Upload
nailawe
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
1/71
AccountabilityunderHumanRightsLawand
InternationalCriminalLawforAtrocitiesAgainst
MinorityGroupsCommittedby
Non-StateActors
boAkademiInstituteforHumanRights
PeterFinell
May2002
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
2/71
TABLEOFCONTENTS
1.Introduction p.1
1.1.Internationalresponsestowarcrimes,genocide,crimesagainsthumanity
andseriousviolationsofhumanrights
p.1
1.2.Theaimandpurposeofthestudy p.4
1.3.Methodandsources p.6
2.Minoritygroupsandthreatsfromnon-stateactors p.7
3. International human rights law and abuses perpetrated by non-state
actors
p.9
3.1.Introductoryremarksonthecharacterofhumanrightstreaties p.9
3.2.Protectionofminoritygroupsunderhumanrightslaw p.11
3.3.Stateresponsibilityforhumanrightsabusesbynon-stateactors p.14
3.4.Duediligenceasappliedtotheprotectionofminoritygroups p.20
3.5.Othermeansforensuringaccountability p.21
4.Internationalcriminallawandnon-stateactors p.22
4.1.Initialremarksoninternationalcriminallawandinternationalcrimes p.22
4.2.Accountabilityandinternationalcrimes p.24
4.3.Individualinternationalcriminalresponsibilityofnon-stateactors p.26
4.4.Non-stateactorsandgenocide p.31
4.5.Crimesagainsthumanityandnon-stateactors p.34
4.5.1.Thecharacteristicsofcrimesagainsthumanity p.34
4.5.2.Persecutionasacrimeagainsthumanity p.394.5.3.Accountabilityofnon-stateactors p.41
4.6.Internationalhumanitarianlaw,warcrimesandnon-stateactors p.43
4.6.1. On international humanitarian law and the protection of minority
groups
p.43
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
3/71
3
4.6.2.Non-stateactorsandwarcrimesintheRomeStatute p.48
5. The complementarity between human rights law and international
criminallaw
p.51
5.1.Generalremarks p.51
5.2.BenefitsforthehumanrightsprotectionsystemsbroughtaboutbytheRome
Statute
p.52
6.Conclusions p.54
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
4/71
4
Abbreviations
AJIL AmericanJournalofInternationalLaw
Art. Article
CoE CouncilofEurope
ECHR EuropeanCourtofHumanRights
FRY FederalRepublicofYugoslavia
G.A. GeneralAssembly
ICC InternationalCriminalCourt
IMT InternationalMilitaryTribunal
Inter-AmCt.H.R. Inter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights
ICCPR InternationalCovenanton Civil and PoliticalRights
ICHRP International Council on Human RightsPolicy
ICTR InternationalCriminalTribunalforRwanda
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for FormerYugoslavia
S.C. SecurityCouncil
UN UnitedNations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees
UNTAET United Nations Transitional AdministrationinEast-Timor
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
5/71
1
1.Introduction
1.1.Internationalresponsestowarcrimes, genocide, crimes againsthumanity and
seriousviolationsofhumanrights
Thenatureofthearmedconflictshaschangedquitedramaticallyduringthelastdecades.
Recent conflicts in Europe and elsewhere in the world reveal that most of the
contemporary armed conflicts are not fought between two states, but rather between
partiesinsidestates.Theoccurrenceofnon-internationalandpurelyinternalconflicts,and
tyrannical regimes, which produce systematic human rights violations, has dramatically
increased victimisation. Since the Second World War around 250 conflicts of different
kinds have taken place and during these conflicts some 170 million people have been
killed. This is almost twice as much as during the two world wars, and most of the
victimisationhastakenplaceinnon-internationalconflicts.Suchvictimisationhasaswe
havewitnessed includedgenocide, crimesagainsthumanity,andwar crimes,alongwith
extra-judicial killings, torture and arbitrary arrests all of which constitute serious
violationsofinternationalhumanrightslaw.1
More than often the contemporary conflicts are caused by tensions between a central
governmentanda minoritypopulation,orbetweenthemajoritypopulationandminority
groups. According to the analytical report of the UN Secretary-General on minimum
humanitarianstandards,contemporaryconflictsarecharacterisedbysituationswhereone
or more groups have taken up arms against the central government in the pursuit of
political objectives such as secession or autonomy for a particular ethnic, religious or
linguisticgroup,ortheoverthrowingoftheexistinggovernment.Typicalarealsoconflicts
where an existing Government has collapsed, or is otherwise unable or unwilling tointervene and stop the violence between armed groups.2 Furthermore, the patterns of
humanrightsabuses in thesecircumstances showthat thecivilianpopulation in general
1Bassiouni,p.2,1996,Bassiouni,p.5,1999.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
6/71
2
and especially children, women, and minority populations are most vulnerable to
unregulatedterrorandviolence,whichcharacterisethecontemporaryconflicts. 3
The role of the international community in preventing and halting genocides, crimes
againsthumanityandotheratrocities is usually focusedon actions after such atrocities
have been committed. Thus, the international community strives to try and punish
individuals for international crimes such as war crimes, genocide and crimes against
humanityandotherserioushumanrightsviolations.Institutionssuchascourts,whichare
designed to protect, restore and improve our public order, seeks to fulfil a set of
fundamentalgoals.Thesegoals,whicharecommonforalllegalsystemsareaccordingto
Reisman:thepreventionofimminentdiscretepublicorderviolations;suspendingcurrent
public order violations; deterring in general, potential future public order violations;
restoringpublicorderafterithasbeenviolated;correctingthebehaviourthatgenerates
publicorderviolations;rehabilitatingvictimswhohavesufferedthebruntofpublicorder
violations;andreconstructing in a largersocial senseto remove conditions that appear
likelytogeneratepublicorderviolations.Thecommondenominatorofthesegoalsisthus
to protect, re-establish or create a public order, which can be characterised by low
expectations of violence and an increased respect for human rights. A wide range of
international institutions and practises are thus being used in order to accomplish the
above-mentionedgoals.OfsuchinstitutionalpractisesReismanregardsthefollowingas
mostimportant:1.)Internationalhumanrightslaw, thelawof state responsibility,and
the developing law of liability without fault; 2.) International criminal tribunals; 3.)
Universalisationofthejurisdictionofnationalcourtsforinternationalcrimes;4.)Non-
recognition or the general refusal to recognise and to allow violators the beneficial
consequencesofactionsdeemedunlawful;5.) Incentivesin theform of foreignaidor
other rewards; 6.) Commissions of inquiry or truth commissions; 7.) Compensation
commissions;and8.)Amnesties. 4
2UNDoc.E/CN.4/1998/875January1998.Minimumhumanitarianstandards.AnalyticalreportoftheSecretary-GeneralsubmittedpursuanttoCommissiononHumanRightsresolution1997/21,at17-19.3Ibidem.at2526.4Reisman,p.76-78,1996.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
7/71
3
For the purposesofthis studycategories 1-3 are most relevant as the objective of this
paper is to examine the possible legal responses to serious human rights abuses under
contemporaryhumanrightslawandinternationalcriminallaw.
Humanrightsareconceivedofas rightsheldby individualsvis--vistheState, andthey
createlegalobligations,bothpositiveandnegativeinnature,onpartoftheStatetoensure
thefull enjoymentoftheserights.TheState is thenarguablyalsotheonlyentity,which
can be responsible for human rights violations. Nevertheless, measures taken by other
actors can also violate human rights. After the Second World War, large-scale
victimizations of civilians have often been committed by non-state actors5, such as
paramilitaryunits,armedcivilianbandsandevenchildren.Inthelastdecadewehavealso
witnessed attacks on civilian populations, campaigns of ethnic cleansing and even
genocides that have been perpetrated by militias, insurgent groups or other non-state
actors.Thethreatposedbynon-stateactorshavebecomesofrequentthatKlinclaims
thatthemajorityofrefugeesaretodayfleeingviolenceemanatingfromnon-stateactors.6
During the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, most of the atrocities falling within the
definition of crimes against humanity were according to Bassiouni perpetrated by such
paramilitarygroupsorarmedcivilianbands.Moreover,theHutucivilianswereincitedto
kill Tutsi civilians in the Rwanda conflict, and in Liberia armed civilian bands have
committed crimes against humanity.7 In the international on-going discussion on
fundamentalstandards of humanity, the accountability of armed groups and other non-
state actors is seen as one of the most difficult challenges posed by contemporary
conflicts,regardingtheprotectionoffundamentalrights. 8
5AstudyconductedbytheInternationalCouncilonHumanRightsPolicy,ontheaccountabilityofnon-
statearmedgroups,usethetermarmedgroupsin thatcontextfornon-stateactors,anddefinessuchgroupsasgroupsthatarearmedanduseforcetoachievetheirobjectivesandarenotunderstatecontrol.Abroad understanding of this definitionwillalsobeused below, but in relation tothe term non-stateactors. (International Council on Human Rights Policy: Ends & means: human rights approaches toarmedgroups,pp.5-6.)6Klin,p.43,2001.7Bassiouni,p.274,1999.8 See for example UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/87 5 January 1998. Minimum humanitarian standardsAnalyticalreportoftheSecretary-GeneralsubmittedpursuanttoCommissiononHumanRightsresolution1997/2,andUNDoc.E/CN.4/2001/9112January2001FundamentalStandardsofHumanityReportof
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
8/71
4
1.2.Theaimandthepurposeofthestudy
AswehavewitnessedthroughtheconflictinKosovo,andelsewhere,minoritygroupsare
veryoften thevictims ofatrocities,whichcould classifyasviolations ofminority rights
underhumanrightslaw,thecrimeofpersecutionasacrimesagainsthumanity,aswar
crimesandevenasactsofgenocide.Oftenitisaswasmentionedabove,non-stateactors,
which are behind such acts. With regard to war crimes, genocide and crimes against
humanity,allactorsareindividuallycriminallyliable,underinternationalcriminallaw.The
morecomplicatedissuesarewhetherhumanrightslawappliestonon-stateactors,and
hownon-stateactorscouldbemadeaccountableforviolationsoffundamentalrights.
