Currently, many states encountering the threat of terrorism from abroad resort to the measure of the socalled target killings which is a liquidation of the members belonging to terrorist groups. Consequently,a question arises if the victims of the attacks carried out as this measure may take advantage of internationallaw remedies. The issue got especially acute after the September 11 attacks when military menand the police were assigned to liquidate or arrest potential terrorists at the territories lacking a propermechanism to protect human rights. As a result, a question arises if state is responsible for the agents who committed crimes outside its territory or jurisdiction. The paper attempts to tackle the issue on thebasis of the paramount right, i.e. the right to life which is the most vulnerable in conflicts where the line between the paradigm of military conflict and human rights is blurred. Besides, it should be noted that the mechanism of the extraterritorial application of the right to life is similar to the mechanism of the right to freedom from torture, which acquires topicality with the widespread practice of extraterritorialdetention and imprisonment (extraordinary rendition). This article considers the key human right treaties representing universal and regional systems of human rights. The author analyzes the cases ofjudicial and quasi-judicial bodies intended to protect human rights in their jurisdictions and studies thedoctrines on the responsibility of states for the actions committed by their servants, agents and other actors. The author concludes that despite the fact that the state is responsible for the violation of the right to life the scope of this responsibility varies from convention to convention.