Below is a **precise, legally grounded list** of what can correctly be described as **“life-giving measures”** in the sense you mean: 1. **They protect life.** 2. **They make Justice publicly visible.** 3. **They align with legal obligations** (domestic, ECHR, ICC Act 2001, Genocide Convention). 4. **They restore the rule of law where it has been weakened.** These are measures a court, prosecutor, government department, or public authority can take **without political discretion**—because they arise from **existing legal duties**. I will list them in three categories: * **A. Measures that protect human life directly** * **B. Measures that restore Justice visibly** * **C. Measures that express the State’s duty to prevent atrocity crimes** These are expressed simply, in neutral legal terms—nothing rhetorical, nothing abstract. --- # **A. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES (DIRECT PROTECTION OF LIFE)** ### 1. **Immediate review of all arms export licences where there is a “clear risk” of serious IHL violations** Required by: * Export Control Act 2002 * Strategic Export Licensing Criteria * *CAAT v Secretary of State (2019)* – Court of Appeal This measure protects life by preventing weapons from being used unlawfully. --- ### 2. **Suspension of intelligence-sharing that could contribute to unlawful targeting** Required by: * Common Article 1 (duty to “ensure respect” for Geneva Conventions) * ILC Articles on State Responsibility (Art 16 – aiding or assisting wrongful acts) Direct effect: prevents foreseeable harm to civilian populations. --- ### 3. **Enabling ICC evidence-gathering and witness protection** Required by: * ICC Act 2001 (domestic cooperation duties) This facilitates accountability, which is a recognised preventive tool. --- ### 4. **Applying sanctions to actors credibly implicated in mass atrocity crimes** Required by: * SAMLA 2018 * UK Human Rights Sanctions Regulations Sanctions are a preventative mechanism under UK law. --- ### 5. **Ensuring humanitarian corridors and aid-facilitation where UK assets or permissions are involved** Required by: * ICJ provisional measures obligations (binding) * UN Charter Article 94(1) This is a direct life-protecting measure. --- # **B. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES THAT MAKE JUSTICE *SEEN* TO BE DONE** ### 6. **Ending excessive pre-trial remand for non-violent defendants** Required by: * Article 5 ECHR (trial within a reasonable time) * Domestic custody time limits (CrimPR/POA 1985) Justice is “seen to be done” when pre-trial detention is proportionate. --- ### 7. **Transparent review of prosecutions where terrorism labels have been over-extended** Required by: * Proportionality and legality principles (Articles 10/11 ECHR) * Common-law fairness * Case law on protest rights This restores public confidence that criminal law is being applied responsibly. --- ### 8. **Releasing or granting bail to non-violent detainees where risk tests are not met** Required by: * Bail Act * Human Rights Act (right to liberty) This visibly restores proportionality and legal balance. --- ### 9. **Publishing genocide-risk assessments (as required by the ICJ finding of “plausible risk”)** Required by: * State duty to prevent genocide (Bosnia v Serbia, ICJ 2007) * Duty to take “all measures reasonably available” Transparency is itself a life-giving mechanism. --- ### 10. **Judicial insistence on effective remedies against proscription decisions affecting peaceful expression** Required by: * *Ammori v SSHD* litigation principles * Article 13 ECHR Justice is seen when courts protect lawful dissent. --- # **C. LIFE-GIVING MEASURES THAT EXPRESS THE STATE’S DUTY TO PREVENT ATROCITY CRIMES** ### 11. **Applying the precautionary principle recognised in genocide-risk jurisprudence** Required by: * *Gambia v Myanmar* (ICJ 2020) * *South Africa v Israel* (ICJ 2024) Plausible risk triggers State action. --- ### 12. **Issuing guidance that all departments must avoid contributing to a situation adjudged to present a plausible genocide risk** Required by: * Genocide Convention Article I * ILC State Responsibility Articles 16 & 41 * ICC Act 2001 (complicity provisions) Cross-government coordination is a legal requirement, not a policy preference. --- ### 13. **Initiating domestic investigations into potential UK complicity under ICC Act 2001** Required by: * ICC Act 2001 Part 5 * Duty to prosecute grave breaches (Geneva Conventions Act) This expresses justice in its most serious form. --- ### 14. **Implementing corporate-complicity reviews for UK-registered companies operating in high-risk sectors** Required by: * POCA (criminal property) * Corporate criminal liability * Sanctions framework * Export control rules Life is protected when supply chains are cleaned of complicity risks. --- ### 15. **Ensuring that the policing of protest complies strictly with human-rights norms and avoids chilling dissent** Required by: * Articles 10 & 11 ECHR * Case law: *DPP v Ziegler*, *Laporte*, *Redmond-Bate* * Judicial findings in Kent Police apology (October 2025) Non-violent protest is a safety-valve in a democratic society. --- # **14. Why these are “life-giving measures” in legal terms** They meet all four criteria: ### 1. They **protect human life** through preventing arms transfers, wrongful targeting, and obstruction of aid. ### 2. They **honour binding international obligations** which are designed specifically to prevent atrocity crimes. ### 3. They make **Justice visible** by restoring proper process, fair trials, and proportionality. ### 4. They **restore public confidence** that the law applies equally to the State and to citizens. These are the measures a judge or official could correctly classify as both **legally necessary** and **life-giving**. --- If you want, I can now produce: * A **complete cross-government life-giving action plan** (10 hours, operational steps); * A **shorter judicial-review appendix** listing these as *required remedies*; * A **structured memorandum** on “Justice being seen to be done in genocide-risk contexts”. Tell me which version you want.