Theaimofthisstudyisthustoexaminethescopeandthecontentofthelegalresponses
availableundertwobranchesofcontemporaryinternationallaw,namelyhumanrightslaw
and international criminal law, to atrocities that can be defined as war crimes, crimes
against humanity, genocide and human rights violations, when they are perpetrated by
non-stateactors.Minorityrightsareprotectedunderhumanrightsconventions,thatare
treatiesbetweenStates,inwhichStateshaveundertakento respectandensuretherights
enshrined in the treaty. Thus, this paper seeks to examine the nature and scopeof the
obligationsonpartoftheState,whenthethreattominoritygroupsstemsfromnon-state
actors.Themainissueinthisrespectisthustoexaminewhatkindobligationsinternational
humanrightslaw putson theduty-bearers foratrocities againstminority groups,when
non-state actors perpetrate them. The questions that arise in this connection are thus:
Doeshumanrightslawapplytonon-stateactors?Howcannon-stateactorsviolatingthe
rightsofminoritygroupsorengaginginpersecutionofsuchgroupsbemadeaccountable
forsuchacts?WhatkindofdutiesdohumanrightsconventionsputonStates,withregard
to violations of the very rights that the convention isdesigned to protect? What is thescopeoftheduediligencedoctrine?
the Secretary-General submitted pursuant to Commission resolution 2000/69. Report from the ExpertMeetingonFundamentalStandardsofHumanity,Stockholm22-24,February2000.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
9/71
5
In international criminal law, crimes against humanity overlap with some fundamental
human rights violations in the Rome Statute, which as Meron puts it, means that
fundamental human rights violations become criminalized under the Rome Statute.
Scheininalsoelaboratesfurtheron this importantconnection, andstates that:What is
punishable for an individual under international law is also prohibited in relation to
States. And what is prohibited by international law by qualifying certain acts as
international crimes is certainly relevant for an understanding of what rights
fundamental standardsofhumanity-mustberespectedbyStatesand individuals inall
circumstances.9Moreover,thesamereasoningcanalsobetracedinGeneralComment
No.29onstatesofemergency,whichwasadoptedbytheUNHumanRightsCommittee
in July 2001.10 This connection between international criminal law and international
human rights law leads to the second major issue of this study. Thus, the study will
examinethemeanstoholdnon-stateactorsaccountableunder theGenocideConvention
and under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Both genocide and crimes
againsthumanityareveryspecificcrimes,whichputspecificrequirementsregardingboth
theacts,theintentionsbehindtheactsandtheactorbehindthem.Withthisinmindthe
studyseekstoidentifytherequirements,whichmustbefulfilledbeforeanon-stateactor
can be held criminally liable for genocide and crimes against humanity. This study is
especially interested in offences, which have targeted minority groups, and thus the
offenceofpersecution,whichhasexpandedthroughthecodificationwillbepaidspecial
attention. The protection afforded to minority groups under international humanitarian
law,andespeciallythemeanstoholdnon-stateactorsresponsibleforwarcrimesunder
theRomeStatutewillalso beexaminedundertheheadingofinternational criminal law.
TheRomeStatuteisespeciallysignificantwithregardtonon-stateactors,asitisthefirst
9
Scheinin,p.32,2000.10UNDoc.CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.1131August2001GeneralCommentNo.29onStatesofemergency,atparagraph12,whichreads: InassessingthescopeoflegitimatederogationfromtheCovenant,onecriterioncanbefoundinthedefinitionofcertainhumanrightsviolationsascrimesagainsthumanity.If
actionconductedundertheauthorityofa Stateconstitutesabasisfor individualcriminalresponsibility
foracrimeagainsthumanityby thepersonsinvolved inthat action,article4ofthe Covenantcannotbe
usedas justificationthata stateofemergencyexempted theState inquestion from itsresponsibility in
relation to the same conduct. Therefore, the recent codification of crimes against humanity, for
jurisdictional purposes, in theRomeStatute of the International CriminalCourt is of relevance in the
interpretationofarticle4oftheCovenant.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
10/71
6
major multilateral treaty codification of certain war crimes in non-international armed
conflicts,which in turn are the circumstances in which non-statearmed groupsusually
operate.
The study requires, in addition to an analysis of the ICC-Statute and its preparatory
documents, also a careful examination of the case law from the international ad hoc
tribunalswithjurisdictionoverthesecrimes.
The fifth chapter is then devoted to an elaboration of the idea of a merger between
international criminal law and international human rights law. As the Rome Statute
criminalizesgenocideandcrimesagainsthumanity,itisalsoofrelevancetoconsiderwhat
addedvaluethisbringsto humanrightstreatyregimes,andto theprotectionofminority
groupsinconflictcircumstances.Inreverse,onealsoneedstoconsiderwhetherornotthe
discourse concerning the merger of human rights law and international criminal, is
prematureandevenharmfulforinternationalcriminallaw.
1.3.Methodandsources
Thisstudyapproachesthethemefromalegalpointofview,withtheaimofansweringthe
questions posed through an examination of the relevant legal sources. In this respect,
internationalhumanrightsconventions,especiallytheInternationalCovenantonCiviland
PoliticalRights(ICCPR),instrumentsoninternationalcriminallaw,suchastheGenocide
Convention andespecially theStatuteof the International Criminal Court (ICC) areof
mostrelevance.Inadditiontotheinstrumentsandtheirpreparatorydocuments,alsothe
relevantcaselawoftheICTYandtheICTR,andtheUNHumanRightsCommitteewill
beexamined.Attentionwillalsobegiventothelatestdoctrineontheseissuesandtheongoing international discussion, especially on the fundamental standards of humanity,
whichrelatescloselytothetheme.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
11/71
7
2.Minoritygroupsandthreatsfromnon-stateactors
The ability of non-state actors to commit large-scale victimisation has been clearly
demonstratedduringtheconflictsinRwanda,theformerYugoslavia,andelsewhere.TheInternationalCouncilonHumanRightsPolicystudyonarmedgroupsandhumanrights
abusesconfirmshowthechangingnatureofarmedconflicts,frominternationaltointernal,
hasbroughtaboutarmedgroups,whicharenotunderthecontrolofanyState,andwhose
conductgiverisetoserioushumanrightsabuses.Thestudyalsoenliststhemostcommon
humanrightsabuses,whichareattributabletoarmednon-stateactors.Amongtheseare:
arbitrarydeprivation of the right to life, disregard for the protection owed to civilians
caughtupinconflicts,interferencewithfreedomofmovement,interferencewithfreedom
ofexpression,assemblyandassociation,torture,ill-treatment,andabusesagainstchildren
andwomen,andarbitrarydeprivationoflibertyanddueprocess. 11
Therightsofminoritygroupsarenotmentionedassuchonthelist,butminoritygroups,
orgroupswithdistinctethnic,religious,linguisticcharacteristicsareusuallythevictimsof
theabove-mentionedabuses.Thevulnerabilityofminoritiesduringcrisissituationsisalso
recognised in the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on States of Emergency, Mr.
LeandroDespouyoftheSub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtection
ofMinorities,whomentionsminorities, indigenous populationsand migrant workers as
groupsthatareparticularlyvulnerableduringstatesofemergencies,andwhoseprotection
needstobestrengthened.12
Theconflict in Kosovo is agood exampleofvictimisationofminorities, whichasbeen
perpetratedbybothStateactionandbynon-stateactors.Firstly,theAlbaniancommunity
inKosovowasthetargetofgenocidalactsonbehalfoftheregimeinBelgrade,whichlead
11 InternationalCouncilon HumanRightsPolicy:Ends& means:human rights approaches toarmedgroups,p.10.12UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/19.FinalReportofMr.LeandroDespouy,SpecialRapporteuroftheSub-Commission, on the Protection of Human Rights and States of Emergency, 23 June 1997, TheadministrationofJusticeandtheHumanRightsofDetainees:QuestionofHumanRightsandStatesofEmergency,paragraph173.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
12/71
8
to the indictments of the political and military leaders of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia for crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia (ICTY).13 After the deployment of UNMIK and KFOR, the Serb-
minority residing in Kosovo, was according to the reports of the international human
rights monitors, the targetof revengecrimes perpetrated by armed non-state groups.14
ThehumanrightsabusesbyarmedgroupsinKosovomightalsobetriedbytheICTY.
