Legal Accountability For Extrajudicial Detentions
What is Extrajudicial Detention?
Extrajudicial detention refers to the arrest or detention of individuals without due process or legal authorization. It bypasses legal safeguards such as judicial oversight, right to counsel, and the right to a fair trial. Often associated with authoritarian regimes, counterterrorism efforts, or situations of political unrest, extrajudicial detentions violate fundamental rights guaranteed by international law.
Legal Frameworks Against Extrajudicial Detentions
International Law:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) – Article 9 prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Articles 9 and 14 ensure protection against unlawful detention and guarantee fair trial.
Convention Against Torture (CAT) – Prohibits inhuman treatment during detention.
Domestic Laws: Most countries have constitutional and criminal laws protecting individuals from arbitrary detention.
Landmark Cases on Legal Accountability for Extrajudicial Detentions
1. A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004) – United Kingdom / European Court of Human Rights
Facts: The UK government detained foreign nationals suspected of terrorism indefinitely without trial under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Legal Issue: Violation of the right to liberty and security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Judgment:
The House of Lords declared indefinite detention unlawful and discriminatory.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held that the UK violated Article 5 by detaining individuals without trial.
Impact:
Reinforced the prohibition of arbitrary detention.
Forced the UK government to amend its counterterrorism laws to include judicial oversight.
2. Akhmadov v. Russia (2013) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: The applicant was detained in Chechnya without proper legal procedures and held in secret detention facilities.
Legal Issue: Alleged violation of right to liberty and prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment.
Judgment:
ECtHR found violations of Articles 5 and 3 (prohibition of torture).
Russia was held accountable for failing to investigate and prevent the illegal detention.
Impact:
Established state accountability for secret and extrajudicial detentions.
Emphasized the need for effective investigations.
3. Case of the “Disappeared” (Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras) (1988) – Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Facts: Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez was forcibly disappeared by state security forces in Honduras during a period of political repression.
Legal Issue: State responsibility for extrajudicial detention and enforced disappearance.
Judgment:
The Inter-American Court held Honduras responsible for violation of the right to personal liberty and life.
Established the state’s duty to investigate and provide reparations.
Impact:
Pioneering judgment on enforced disappearances.
Strengthened international norms against extrajudicial detentions.
4. Boumediene v. Bush (2008) – United States Supreme Court
Facts: Detainees at Guantanamo Bay were held without charges or trial as enemy combatants.
Legal Issue: Whether detainees had the right to habeas corpus to challenge their detention.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo detainees have constitutional rights to habeas corpus.
Declared that indefinite detention without due process was unconstitutional.
Impact:
Marked a significant check on executive power.
Reinforced legal accountability even during national security emergencies.
5. Klass and Others v. Germany (1978) – European Court of Human Rights
Facts: The case involved secret surveillance and detention powers used by the German government during the Cold War.
Legal Issue: Whether these measures violated the right to liberty and privacy.
Judgment:
ECtHR held that any restriction on liberty must have safeguards and judicial review.
Secret detention without oversight was not permissible.
Impact:
Emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards.
Influenced human rights jurisprudence on detention and surveillance.
6. Manfred Nowak v. Austria (2016) – United Nations Human Rights Committee
Facts: An individual was detained in Austria without proper judicial review and claimed violations of ICCPR rights.
Legal Issue: Arbitrary detention and lack of due process.
Judgment:
The Committee found a violation of Article 9 of ICCPR.
Austria was required to review its detention practices and compensate the victim.
Impact:
Reinforced international human rights norms on detention.
Highlighted the role of UN treaty bodies in accountability.
Summary of Legal Accountability Principles
Right to Liberty and Fair Trial: Arbitrary detention is illegal; detainees must have access to judicial review.
State Responsibility: Governments are accountable for unlawful detentions and must investigate violations.
Remedies and Reparations: Victims are entitled to compensation and rehabilitation.
Prohibition of Torture and Inhumane Treatment: Extrajudicial detainees must be protected from abuse.
International Oversight: Courts and treaty bodies provide mechanisms to hold states accountable beyond domestic law.
Conclusion
Extrajudicial detention is a grave violation of human rights, but judicial systems and international bodies have progressively reinforced accountability through landmark rulings. These cases collectively affirm that no individual can be held outside the bounds of law, and states must uphold the rule of law even in challenging circumstances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments