to serious risks of avoidable death.

Its non-derogable status under Article 6 ICCPR does not make every deprivation of life unlawful. The rules governing law enforcement, capital punishment, medical decisions, and armed conflict differ in source, content, and application. International protection requires identification of the correct legal standard rather than reliance on a single unrestricted prohibition against all conduct capable of causing death.

The jurisprudence of international and regional bodies demonstrates that protection frequently depends on what public authorities knew, the powers available to them, and the adequacy of their response. States must maintain effective protective laws, exercise force within legal limits, respond reasonably to qualifying threats, and investigate potentially unlawful deaths through credible institutions. International law cannot guarantee that every life will be preserved, but it establishes enforceable restraints on state authority and obligations directed toward preventing arbitrary and avoidable loss of life.

References

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) Adopted June 1981, entered into force 21 October 1986. Available at: https://achpr.au.int/en/charter/african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (2015) General Comment No. 3 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Life (Article 4), adopted 12 December 2015. Available at: https://achpr.au.int/sw/node/851 (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

American Convention on Human Rights (1969) Adopted 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978, OAS Treaty Series No. 36. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/basics/convention.asp (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials (1990) Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, 27 August–7 September 1990. Available at: https://searchlibrary.ohchr.org/record/11223/files/11223.pdf (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) Signed 4 November 1950, entered into force 3 September 1953, ETS No. 005.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) Adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.

Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Adopted 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990, 1577 UNTS 3.

European Court of Human Rights (1989) Soering v. United Kingdom, judgment, 7 July 1989, Application No. 14038/88, Series A No. 161.

European Court of Human Rights (1995) McCann and Others v. United Kingdom, judgment, 27 September 1995, Application No. 18984/91, Series A No. 324.

European Court of Human Rights (1998) Osman v. United Kingdom, judgment, 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-VIII.

European Court of Human Rights (2001) Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, judgment, 4 May 2001, Application No. 24746/94, ECHR 2001-III.

European Court of Human Rights (2002) Pretty v. United Kingdom, judgment, 29 April 2002, Application No. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III.

European Court of Human Rights (2004a) Öneryıldız v. Turkey, Grand Chamber judgment, 30 November 2004, Application No. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII.

European Court of Human Rights (2004b) Vo v. France, Grand Chamber judgment, 8 July 2004, Application No. 53924/00, ECHR 2004-VIII.

European Court of Human Rights (2007) Ramsahai and Others v. Netherlands, Grand Chamber judgment, 15 May 2007, Application No. 52391/99.

European Court of Human Rights (2008a) Budayeva and Others v. Russia, judgment, 20 March 2008, Applications Nos. 15339/02, 21166/02, 20058/02, 11673/02 and 15343/02.

European Court of Human Rights (2008b) Renolde v. France, judgment, 16 October 2008, Application No. 5608/05.

European Court of Human Rights (2009) Opuz v. Turkey, judgment, 9 June 2009, Application No. 33401/02, ECHR 2009.

European Court of Human Rights (2010) Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom, judgment, 2 March 2010, Application No. 61498/08.

European Court of Human Rights (2011) Al-Skeini and Others v. United Kingdom, Grand Chamber judgment, 7 July 2011, Application No. 55721/07, ECHR 2011.

European Court of Human Rights (2015) Lambert and Others v. France, Grand Chamber judgment, 5 June 2015, Application No. 46043/14, ECHR 2015.

European Court of Human Rights (2017) Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, Grand Chamber judgment, 19 December 2017, Application No. 56080/13.

European Court of Human Rights (2021) Kurt v. Austria, Grand Chamber judgment, 15 June 2021, Application No. 62903/15.

European Court of Human Rights (2022) Mortier v. Belgium, judgment, 4 October 2022, Application No. 78017/17.

European Court of Human Rights (2024) Dániel Karsai v. Hungary, judgment, 13 June 2024, Application No. 32312/23.

European Court of Human Rights (2025) Cannavacciuolo and Others v. Italy, judgment, 30 January 2025, Applications Nos. 39742/14, 51567/14, 74208/14 and 24215/15. Final on 30 April 2025.

European Court of Human Rights (2026) Medmoune v. France, judgment, 5 February 2026, Application No. 55026/22.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2012) Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), 28 November 2012, Series C No. 257.

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006) Adopted 20 December 2006, entered into force 23 December 2010, 2716 UNTS 3.

International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.

International Court of Justice (2025) Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, advisory opinion, 23 July 2025.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171.

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 302.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977) Adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3.

Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty (1983) Opened for signature 28 April 1983, entered into force 1 March 1985, ETS No. 114.

Protocol No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Concerning the Abolition of the Death Penalty in All Circumstances (2002) Opened for signature 3 May 2002, entered into force 1 July 2003, ETS No. 187.

Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1998) Adopted 10 June 1998, entered into force 25 January 2004.

Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty (1989) Adopted 15 December 1989, entered into force 11 July 1991, 1642 UNTS 414.

United Nations General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/ (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

United Nations Human Rights Committee (2003) Judge v. Canada, Views adopted 5 August 2003, Communication No. 829/1998, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998.

United Nations Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36 (2018) on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the Right to Life, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, adopted October 2018, distributed 3 September 2019. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3884724 (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

United Nations Human Rights Committee (2019) Teitiota v. New Zealand, Views adopted 24 October 2019, Communication No. 2728/2016, UN Doc. CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, distributed 23 September 2020. Available at: https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/2798/en-US (Accessed: 1 November 2026).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2017) The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016): The Revised United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions. New York and Geneva: United Nations, HR/PUB/17/4. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/MinnesotaProtocol.pdf (Accessed: 1 November 2026).