ThechiefprosecutoroftheICTY,CarlaDelPontealsostatedataPressConferenceon
the21stofMarch2001,thatinvestigationswithrespecttopossibleviolationsofthelaws
or customs ofwarand crimes againsthumanity in Kosovo, involving allegations about
activities, againstSerbs and other minorities, by unidentified Albanian armed groups in
KosovofromJune1999untilthepresent,isunderway.15
13Milutinovicetal.CaseNo.IT-99-37"Kosovo"InitialIndictment,24May1999.14PreliminaryAssessmentOftheSituationofEthnicMinoritiesinKosovo.UNHCR/OSCE26July1999.Taken from http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/minorities/. UN Doc. S/1999/987 Report of
theSecretary-GeneralontheUnitedNationsInterimAdministrationMissioninKosovo,p.1-2.Takenfrom:http://www.un.org/Docs/reports/1999/s1999987.htm,UNDocs/1999/1250ReportoftheSecretary-General on the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, p. 1-2. Taken from:http://www.un.org/Docs/reports/1999/s19991250.htm. UNHCR OSCE Assessment of the Situation ofEthnic Minorities in Kosovo (Period covering November 1999 through January 2000), p. 1-2, 5.http://www.osce.org/kosovo/documents/reports/minorities/.15StatementgivenbytheProsecutoroftheICTY,CarlaDelPonte,atthePressConferenceon21March2001 with thePresident of theICTY, JudgeClaudeJorda,Mr. Grubac, theMinister of Justice of theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia,and Mr. Batic, theMinister of Justiceof theRepublicof Serbia. TheHague,21March2001.FH/P.I.S./578e.Takenfromhttp://www.un.org/icty/latest/latestdev-e.htm.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
13/71
9
3.Internationalhumanrightslawandabusesperpetratedbynon-state
actors
3.1.Introductoryremarksonthecharacterofhumanrightstreaties
Thegeneralinternationalhumanrightsconventions,suchastheInternationalCovenanton
CivilandPoliticalRights,theEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRights
andFundamentalFreedoms,andtheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,aretreaties
betweenStates.TheyweredraftedbyStates,addressedtoStates,andintendedtocreate
obligationsonpartoftheStates.OnlyStatescanbepartiestointernationalhumanrights
treaties,andStatesarealsotheonlysubjectstotheoversightmechanismsthatthetreatiesestablish.16Thus,onlyStatescanbeheldaccountableforhumanrightsviolations,underan
internationalhumanrightsprotectionregime. 17
16 Nevertheless, the UN Human Rights Committee, which is monitoring the implementation of theInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, can also monitor the implementation of theCovenant ona territory, which is not a State party to the Covenant. In the case of Hong Kong forexample, the government of China, which is not a State party to the Covenant, submitted a reportconcerningtheimplementationoftheICCPRinHongKong,astheCovenantcontinuedtoapplyintheHong Kong Special Administrative Region. See for example UNDoc. CCPR/C/HKSAR/99/1 16 June
1999Initialreport(HongKong):China.16/06/99.CCPR/C/HKSAR/99/1.(StatePartyReport).17 International Councilon HumanRights Policy:Ends& means:human rights approaches toarmed
groups,atp.60.AccordingtoarticleintheOptionalProtocoltotheICCPRonlyStatescanbefoundtohaveviolatedtherightsenumeratedintheCovenant.Thus,article1readsasfollows:AStatePartytotheCovenantthatbecomesaPartytothepresentProtocolrecognizesthecompetenceoftheCommittee
to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be
victimsofaviolationbythatStatePartyofanyoftherightssetforthintheCovenant.Nocommunication
shallbereceivedbytheCommitteeifitconcernsaStatePartytotheCovenantwhichisnotaPartytothe
presentProtocol.OptionalProtocoltotheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,G.A.res.2200A(XXI),21U.N.GAORSupp.(No.16)at59,U.N.Doc.A/6316(1966),999U.N.T.S.302,enteredintoforceMarch23,1976.Onthesameissuearticle44oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsprescribes:Anypersonorgroupofpersons,oranynongovernmentalentitylegallyrecognizedin
oneormoremember states ofthe Organization,may lodge petitionswiththe Commission containingdenunciationsorcomplaintsofviolationofthisConventionbyaStateParty.Article63providesthat:1.IftheCourtfindsthattherehasbeenaviolationofa rightorfreedomprotectedbythisConvention,
theCourt shall rule that theinjuredpartybeensured theenjoymentof his rightor freedom thatwas
violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that
constitutedthebreachofsuchrightor freedomberemediedand thatfaircompensationbepaidto the
injuredparty.AmericanConventiononHumanRights,O.A.S.TreatySeriesNo.36,1144U.N.T.S.123enteredintoforceJuly18,1978,reprintedinBasicDocumentsPertainingtoHumanRightsinthe Inter-AmericanSystem, OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82doc.6rev.1at25(1992).Furthermore,articles33and34oftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights,alsoreadsasfollows:AnyHighContractingPartymayreferto
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
14/71
10
Humanrightstreatiesareinthefirstplace,designedtoprotecttheindividualagainstthe
exercise ofStatepower, and they create a legal obligation for States to respect and to
ensuretherightsenumeratedintheConvention.Furthermore,italsomeansthattheState
hasanobligationtoextendthereachofhumanrightslawtorelationsbetweenindividuals,
whichisoftenreferredtoasDrittwirkung.ThismeansthatStateshaveanobligationto
adoptcorrespondingmeasuresinmunicipallaw,whichinturncreatesobligationsonpart
of the individuals.18UnderinternationallawStatesaretheduty-bearers,withregardto
humanrights treaties, and as such internationally responsible for what happens in their
territory. States must therefore take effective measures, in order to protect the rights
enshrined in the conventions, also when private actors threaten the rights.19 Similarly,
Provostalsoassert,that thismeansthathumanrightslawcouldcoverterroristactivities
bynon-stateactors.20
Even if the State is primarily responsible for upholding human rights, new non-state
entities, which have entered the global scene and perpetrated serious human rights
violations, have seriously challenged the States ability to regulate and control these
entities. In the discussion concerning terrorism and human rights with the Sub-
CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationandProtectionofMinorities,Ms.KalliopiK.
Koufaassertedthatthereisaneedto:assessobjectivelywhetherinternationalhuman
rightslawismovingbeyondthetraditionaldichotomyofindividualversusState,beyond
thedutyofStatestorespectandensuretheobservanceofhumanrights,andtowardsthe
theCourtany allegedbreachof theprovisionsoftheConventionand theprotocolstheretoby another
High Contracting Party., and The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmentalorganisationorgroupofindividualsclaimingtobethevictimofaviolationbyoneoftheHighContractingPartiesof the rights set forth in theConvention or the protocols thereto. TheHigh
ContractingPartiesundertakenottohinderinanywaytheeffectiveexerciseofthisright.[European]Conventionforthe ProtectionofHumanRightsand FundamentalFreedoms,(ETSNo.5),213U.N.T.S.222,enteredintoforceSept.3, 1953,as amended by ProtocolsNos 3,5, 8,and 11which entered intoforceon21September1970,20December1971,1January1990,and1November1998respectively.18Provost,p.59,2002.19Scheinin,p.26,2000.20Provost,p.59,2002.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
15/71
11
creationofobligationsapplicablealsotoprivateindividualsandothernon-stateactors
includingliberationmovementsandterroristorganisations. 21
Generallyspeaking,therearehoweverdivergentviewsamongscholarsandGovernments
regarding the question whether, non-state actors, such as armed groups can commit
humanrightsviolations,andwhethertheycouldbeheld accountable under international
humanrightslawforthese,orwhethersuchviolations,despitedeservingcondemnation,
cannotperdefinitionberegardedashumanrightsviolations. 22
Below,thequestionwhether,andunderwhichconditions,aStatecanbeheldliablefor
humanrightsviolationsperpetratedbynon-stateactorswillbefirstaddressed.Thiswillbe
donethroughanexaminationoftheobligationsonpartoftheState,thatthehumanrights
conventionsgiverise to. Thisanalysiswill thenbefollowedby adiscussiononwhether
non-stateactorscouldbehelddirectlyaccountable.
3.2.ProtectionofMinoritygroupsunderhumanrightslaw
Underinternationalhumanrightslaw,article27oftheInternationalCovenantonCiviland
PoliticalRightsaffordsthemainandgeneralminorityprotection. 23Article27,whichisthe
most widely accepted legally binding provision regarding minority rights, protects the
existenceofmembersof minorities, and theircultural, religious and linguisticactivities,
andreadsasfollows:
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons
belongingtosuchminoritiesshallnotbedeniedtheright,incommunitywiththeother
21UNDoc.E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/28TerrorismandhumanrightsWorkingpapersubmittedbyMs.KalliopiK.KoufainaccordancewithSub-Commissionresolution1996/20.22UNDoc.E/CN.4/1998/875January1998.MinimumhumanitarianstandardsAnalyticalreportoftheSecretary-GeneralsubmittedpursuanttoCommissiononHumanRightsresolution1997/21.23InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsadoptedonthe16December1996.HereinaftertheCovenantwillbecalledtheICCPR.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
16/71
12
membersof their group, toenjoy their ownculture, toprofess and practise their own
religion,ortousetheirownlanguage.24
Astheaimofminorityrightsregimesistoprotectminoritiesagainstactivitiesthatare
aimed at the destruction of the group, it is evident that the protection of the physical
existence of minorities is primordial.25 This negative element of the provision obliges
statesto refrainfrominterferenceandto practisetolerance.Allformsofintegrationand
assimilation pressure, and of course all measures directed against, and threatening the
existenceofminoritiesarealsoprohibited.26Withregardtotheprotectionofthisright,the
newGeneralComment,onderogationsfromprovisionsoftheCovenantduringstatesof
emergencies,stands out asextremely important, as it states that: the international
protectionoftherightsofpersonsbelongingtominoritiesincludeselementsthatmustbe
respected in all circumstances. This is reflected in the prohibition of genocide in
international law, in the inclusion of a non-discrimination clause in article 4 itself
(paragraph1),aswellasinthenon-derogablenatureofarticle18. 27Althoughmost
threatstominorityrightsstemfrom thestateside,since thedominantgroup usuallyuse
the state power mechanisms to oppress minorities, experiences from states with many
rivallingethnicorreligiousgroupsshowthatminorityrightscanalsobethreatenedbythe
privateside.Thereforearticle27hasalsoahorizontaleffect,andstatesarethusobligedto
protect minority rights as well against threats stemming from the state side as well as
against threats stemming from other groups of the population.28 The Human Rights
Committee,initsGeneralCommentonart.27,alsoconfirmedthisimportantobligation,
astheCommitteeheldthat:a Statepartyisunderanobligationto ensure that the
existenceand theexerciseof this right are protectedagainst theirdenialorviolation.
Positivemeasuresofprotectionare,therefore,requirednotonlyagainsttheactsof the
24ICCPR,art.27.25LundbergKristiansen,1997,p.381.26Nowak,1993,p.502.27 UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, (2001) Human Rights Committee General Comment 29, 31August2001.28Nowak,1993,p.502-503.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
17/71
13
Statepartyitself,whether through itslegislative, judicial oradministrativeauthorities,
butalsoagainsttheactsofotherpersonswithintheStateparty. 29
Furthermore, therearealso provisionsapplicable to minorities in theConventionon the
EliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,30intheConventionontheRightsof
theChild31andintheConventionagainstDiscriminationinEducation.
