Accountability For Extrajudicial Killings
Accountability for Extrajudicial Killings
Extrajudicial killings refer to the unlawful killing of individuals by the state or non-state actors without the benefit of a fair trial or judicial process. These killings violate both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. They are prohibited under instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and customary international law.
The prosecution of extrajudicial killings seeks to hold perpetrators accountable and offer justice to the victims, particularly in contexts of armed conflict, repressive regimes, and human rights violations. International courts, including the International Criminal Court (ICC), and regional courts such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have played pivotal roles in addressing extrajudicial killings, offering significant jurisprudence for accountability.
Key Legal Frameworks
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR): Article 6 protects the right to life and explicitly prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, including extrajudicial killings.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): Article 7 defines extrajudicial killings as crimes against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against civilians. Such killings may also qualify as war crimes under Article 8 during armed conflict.
Geneva Conventions: Specifically, the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the arbitrary killing of civilians during international conflicts.
Extrajudicial killings are often treated as war crimes, crimes against humanity, or human rights violations depending on the context in which they occur.
Case Law on Extrajudicial Killings
1. The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić (2009–2016) – ICTY
Facts:
Radovan Karadžić, former president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, was charged with genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity for his role in the Bosnian War (1992-1995). Karadžić’s forces were responsible for extrajudicial killings in areas such as Srebrenica, where over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were executed by Bosnian Serb forces, as well as summary executions in other parts of Bosnia.
Issue:
Karadžić was accused of directing or failing to prevent the extrajudicial killings of civilians as part of the broader strategy of ethnic cleansing. The central issue was whether these killings could be classified as part of a larger plan of genocide or crimes against humanity.
Decision:
The ICTY found Karadžić guilty of genocide in Srebrenica and other charges, including extrajudicial killings in various locations. Karadžić was sentenced to 40 years in prison, later reduced on appeal.
Impact:
This case reinforced that extrajudicial killings carried out during armed conflict, particularly as part of a systematic attack on a civilian population, qualify as crimes against humanity and genocide. The conviction highlighted the command responsibility principle, where leaders are held accountable for crimes committed by their subordinates.
2. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba (2016) – ICC
Facts:
Jean-Pierre Bemba, former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity for his role in the Central African Republic (CAR) conflict (2002-2003). His militia, the Movement for the Liberation of Congo (MLC), was accused of committing extrajudicial killings, rape, and other atrocities during their intervention in CAR.
Issue:
Bemba was accused of failing to prevent or punish extrajudicial killings committed by his forces while they were fighting in CAR. The killings were alleged to have been part of a larger pattern of atrocities, including summary executions of civilians.
Decision:
In 2016, the ICC convicted Bemba for crimes against humanity, including extrajudicial killings. However, in 2018, the ICC’s Appeals Chamber overturned his conviction for crimes against humanity, ruling that he was not responsible for the actions of his troops under the legal doctrine of command responsibility.
Impact:
The case set a precedent for command responsibility in relation to extrajudicial killings. It demonstrated that leaders may be held accountable for killings committed by forces under their control, provided there is proof that they had the ability to prevent or punish such acts. While Bemba’s conviction was overturned, the case clarified the standards under which military leaders can be held accountable for the actions of their subordinates.
3. The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (2012) – ICC
Facts:
Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), was charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Ituri conflict (2002-2003) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Lubanga was involved in the recruitment of child soldiers, but his militia also carried out numerous extrajudicial killings and attacks on civilian populations.
Issue:
While Lubanga’s case focused mainly on the use of child soldiers, the broader context of the conflict involved the extrajudicial killings of civilians. Lubanga’s forces were involved in targeting civilians, including summary executions, especially in areas controlled by rival factions.
Decision:
Lubanga was convicted of war crimes related to the recruitment of child soldiers, but extrajudicial killings were not the primary focus of his prosecution. Nevertheless, the ICC considered the context of these killings during its analysis of the broader humanitarian violations.
Impact:
Although the conviction did not directly address extrajudicial killings, the case helped clarify the ICC’s jurisdiction over crimes committed during non-international armed conflicts. It also emphasized the impact of armed groups on civilian populations, including their role in committing extrajudicial killings.
4. The Prosecutor v. Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi (2016) – ICC
Facts:
Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi, a member of the Ansar Dine group in Mali, was charged with war crimes for his role in the destruction of cultural property in the city of Timbuktu. During his actions, he also ordered extrajudicial killings of individuals deemed to be enemies of his group or those who resisted his control.
Issue:
While the primary charge was the destruction of cultural property, the case also touched upon extrajudicial killings carried out by Ansar Dine fighters under his command, especially when they targeted civilians accused of opposing their ideology.
Decision:
In 2016, al-Mahdi became the first person to be convicted for the destruction of cultural property under the ICC. He was sentenced to 9 years in prison, although the extrajudicial killings were not the central charges.
Impact:
This case underscored the potential for extrajudicial killings to be prosecuted as part of broader violations of international humanitarian law, even in cases where the primary focus is on other crimes. It highlighted the ICC's expanding role in prosecuting acts of violence that include extrajudicial killings in the context of armed conflict.
5. The Case of the "Disappeared" in Argentina (1970s) – Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Facts:
During Argentina’s “Dirty War” (1976-1983), the military dictatorship targeted political opponents, including students, activists, and trade unionists, for extrajudicial killings. Thousands of individuals were abducted, tortured, and killed without trial, their bodies often never recovered. These victims were referred to as the “disappeared”.
Issue:
The central issue in these cases was whether the state could be held accountable for the extrajudicial killings carried out by its military and security forces. The victims’ families sought justice through the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Decision:
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held the Argentine state responsible for the disappearances and extrajudicial killings during the dictatorship, finding that the state had violated human rights under the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court ordered reparations for the victims’ families and held that the state had an obligation to investigate and prosecute the perpetrators.
Impact:
This landmark case demonstrated the international accountability mechanisms available for extrajudicial killings in non-conflict settings. It established that state responsibility for extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances could be prosecuted under regional human rights law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments