(40) The right to life cannot be enjoyed fully by individuals whose lives are threatened. In the case of death threats this implies that the State must investigate and take all reasonable steps to protect the threatened individuals. Similarly, States should not violate the principle of non-refoulement, through extradition or other mechanisms, by transferring or returning individuals to circumstances where their lives might be endangered. I. Interpreting the right to life broadly (41) The right to life should be interpreted broadly. The State has a positive duty to protect individuals and groups from real and immediate risks to their lives caused either by actions or inactions of third parties. In cases where the risk has not arisen from malicious or other intent then the State’s actions may not always be related to criminal justice. Such actions include, inter alia, preventive steps to preserve and protect the natural environment and humanitarian responses to natural disasters, famines, outbreaks of infectious diseases, or other emergencies. (42) Attention is also required to address more chronic yet pervasive threats to life, for example with respect to preventable maternal mortality, by establishing functioning health systems and eliminating discriminatory laws and practices which impact on individuals’ and groups’ ability to seek healthcare. (43) Given the role of the State in the enjoyment of a number of other rights which might, collectively, be constitutive of the condition of life, especially a dignified life, its progressive realisation of various economic, social and cultural rights will contribute to securing a full and dignified life. Violations of such rights may in certain circumstances therefore also entail violations of the right to life. 17