In1992theUNGeneralAssemblyadoptedtheUNDeclarationontherightsofPersons
belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. This instrument,
whichformallyisnot legallybinding, is, however, thefirstUNhumanrightsinstrument
devotedsolelytominorities.Ontheregionallevel,onealsohastomentiontheFramework
ConventionfortheProtectionofNationalMinorities,withintheCouncilofEurope,which
is the first binding international instrument on minority rights. Further, the European
Convention on Human Rights creates through article 14 a legally binding, but limited
minorityprotection.OfsignificancewithregardtominoritygroupsisalsoProtocolNo.12
to the ECHR, which regards the prohibition of discrimination. Moreover, the OSCE
documentsalso includefar-reachingminorityrights,but theseare formallynon-binding,
andassuchnotofprimaryimportanceforthisstudy.Withregardtonon-legallybinding
standards, one can also mention the so-called Turku Declaration of Minimum
Humanitarian Standards of 1990, which has been part of the ongoing international
discussiononfundamentalstandardsofhumanity,applicableinallcircumstancesandtoall
actors.Thisinstrumentwasapprovedbyagroupofexperts,andcanbeseenasapart in
the process aimed at strengthening the protection of fundamental rightsduring various
statesofemergency.32 It isformulatedasadeclarationto beadoptedby theUN,and it
29
Therightsofminorities(Art.27):.08/04/94.CCPRGeneralComment23(Fiftiethsession).30 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Adopted andopenedforsignatureandratificationbyGeneralAssemblyResolution2106A(XX)of21December1965.HereinafterthisConventionwillbereferredtoasCERD.31ConventionontheRightsoftheChild.Adoptedandopenedforsignature,ratificationandaccessionbyGeneralAssemblyresolution44/25of20November1989.32Scheinin,2000,p.4.On2December1990,agroupofexpertsconvenedattheboAkademiUniversityInstitute for Human Rights in Finland and approved a document called Declaration of MinimumHumanitarian Standards, which nowadays is internationally known as the Turku Declaration. Theapprovalofthedeclarationbyagroupofexpertscanbeseenaspartofamoregeneralprocessaimedat
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
18/71
14
containsnormsthatshouldbeapplicableinallcircumstances,includinginternalviolence,
disturbances,tensions,andpublicemergency,andwhichcannotbesubjecttoderogations.
Italsocontainsaprovisionontheprotectionofminorities.33Thusarticle16provides:In
observing these standards, all efforts shall be made to protect the rights of groups,
minorities and peoples, including their dignity and identity. 34 This instrument is,
however,notlegallybinding,butshouldratherbeseenasasoft-lawtypeofinstrument.It
hashowevergainedsomekindofrecognition,asarevisedversionofitwastransmittedto
theCommissiononHumanRightsin1994bythegovernmentsofFinlandandNorway,
andithasbeenontheagendaoftheCommissionsincethen. 35Moreoverithasalsobeen
referredtobytheICTYintheTadiccase.36
3.3.StateResponsibilityforhumanrightsabusesbynon-stateactors
Stateshaveanobligationofduediligencetoprotecttheenjoymentofrightsofindividuals
under general international law. Under conventional international law States have an
obligation to respect and to secure or ensure respect of the rights enumerated in the
conventions.Thisobligation,whichmaydependingonthecircumstancesincludeadutyto
strengtheningtheprotectionoffundamentalrightsduringvariousstatesofemergencies.TheDeclarationhas since that been revised and submitted to the UN Commission on Human Rights, (See UNDoc.E/CN.4/1995/116).SeealsoAsbjornEide,AllanRosas,TheodoreMeron:CombatingLawlessnessin GreyZone Conflicts through MinimumHumanitarian Standards, AJIL 89 (1995), pp.215-223 formoreinformation.ThisdocumentwillhereinafterbecalledTheTurkuDeclaration.33TheTurkuDeclarationonMinimumHumanitarianStandards,art.1.34Ibid.,art.16.35UNDoc.E/CN.4/1995/116,Scheinin,2000,p.42.,ReportfromtheExpertMeetingonFundamentalStandardsofHumanity,Stockholm,22-24February2000.WithintheCommissiontheTurkuDeclarationhas been part of the discussion on fundamental standards of humanity. In this respect the analyticalreportsonfundamentalstandardsofhumanity,presentedbytheSecretary-GeneraltotheCommission,concludedthatthemostimportantpurposeofidentifyingsuchstandardsistoenhanceprotectionofall
persons, and that a document identifying such standards would be useful for education- and trainingpurposes as well for improving respect for and compliance with norms. There are however alsodisadvantages with the adoption of an instrumentidentifying fundamental standardsof humanity. Themostseriousdisadvantage,identifiedbythesamereportisthattheadoptionofsuchadocumentmightundermine existinginternational standards, andimply thatnormsnot included areless important. UNDoc. E./CN.4/1998/87 Minimum Humanitarian Standards Analytical report of the Secretary-GeneralsubmittedpursuanttoCommissiononHumanRightsresolution1997/21,paras.89-95.SeealsoUNDoc.E.CN.4/1999/92 Fundamental Standards of Humanity, Report of the Secretary-General pursuant toCommissionResolution1998/29.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
19/71
15
enact domestic legislation which impose obligations upon individuals, is laid down in
similartermsinallmajorhumanrightsconventions. 37Thus,article2(1)oftheICCPR
readsasfollows:
1.EachStatePartyto thepresentCovenantundertakestorespectandtoensure toall
individualswithinitsterritoryandsubjecttoitsjurisdictiontherightsrecognizedinthe
presentCovenant,withoutdistinctionof anykind, suchas race,colour,sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birthor other
status.38
WithregardtotheInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights, the
correspondingarticlestipulates:
1.EachStatePartytothepresentCovenantundertakestotakesteps,individuallyand
throughinternationalassistanceandco-operation,especiallyeconomicandtechnical,to
themaximumof itsavailableresources,witha view toachievingprogressively thefull
realization of therightsrecognized inthepresentCovenant byallappropriatemeans,
includingparticularlytheadoptionoflegislativemeasures.39
ThecorrespondingarticleoftheEuropeanConventiononHumanRightsreadsasfollows:
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the
rightsandfreedomsdefinedinSectionIofthisConvention.40
36
CaseNo.IT-94-1-AR-72Prosecutorv.TadicDecisionof2October1995.37Provost,p.60,2002.38ICCPR,art.2.39 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21U.N.GAORSupp.(No.16)at49,U.N.Doc.A/6316(1966),993U.N.T.S.3,enteredintoforceJan.3,1976.40[European]ConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedoms,(ETSNo.5),213U.N.T.S.222,enteredintoforceSept.3,1953,asamendedbyProtocolsNos3,5,8,and11whichentered into force on21 September 1970, 20December 1971, 1 January 1990, and1 November 1998respectively.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
20/71
16
Article1oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsprescribesthat:
The States Parties to thisConvention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms
recognizedhereinandtoensuretoallpersonssubjectto theirjurisdictionthefreeand
fullexerciseofthoserightsandfreedoms,withoutanydiscriminationforreasonsofrace,
color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
economicstatus,birth,oranyothersocialcondition.41
The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Art. 1) also contains a similar
obligation,whichstipulatesthat:
TheMemberStatesoftheOrganizationofAfricanUnitypartiestothepresentCharter
shall recognize the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in this Chapter and shall
undertaketoadoptlegislativeorothermeasurestogiveeffecttothem.42
Thus,humanrightsconventionsestablishasystembywhichStatesare,aswassaidabove,
internationally responsible forwhat happens on its territory.This means thatStates are
obligedtotakeeffectivemeasuresinordertoprotectrights,againstallthreats,including
threats stemming from non-state actors. Thus, a State,which fails to complywith this
obligation,isinitselfguiltyofviolatinghumanrights.43Theleadingcaseontheissueisthe
VelsquezRodrgues-case ,acaseagainstHondurasinvolvinginvoluntarydisappearances
attributabletoanon-stateactor.Here,theInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsheld
thattheobligationonpartoftheStatetoensurethefullenjoymentofrightsentailsaduty
to prevent, investigate and punish any violation, through legislative measures and
reorganisation of the State apparatus. On this issue the Court stated that: Thus, in
41AmericanConventiononHumanRights,O.A.S.TreatySeriesNo.36,1144U.N.T.S.123enteredintoforce July18, 1978, reprinted in BasicDocumentsPertaining toHuman Rights in the Inter-AmericanSystem,OEA/Ser.L.V/II.82doc.6rev.1at25(1992).42 African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/67/3rev.5,21I.L.M.58(1982),enteredintoforceOct.21,1986.43Scheinin,p.26,2000.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
21/71
17
principle,anyviolationof rightsrecognizedbytheConventioncarriedoutbyanactof
publicauthority or bypersonswho use theirpositionof authority is imputable to the
State.However,thisdoesnotdefineallthecircumstancesinwhicha Stateisobligated
toprevent,investigateandpunishhumanrightsviolations,norallthecasesinwhichthe
Statemight be found responsible for an infringement of those rights. An illegal act
whichviolateshumanrightsandwhichisinitiallynotdirectlyimputabletoaState(for
example,becauseitistheactofaprivatepersonorbecausethepersonresponsiblehas
notbeenidentified)canleadtointernationalresponsibilityof theState,notbecauseof
the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to
respondtoitasrequiredbytheConvention.44
Thus the Court upheld, that an omission to prevent, investigate and punish a violation
mightbeinbreachwiththeStatesobligationsarisingfromahumanrightstreaty,also
whentheviolationitselfwasnotcommittedbyastateagent.TheStatehasthenviolated
its obligation, if it tolerates or condones infringements in rights by non-state actors or
privateindividuals.45Similarreasoninghasalsobeenadoptedbyotherinternationaltreaty-
monitoringbodies.TheHumanRightsCommitteeheldinthe HerreraRubiov.Colombia-
case,that:thatStatespartiesshouldtakespecificandeffectivemeasurestopreventthe
disappearance of individuals and establish effective facilities and procedures to
investigate thoroughly, by an appropriate impartial body, cases of missing and
disappeared persons in circumstances which may involve a violation of the right to
life.46
In theOsman v. United Kingdom-case the European Court of Human Rights took a
similar stand regarding the due diligence requirement, as it established a standard for
positiveobligationsforStateswithregardto therightto life.Here theCourtnotedthat:TheCourtnotes that the firstsentenceofArticle 21 enjoins the Statenot onlyto
44VelsquezRodrguezCase,JudgmentofJuly29,1988,Inter-AmCt.H.R.(Ser.C)No.4(1988),at.Para.172.45Provost,p.61,2002.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
22/71
18
refrainfromtheintentionalandunlawfultakingoflife,butalsototakeappropriatesteps
to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see the L.C.B. v. the United
Kingdom judgment of 9 June 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III, p.
1403, 36). It is common ground that the States obligation in this respect extends
beyonditsprimarydutytosecuretherighttolifebyputtinginplaceeffectivecriminal-
lawprovisionstodeterthecommissionofoffencesagainstthepersonbackedupbylaw-
enforcementmachineryforthe prevention, suppressionandsanctioning of breachesof
suchprovisions.ItisthusacceptedbythoseappearingbeforetheCourtthatArticle2of
the Convention may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive
obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an
individualwhoselifeisatriskfromthecriminalactsofanotherindividual.Thescopeof
thisobligationisamatterofdisputebetweentheparties.47
Thedoctrineofduediligencetoprotectthefullenjoymentofrights,asstatedinthecase-
law, and advocated for by scholars, confirms that States have a duty to prevent,
investigateandpunishviolationcommittedbynon-stateactors.
Thereseem howeverto be divergentviewsamongscholars regarding the scopeof the
obligation.On theonehand, many commentators argue that theobligationto ensure
implies a duty to prosecute those who violate the rights.48 This view can certainly be
backed up by the above-cited case law, and by other findings of the Human Rights
Committee.InacaseconcerningallegedactsoftortureinZaire,theCommitteeheldthat
thegovernmentwasunderadutytoconductanenquiry,andtopunishthosefoundguilty
of torture.49 In a view concerning alleged extra-legal executions in Surinam, the
Committeeurgedthegovernmenttotakeeffectivestepstoinvestigatethekillingsand
46 Communication No. 161/1983 : Herrera Rubio v. Colombia. 02/11/87. CCPR/C/31/D/161/1983.(Jurisprudence),at10.3.47Osmanv.UnitedKingdom,Judgementof28October1998,EuropeanCourtofHumanRights,Reports1998-VIII.,atpara.115.48SeeforinstancePocar,p.71,2001.49CommunicationNo.124/1982:Mutebav.Zaire.24/07/84.CCPR/C/22/D/124/1982.(Jurisprudence).
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
23/71
19
tobring tojusticeany persons found tobe responsible.50Withregardtothedutyto
prosecuteonecouldalsomentiontheviewadoptedbytheCommitteeinacaseinvolving
disappearancesinUruguay,inwhichtheCommitteeheldthattheGovernmentshouldtake
effectivestepstobringthoseresponsibletojustice. 51Scharf,ontheotherhandseemsto
takeamorerestrictedview,ashedoesnotsubscribetotheexistenceofastrictdutyto
prosecuteviolators.Heassertsthatthecaselawsuggest thatat aminimumStatesmust
conduct an investigation, and impose some form of punishment on those identified as
responsible.52
Nevertheless,onemustconcludethatwhenitcomestoviolationsofcertainhumanrights,
it is beyond doubt that States have an obligation to prosecute the violators. This is
especiallytrueconcerningsuchhumanrightsviolations,whichatthesametimeconstitute
internationalcrimes.Inthisrespect,articleVoftheGenocideConventionstipulatesthat
States undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the
necessary legislationtogiveeffect totheprovisionsof the presentConvention,and,in
particular,toprovideeffectivepenaltiesforpersonsguiltyofgenocide53Similarly,the
UNTortureConventionalsorequiresprosecutionorextradition.54Withrespecttocrimes
against humanity, the case is not so clear. There is no international treaty-obligation
requiringprosecutionorextradition,butseveralGeneralAssemblyresolutionscallingfor
theprosecutionofcrimesagainsthumanity.55Itishoweverdifficultnottoconcurwith
Scharf, who points out that the absence of State practise concerning prosecutions of
50 Communication No. 154/1983: Baboeram-Adhin et. al. v. Suriname. 04/04/85.CCPR/C/24/D/154/1983.(Jurisprudence).51CommunicationNo.107/1981:AlmeidadeQuinterosv.Uruguay.21/07/83.CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981.(Jurisprudence)52Scharf,pp.7-9,1997.Inadditiontoanotsostricttoneintheviews,Scharfbaseshisconclusioninthe
fact thatStatesrejected a proposal,which wouldhaverequired States toprosecute violators, when theICCPRwasnegotiated.53TheGenocideConventionart.5.54ConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment,G.A.res.39/46,annex,39U.N.GAORSupp.(No.51)at197,U.N.Doc.A/39/51(1984),enteredintoforceJune26,1987.55SeeforexampleUNDoc.A/8028(1970)G.A.Res.2712UnitedNationsResolutiononWarCriminalsUNDoc.A/9030(1973)G.A.Res3074Principlesofinternationalco-operationinthedetection,arrest,extradition and punishment of persons guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity Adopted byGeneralAssemblyresolution3074(XXVIII)of3December1973.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
24/71
20
perpetrators makes it difficult to prove the existence of a customary obligation to
prosecute.56
3.4.Duediligenceasappliedtotheprotectionofminoritygroups
Toconclude,onecanthereforeassertthatStateshaveanobligationtoprotectminority
groupsandtheirrightsagainstinfringementsstemmingfromnon-stateactors.IftheState
fails to do so, it could itself, in accordance with the due diligence doctrine, be held
responsibleforahumanrightsviolation.Exactlywhatthisobligationentailsisdifficultto
determine. The General Comment on article 27, states that article 27 recognizes the
existenceofaright,whichmustnotbedenied,andfurthermore,that: aState party is
under an obligation to ensure that the existence and the exercise of this right are
protectedagainsttheirdenialorviolation.Positivemeasuresofprotectionare,therefore,
requirednotonlyagainsttheactsoftheStatepartyitself,whetherthroughitslegislative,
judicialoradministrativeauthorities,butalsoagainsttheactsof otherpersonswithin
the State party.57 Thus, we can conclude that legislative, judicial and administrative
measurescanberequiredinordertoprotecttheexistenceofminoritygroupsandtheir
rights.Withregardtomoreviolentacts,whicharethemainfocusofthisstudy,onecould
holdthatStatesareunderanobligationtoprotectminoritygroupsagainstthreatstotheir
existence.Inthisrespect,thereisatleastanobligationtoprosecuteacts,whichwould
qualifyasgenocide.Thereisnooutrightdutytoprosecuteactsofpersecutionamounting
to crimes against humanity under that heading, but such acts could fall under other
articles, whichdrittwirkung would requireprosecution.Moreover, withregard to other
thanviolentthreats,Stateshaveanobligationtoprotecttherightofminoritygroupsto
enjoytheirculture,professtheirownreligion,andtospeaktheirownlanguage,whenitis
threatened by private actors. Moreover, States have on the basis of article 20 in theICCPR anoutright obligation to prohibit any advocacy of national, racialor religious
56Scharf,p.8-9,1996.57U.N.Doc.HRI\GEN\1\Rev.1at38(1994).HumanRightsCommittee,GeneralComment23,Article27(Fiftiethsession,1994).
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
25/71
21
hatredthatconstitutesincitementtodiscrimination,hostilityorviolenceshallbeprohibited
bylaw,ofwhichminoritycouldfallvictim.
3.5.Othermeansforensuringaccountability
Stateresponsibility,coupledwiththeduediligencedoctrinecanaswasdescribedabovebe
used as a vehicle for making non-state actors accountable for human rights violations.
With reference to the above examination of the nature of human rights treaties, it is
accordingtothepresentauthor,notpossibletoholdnon-stateactorsdirectlyresponsible
for human rights violationsper se. Such violations must be addressed under domestic
criminallaw,orbyenforcementmechanismsofinternationalcriminallaw,suchastheICC
orthroughtheprincipleofuniversaljurisdiction,insofarastheviolationsalsoqualifyas
internationalcrimes.Thisissuewillbeexaminedfurtherinthecomingchapters.Anyway,
in the discussion on fundamental standards of humanity and in the ICHRP -study,
strategiesformakingitattractiveforarmednon-stateactorsto respectforhumanrights
are also highlighted. In that context, non-legal approaches such as shaming and
persuasion,whichincludesfact-findinganddenunciationanduseofmedia,workingwith
armedgroups,whichincludesamongotherthingsthedevelopmentofcodesofconduct
arehighlighted.58
58 InternationalCouncilon HumanRightsPolicy:Ends& means:human rights approaches toarmedgroups,p.39-58.SeealsoScheinin,p.28-30,2000.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
26/71
22
4.InternationalcriminallawandNon-Stateactors
4.1.Initialremarksoninternationalcriminallawandinternationalcrimes
The definition of international criminal law can be held to include both the penal and
proceduralaspectsofinternationallawandtheinternationalproceduralaspectsofnational
criminallaw.Forthepurposesofthisstudy,thepenalaspectsofinternationallaw,which
establish international crimes and identify elements of criminal responsibility and
enforcementmodalities,andincreasinglyalsoproceduralmodalities,isofmostrelevance.
The sources of law for international criminal law can thus according to Bassiouni, be
distinguishedasbetweeninternationallawforthe rationemateriae,rationepersonae,and
enforcement obligations, and national criminal law for enforcement modalities.
Accordingly, the basis for international criminal accountability and ratione personae is
established in international law, as is also the rationemateriae. The general part, the
elementsofcriminalresponsibility,arealsoestablishedbyinternationallawwheneveran
internationally created judicial body adjudicates criminal responsibility. Moreover, with
regard to the sources, also international human rights law and general principles of
criminal law recognised by the worlds major criminal law systems, and emerging
international criminological perspectives are regardedasadditional collateral sources of
internationalcriminallaw.59
With regard to the ratione materiae, the international crimes derive from both
conventionalinternationallawandcustomarylaw.Allinternationalcrimesareaccording
toBassiouni,linkedbyfourfactorsthatreflectthepolicyofinternationalcriminalisationof
suchacts.Thesefactorsare:
a)Theprohibitedconductaffectsasignificantinternationalinterest(includingthreatsto
peaceandsecurity);
59Bassiouni,p.9,1999.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
27/71
23
b) the prohibited conduct constitutes an egregious conduct deemed offensive to the
commonly shared values of the world community ( including conduct shocking to the
conscienceofhumanity);
c)theprohibitedconduct involvesmore thanonestate (transnational implications)inits
planning, preparation or commission either through the diversity of nationality of its
perpetratorsorvictims,orbecausethemeansemployedtranscendnationalboundaries;
d)theconductbearsuponaninternationallyprotectedinterestwhichdoesnotrisetothe
level required by (a) or (b) but which cannot be prevented or controlled without its
internationalcriminalisation.60
Accordingly,Bassiounihasidentified25categoriesofinternationalcrimes,adducedfrom
international conventions, which all have penal characteristics, that identify proscribed
conduct and/or establish legal obligationswhichare penal in nature.61 These categories
are: 1) aggression; 2) genocide; 3) crimes against humanity; 4) war crimes; 5) crimes
against United Nations and associated personnel; 6) unlawful possession or use or
emplacementofweapons;7)theftofnuclearmaterials;8)mercenarism;9)apartheid;10)
slavery and slave-related practices; 11) torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment; 12) unlawful human experimentation; 13) piracy; 14) aircraft
hijackingandunlawfulactsagainstinternationalairsafety;15)unlawfulactsagainstthe
safetyofmaritimenavigationandthesafetyofplatformsonthehighseas;16)threatand
useofforceagainstinternationallyprotectedpersons;17)takingofcivilianhostages;18)
unlawful use of the mail; 19) unlawful traffic in drugs and related drug offences; 20)
destruction and/or theft of national treasures; 21) unlawful acts against certain
60
Bassiouni,p.33,1999.61Thesetenpenalcharacteristicsare:1)anexplicitrecognitionofproscribedconductasconstitutinganinternationalcrime,oracrimeunderinternationallaw,orasacrime;2)implicitrecognitionofthepenalnature of the act by establishing a duty to prohibit, prevent, prosecute, punish, or the like; 3)criminalisation of theproscribedconduct; 4)duty orright to prosecute;5) dutyor right topunishtheproscribedconduct;6)dutyorright toextradite;7)dutyorright tocooperateinprosecution,punishment(includingjudicialassistanceinpenalproceedings);8)establishmentofacriminaljurisdictionalbasis(ortheoryofcriminaljurisdictionorpriorityincriminaljurisdiction);9)referencetotheestablishmentofaninternationalcriminalcourtoraninternationaltribunalwithpenalcharacteristics;and,10)eliminationofthedefenceofsuperiororders.(SeeBassiouni,p.47,1999).
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
28/71
24
internationallyprotectedelementsoftheenvironment;22)internationaltrafficinobscene
materials; 23) falsification and counterfeiting;24) unlawful interference with submarine
cables;and,25)briberyofforeignpublicofficials.62
4.2.Accountabilityandinternationalcrimes
Theconflictsfoughtduringtherecentdecadegaverisetoanincreasingattentiontothe
issueofaccountabilityforinternationalcrimessuchasgenocide,crimesagainsthumanity
andserioushumanrightsviolations.Thesecrimesaregenerallycharacterisedbytheirmass
scale and by their impact on whole societies, and hence the purposes for seeking
accountability for these crimes are somewhat different from the purposes for bringing
ordinarycriminalstoaccount.63
Accountability forabove-mentionedatrocities is thusaccording to Ratner andAbrams,
firstofallimportantfor thevictimsoftheatrocitiesandtheir relativesandfriends,asit
gives them a sense of justice and closure. Secondly, accountability is also especially
importantintransitionalregimes,forrepairingthedamagedonetosocietytraumatisedby
massivehumanrightsviolationsandforstartinganationalreconciliationprocess.Thirdly,
accountabilityshouldalsohaveadeterringeffect,bydeterringthespecificaccusedfrom
committing similar crimes in the future and deterring others from committing similar
crimes, and more generally by promoting justice and the rule of law. Fourthly,
accountabilityalsoseekstorehabilitatetheoffender,althoughthisaspectisinvokedless
prominently when it comes to genocide, crimes against humanity and massive human
rightsabuses.Fifthly,beyondtheconsequentialistargumentspresentedabove,Ratnerand
Abrams assert that a retributive theory of justice would regard accountability as a just
punishmentforthosewhodowrong,anfurtherthataccountabilitymayalsoserveasarighteousexpressionofmoralcondemnationofheinousoffences. 64
62Ibidem.,p.32,1999.63Morris,p.1,1996.64Ratner&Abrams,p.135,1997.Withregardtothepurposesbehindaccountabilityforinternationalcrimes it is also of relevance to take a look at principal objectives for establishing The International
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
29/71
25
Theprimary legal response to warcrimes,genocide,crimesagainsthumanityand gross
violations of human rights is thus to hold the individuals responsible for those acts
accountable. Individual criminal responsibility for the above mentioned acts is today
undisputed, but to make accountability meaningful requires the creation of specific
mechanism.Nationaljudicialsystemsand international tribunals,suchasadhoctribunals
and theInternationalCriminalCourt(ICC)aremostimportantin this respect.65Despite
thehighlevelofvictimisationtherehavenotbeenmanyprosecutions.Notwithstandingthe
establishmentoftheICC,therehavebeentwointernationallyestablishedadhoccriminal
tribunalsfortheformerYugoslaviaandRwandarespectively,whichhavejurisdictionover
war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.66 Moreover, a hybrid international-
domestictribunal,withjurisdictionovercrimesagainsthumanityhasbeenestablishedin
Sierra Leone,67 and mixed international-national panels with exclusive jurisdiction over
genocide andcrimes againsthumanity were created by the United Nations Transitional
AdministrationinEast-Timor.68Inaddition,legislation,whichallowsfortheestablishment
ofaninternationalisedpanel,fortryingtheleadersoftheKhmerRougeforgenocidehas
alsobeenapprovedinCambodia. 69
TribunalfortheProsecutionofPersonsResponsibleforSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLaw Committed in theTerritory of theFormer Yugoslavia since1991 (hereinafter ICTY). In thefirstannual report submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Secretary-Generalidentifiesthebringingofthepersonsresponsibleofthecrimestojustice,todeterfurthercrimesandtocontributetotherestorationofthepeaceandsecurityastheprincipalobjectivesofthetribunal.InthisrespecttheSecretary-Generalemphasisestheroleofthetribunalasatoolforpromotingreconciliationand restoring true peace, asresponsibilityforthe atrocities areattributed to individuals rather than to
wholeethnicandreligiousgroups.SeeUNDoc.A/49/342andS/1994/100729August1994ReportoftheInternationalTribunalfortheProsecutionofPersonsResponsibleforSeriousViolationsof InternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritoryoftheFormerYugoslaviasince1991,atpp.11-13.65Ratner&Abrams,p.133,1997.66TheICTYwasestablishedbyUNDoc.S/Res.827/1993May25,andtheInternationalCriminalTribunalforRwanda(ICTR)byUNDoc.S/Res.955of8November1994.67UNDoc.S/Res.13512000August14.68UNTAETRegulationNo.2000/15ontheEstablishmentofPanelswithexclusivejurisdictionoverseriouscriminaloffences6June2000.69Linton,p.146,2001.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
30/71
26
4.3.IndividualinternationalcriminalresponsibilityofNon-StateActors
Itisasnotedabovebeyonddoubt,thatinternationallawrecognisesthatindividualscanbe
held criminally responsible under international law. The Nuremberg and Tokyo trials
pavedthewayfortheindividualcriminalresponsibilityunderinternationallaw,asarticle6
oftheNurembergCharterestablishedindividualcriminalresponsibilityforcrimesagainst
the peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes.70 Further, the principle of direct
individual criminal responsibility under international criminal law was confirmed by the
United Nations General Assembly on December 11, 1946 in the so-called Nuremberg
principles.71 The position of international law on the individual responsibility for
internationalcrimesaftertheNurembergtrialscanbesummarisedinthefollowingcitation
fromtheNurembergJudgement:
Crimesagainstinternationallawarecommittedbymen,notabstractentitiesandonly
bypunishingindividualswhocommitsuchcrimescantheprovisionsof internationallaw
beenforced.72
Moreover,theestablishmentoftheInternationalTribunalfortheProsecutionofPersons
ResponsibleforSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedinthe
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (ICTY) and the International Criminal
TribunalforRwanda(ICTR)reinforcedtheprincipleofindividualcriminalresponsibility
forthecommissionofinternationalcrimes.73In1996theUNGeneralAssemblyadopted
theILCDraftCodeofCrimesagainstthePeaceandSecurityofMankind,whicharticle2
prescribes:
70IMTCharter,art.6.71UNDoc.G.A.Res.95(1)A/236(1946)AffirmationofthePrinciplesofInternationalLawRecognizedbytheCharteroftheNurembergTribunal.72 Trial of Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, Judgement, Nuremberg,14.11.19451.10.1946,OfficialDocuments,1947,Vol.I,s.223.73StatuteoftheICTY,art.7and23,thestatuteoftheICTRart.6and22.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
31/71
27
Article2
Individualresponsibility
1.Acrimeagainstthepeaceandsecurityofmankindentailsindividualresponsibility.
2.Anindividualshallberesponsibleforthecrimeofaggressioninaccordancewith
article16.
3.Anindividualshallberesponsibleforacrimesetoutinarticle17,18,19or20if
thatindividual:
(a)Intentionallycommitssuchacrime;
(b)Ordersthecommissionofsuchacrime,whichinfactoccursorisattempted;
(c)Failstopreventorrepressthecommissionofsuchacrimeinthecircumstancesset
outinarticle6;
(d) Knowingly aids, abets or otherwise assists, directly and substantially, in the
commissionofsuchacrime,includingprovidingthemeansforits
commission;
(e)Directlyparticipatesinplanningorconspiringtocommitsuchacrimewhichin
factoccurs;
(f)Directlyandpubliclyincitesanother individualtocommitsucha crimewhich in
factoccurs;
(g)Attemptstocommitsuchacrimebytakingactioncommencingtheexecutionofa
crime which does not in fact occur because of circumstances independent of his
intentions.74
The most important codification is however the Rome Statute, or the Statute of the
International Criminal Court, which article 25 confirms the individual criminal
responsibilityfortheinternationalcrimesoverwhichtheICCwillhavejurisdiction.Thus,article25readsasfollows:
74 International Law Commission Draft Codeof Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind,1996,art.2.Takenfrom:http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/dcodefra.htm.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
32/71
28
Article25
Individualcriminalresponsibility
1.TheCourtshallhavejurisdictionovernaturalpersonspursuanttothisStatute.
2.ApersonwhocommitsacrimewithinthejurisdictionoftheCourtshallbeindividually
responsibleandliableforpunishmentinaccordancewiththisStatute.
3.InaccordancewiththisStatute,apersonshallbecriminallyresponsibleandliablefor
punishmentforacrimewithinthejurisdictionoftheCourtifthatperson:
(a)Commitssuchacrime,whetherasanindividual, jointlywithanotherorthrough
anotherperson,regardlessofwhetherthatotherpersoniscriminallyresponsible;
(b)Orders,solicitsorinducesthecommissionofsuchacrimewhichinfactoccursor
isattempted;
(c)For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or
otherwiseassistsinitscommissionoritsattemptedcommission,includingprovidingthe
meansforitscommission;
(d)Inanyotherwaycontributestothecommissionorattemptedcommissionofsucha
crimebyagroupofpersonsactingwitha commonpurpose.Suchcontributionshallbe
intentionalandshalleither:
(i)Bemadewiththeaimoffurtheringthecriminalactivityorcriminalpurposeof
thegroup,wheresuchactivityorpurposeinvolvesthecommissionofacrimewithinthe
jurisdictionoftheCourt;or
(ii)Bemadeintheknowledgeoftheintentionofthegrouptocommitthecrime;
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
33/71
29
(e)Inrespectofthecrimeofgenocide,directlyandpubliclyincitesotherstocommit
genocide;
(f)Attemptstocommitsuchacrimebytakingactionthatcommencesitsexecutionby
means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances
independent of theperson's intentions.However, aperson whoabandons theeffort to
committhecrimeorotherwisepreventsthecompletionofthecrimeshallnotbeliablefor
punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person
completelyandvoluntarilygaveupthecriminalpurpose.
4.Noprovisionin thisStatuterelatingto individualcriminalresponsibilityshallaffect
theresponsibilityofStatesunderinternationallaw.75
Thesedevelopmentsandprecedentsthusestablishboththeprincipleofindividualcriminal
responsibilityunderinternationalcriminallaw,andtheabilityofinternationalcriminallaw
to penetrate the shield of state sovereignty and enforce this principle directly, without
goingthroughthemediationofstates.76
Whereasinternationalcrimes,suchashijacking,piracyorterroristattacks,arecommitted
by individuals without any complicity of states the situation is a bit more complicated
whenitcomesto genocideandcrimesagainsthumanity.Dugardholdsthatthesecrimes
areprincipallycrimesofstates,astheindividualperpetratorisusuallyactingasagentsof
the state pursuing a policy of a state.77 What distinguishes these crimes from other
internationalcrimesisthattheyaretheproductofastateactionorpolicy,andrequire
some form organisational structure of the perpetrator. Up to the Second World Warvictimisation of civilians and mass scale human rights violations of human rights was
75 UN. Doc. A/CONF.183/9. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Adopted by theUnited Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an InternationalCriminalCourton17July1998,art.25.76Bassiouni,pp.18and23,1999.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
34/71
30
perpetrated by the states public apparatus, such as the armed forces, the police,
paramilitary units and the civilianbureaucracy, as products of a state action or policy.
SinceWWIIsuchatrocitieshaveasmentionedabove,oftenbeencommittedbynon-state
actorsduringinternalconflicts.Thesenon-stateactorshavefrequentlyexercisedthesame
typeofdominionoverpeopleandterritoryasstates,andalsopossessedanorganisational
powerstructurecomparableto theonesofstates.Thus,Bassiouniassertsthatsuchnon-
stateactorsaretoberegardedasfunctionalequivalentsofstates.78TheFinalReportof
theCommissionofExperts forexamining theviolationsofhumanitarian law during the
conflict in the former Yugoslavia states that non-state actors committed most of the
crimesfallingwithinthedefinitionofcrimesagainsthumanity.79
TheNurembergCharterdidnot applycriminal responsibilitytonon-stateactors,butthe
newrealitiesofviolentconflictshavebroughtaboutanextensionofapplicationofnorms
of international criminal law to non-state actors.80 First of all, article 4 of the 1948
GenocideConvention,thefirstmodernhumanrightstreaty,extendstheapplicationofthe
Convention to non-stateactors.81Secondly,thecommonarticle3ofthe1949Geneva
Conventions,applytoallpartiesofaconflict,andsimilarlyAdditionalProtocolIIofthe
Geneva Conventions apply in conflicts between the governmental authorities and
organisedarmedgroupsorbetweensuchgroups.82Furthermore,theStatutesoftheICTY
77Dugard,p.239,1999.78Bassiouni,p.25-26,1999.79 UN Doc. S/1994/674 (1994) Final Report of the Commissions of Experts Established pursuant toSecurity CouncilResolution780 (1992) andUN Doc.S/1994/674/Add.2 (1994) Annex I to theFinalReport.80Bassiouni,p.26,1999.81Inthisrespect,articleIVreads:PersonscommittinggenocideoranyoftheotheractsenumeratedinarticleIIIshallbepunished,whethertheyareconstitutionallyresponsiblerulers,publicofficialsorprivate
individuals(emphasisadded).82ProtocolAdditionaltotheGenevaConventionsof12August1949,andRelatingtotheProtectionofVictimsofNon-InternationalArmedConflicts(ProtocolII),1125U.N.T.S.609,enteredintoforceDec.7,1978.Article1readsasfollows:ArmedConflicts (ProtocolI)andwhichtakeplaceinthe territoryofaHighContractingPartybetweenitsarmedforcesanddissidentarmedforcesorotherorganizedarmed
groupswhich,underresponsiblecommand,exercisesuchcontroloverapartofitsterritoryastoenable
themtocarryoutsustainedandconcertedmilitaryoperationsandtoimplementthisProtocol.Whereasthe grave breaches provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions do give rise to individual criminalresponsibility and universal jurisdiction, but they are not so relevant for the discussion aroundaccountabilityofnon-stateactors,astheGenevaConventionsapplyonlyininternationalarmedconflicts.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
35/71
31
andtheICTRhaveextendedthedefinitionsofcrimesagainsthumanitytoapplyalsoto
non-stateactors.OfspecialrelevancewasalsothattheICTRStatuterecognisedcommon
article3andAdditionalProtocolIIasbasesforindividualcriminalresponsibility. 83The
mostimportantdevelopmentishowevertheadoptionoftheICCStatute,whichnotonly
reinforcedtheaccountability ofnon-stateactors forgenocide, crimes againsthumanity,
butalsoextendtheaccountabilityfornon-stateactorsbeyondAdditionalProtocolII,asit
doesnotrequirethatitisshownthatorganisedgroupsareunderresponsiblecommand,
norrequiresthatsuchgroupsexercisesanycontroloverapartoftheterritory.84
As a conclusion one could assert, that on the one hand international treaties between
statesconcerninginternationalhumanrightslawandinternationalhumanitarianlaw,create
obligationsfornon-stateactorswiththehelpofdomesticlaw.Ontheotherhand,andin
this context even more importantly, international criminal law through the latest
developmentsdoescreatedirectobligationsonpartofthenon-stateactors.
4.4.Non-StateactorsandGenocide
TheConventiononthePreventionandPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocidewasadopted
in1948.ArticleIIoftheConventiondefinesthecrimeofgenocideas:killingmembersof
thegroup;causingseriousbodilyormentalharmtomembersofthegroup;deliberately
inflictingonthegroupconditionsoflifecalculatedtobringaboutitsphysicaldestruction
in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
forciblytransferringchildrenofthegroupto anothergroup,if theyarecommittedwith
theintenttodestroy,inwholeorinpart,anational,ethnical,racialorreligiousgroup,
83SeetheICTYStatutearticle4,theStatuteoftheICTRarticle3andarticle7oftheICCStatute.Seealso Meron: International criminalization of internal atrocities in The American Journal ofInternationalLawVol.89(1995)pp.554-577.84TheICC-Statutearticles6,7and8.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
36/71
32
assuch.85Sincethat,theprovisionsoftheConventionhavealsobeenincorporatedas
suchintheStatutesoftheICTY,theICTRandtheICC.86
Thecrimeofgenocideisaveryspecificcrime.Thevictimofthecrimeofgenocideisthe
groupitselfandnotanindividual.Thus,theprohibitionongenocideprotectstherightto
physicalexistenceofminoritygroups,asthegroupscoveredbythedefinitioncorrespond
to the groups mentioned in the ICCPR, with the exception, that the definition avoids
referenceto linguisticminorities.Eveniflinguisticminoritiesarenotmentionedinarticle
II,suchgroupscanneverthelessbearguedtofallunderthedefinitionofethnicgroups.87
Foranacttobeconsideredasgenocide,itisnecessarythatoneoftheactslistedabove
hasbeencommitted,thattheacthasbeencommittedagainstoneoftheprotectedgroups,
andthatthecrimehasbeencommittedwiththespecialintenttodestroyinwholeorin
part,thegroupassuch.Thisthirdelement,theso-calledgenocidalintent,togetherwith
thespecialidentityofthevictimsrequirementiswhatdistinguishesgenocidefromother
crimes.88
Ontheissueofcriminalresponsibility,theGenocideConventionandtheStatutesofthead
hoctribunalsandtheICCStatutestipulate,inthat,Personscommittinggenocideorany
of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are
constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.89 As the
content and scopeofthis article has also been reinstated in the statutes of the ad hoc
85 Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide approvedand openedforsignatureandratificationoraccessionon9December1948.HereinaftercalledtheGenocideConvention,art.II.86
ICTYStatute,art.4,ICTRStatuteart.2,andart.6oftheICCStatute.87Schabas,2000,p.124,146.SeealsoUNDoc.A./C.6/SR.75(Petren,Sweden).WhilediscussingthetermethnicalintheSixthCommittee,Swedennotedthatthelanguagemightbea constituentfactorofminoritygroup,and furthermorethatthereforelinguisticgroups,ifnotconnectedwithanexistingstate,shouldbeprotectedasanethnicalratherthanasanationalgroup,withinthemeaningoftheConvention.This interpretationhas alsobeen upheldby theICTR in theProsecutor v. KayishemaandRuzinadanacase.HeretheTribunalheldthatanethnicgroupisagroupwhosemembersshareacommonlanguage.88TheProsecutorversusJean-PaulAkayesuCaseNo.ICTR-96-4-T,2September1998.,atpara.499.89ConventiononthePreventionandPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocide,78U.N.T.S.277,enteredintoforceJan.12,1951.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
37/71
33
tribunalsandtheStatuteoftheICC,thecriminal responsibilityof individuals, actingas
heads of states, government officials or as private individuals for genocide is thus
undisputed.TheGenocideConventionwasthusthefirstinternationalinstrumentadopted
aftertheSecondWorldWar,whichapplieditsprovisionsalsotonon-stateactors.Thereis
nodoubt,whetherornotnon-stateactorscouldbeheldaccountableforgenocide,inthe
ICCforinstance,butitmightbedifficultforanon-stateactortoperformthecrimes,ina
waywhichwouldshowgenocidal intent.Inthisrespect,MorrisandScharfassertthatit
wouldbe:virtuallyimpossibleforthecrimeofgenocidetobecommittedwithoutsome
or indirect involvement on part of the State given the magnitude of this crime.
Nevertheless,onecouldarguethatsomeaspectoftheexistingcaselawfromtheadhoc
tribunals would suggest that non-state actors such as an armed group could commit
genocide.IntheJelisic-case,theTrialChamberheldthat:Themurderscommittedbythe
accusedaresufficienttoestablishthematerialelementofthecrimeofgenocideanditis
aprioripossibletoconceivethattheaccusedharbouredtheplantoexterminateanentire
group without this intent having been supported by any organisation in which other
individualsparticipated.Inthisrespect,thepreparatoryworkoftheConventionof1948
brings out that premeditation was not selected as a legal ingredient of the crime of
genocide,afterhavingbeenmentionedbytheadhoccommitteeatthedraftstage,onthe
grounds that itseemed superfluousgiven thespecial intentionalready requiredby the
textandthatsuchprecisionwouldonlymaketheburdenofproofevengreater.Itensues
fromthisomissionthatthedraftersof theConventiondidnotdeemthe existenceofan
organisationorasystemservingagenocidalobjectiveasalegalingredientofthecrime.
Insodoing,theydidnotdiscountthepossibilityofaloneindividualseekingtodestroya
groupassuch.Andfurtherthat:itwillbeverydifficultinpracticetoprovideproofof
thegenocidalintentofanindividualifthecrimescommittedarenotwidespreadandif
thecrimechargedisnotbackedbyanorganisationorasystem.90Inthelightofthesestatementsitseemspossibletoargue,thatanarmedgroup,withoutanyconnectiontothe
State,seekingtodestroyinwholeorinpartagroupassuch,couldcommitgenocide.
Anotherimportant factor,whichspeaksforthepossibilityofsuccessfullychargingnon-
90TheProsecutorVersusGoranJelisic,JudgementCaseIT-95-1014December1999,para.100-101.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
38/71
34
state armedgroups with genocide is that it is not required that the crimes have to be
committedoveravastgeographicalareaortoeliminateanimportantorsubstantialpartof
the population. In theJelisic-case the Trial Chamber held that: international custom
admitsthecharacterisationofgenocideevenwhentheexterminatoryintentonlyextends
toalimitedgeographiczone.91Whatiscentralistheknowledgeortheintenttoseekthe
totaloratleastpartialdestructionofacertaindefinedgroup.92
Evenifthereisnocase-lawyetagainsta non-stateactorconcerninggenocide,one is, in
thelightofthewordingoftheConventionand Jelisicjudgement, bound to hold that it
would be possible to hold non-state actors, such as armed groups accountable for
genocide.Itwouldhoweverbedifficultholdanon-stateactor,whichdoesnotpossess
similarlegalcharacteristicsasaState,responsible.
4.5.Crimesagainsthumanityandnon-stateactors
4.5.1.Thecharacteristicsofcrimesagainsthumanity
The Nuremberg Charter was the first international instrument to define crimes against
humanity.Inarticle6coftheChartercrimesagainsthumanityweredefinedas,murder,
extermination,enslavement,deportation,andotherinhumanactscommittedagainstany
civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds in the execution of or in connection with any crime within the
jurisdictionoftheTribunal,whetherornotinviolationofthedomesticlawofthecountry
whereperpetrated93CrimesagainsthumanityhavealsobeenincludedintheStatutesof
theICTYandtheICTR,andthesecodificationstogetherwiththecase-lawtheyresulted
inhavedevelopedtheconcept.Themostimportantdevelopmentwasthattherequirementofanexustoaninternationalarmedconflictoranyconflictwasdroppedalreadyinthe
91Ibid.,para.83.92TheProsecutorVersusGoranJelisicJudgementCaseIT-95-1014December1999,para.80-82.93NurembergTrialProceedingsVol.1CharteroftheInternationalMilitaryTribunal,art.6(c).
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
39/71
35
Statute of the ICTR and in the Tadic-case, with respect to the ICTY.94 The most
importantandauthoritativecodificationofcrimesagainsthumanityishowever,theoneof
theICCStatute.Inthisinstrumentcrimesagainsthumanityaredefinedas:
1.ForthepurposeofthisStatute,"crimeagainsthumanity"meansanyofthefollowing
actswhencommittedaspartofawidespreador systematicattackdirectedagainst any
civilianpopulation,withknowledgeoftheattack:
(a)Murder;
(b)Extermination;
(c)Enslavement;
(d)Deportationorforcibletransferofpopulation;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamentalrulesofinternationallaw;
(f)Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization,oranyotherformofsexualviolenceofcomparablegravity;
(h)Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national,ethnic,cultural,religious,genderasdefinedinparagraph3,orothergrounds
thatareuniversallyrecognizedasimpermissibleunderinternationallaw,inconnection
with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crimewithin the jurisdiction of the
Court;
(i)Enforceddisappearanceofpersons;
(j)Thecrimeofapartheid;
(k)Otherinhumaneactsofasimilarcharacterintentionallycausinggreatsuffering,
orseriousinjurytobodyortomentalorphysicalhealth.
2.Forthepurposeofparagraph1:
94ProsecutorversusDuskoTadic,CaseNo.IT-94-1,ICTYAppealsChamber,DecisionontheDefenceMotionforInterlocutoryAppealonJurisdictionof2October1995,para.141.
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
40/71
36
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct
involvingthemultiplecommissionofactsreferredtoinparagraph1againstanycivilian
population,pursuanttoorinfurtheranceofaStateororganizationalpolicytocommit
suchattack;
(b)"Extermination"includestheintentionalinflictionofconditionsof life,interalia
thedeprivationofaccesstofoodandmedicine,calculatedtobringaboutthedestruction
ofpartofapopulation;
(c)"Enslavement"meanstheexerciseofanyorallofthepowersattachingtotheright
of ownership over a personand includes the exercise of such power in the course of
traffickinginpersons,inparticularwomenandchildren;
(d)"Deportationorforcibletransferofpopulation"meansforceddisplacementofthe
personsconcernedbyexpulsionorothercoerciveactsfromtheareainwhichtheyare
lawfullypresent,withoutgroundspermittedunderinternationallaw;
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether
physical ormental,uponaperson in thecustodyorunderthecontrolof theaccused;
exceptthattortureshallnotincludepainorsufferingarisingonlyfrom,inherentinor
incidentalto,lawfulsanctions;
(f)"Forcedpregnancy"meanstheunlawfulconfinementof awoman forciblymade
pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or
carryingoutothergraveviolationsofinternationallaw.Thisdefinitionshallnotinany
waybeinterpretedasaffectingnationallawsrelatingtopregnancy;
(g)"Persecution"meanstheintentionalandseveredeprivationoffundamentalrights
contrarytointernationallawbyreasonoftheidentityofthegrouporcollectivity;
(h)"Thecrime ofapartheid"means inhumaneacts of a character similar to those
referred toinparagraph 1,committed inthe context of an institutionalised regimeof
systematicoppressionanddominationbyoneracialgroupoveranyotherracialgroup
orgroupsandcommittedwiththeintentionofmaintainingthatregime;
(i)"Enforceddisappearanceofpersons"meansthearrest,detentionorabductionof
personsby,orwiththeauthorization,supportoracquiescenceof,aStateor apolitical
organization,followedbyarefusaltoacknowledgethatdeprivationoffreedomortogive
7/30/2019 Accountability Under HRL and ICL for Atrocities Against Minority Groups Committed by Non-State Actor
41/71
37
informationonthefateorwhereaboutsofthosepersons,withtheintentionofremoving
themfromtheprotectionofthelawforaprolongedperiodoftime.
3.ForthepurposeofthisStatute,itisunderstoodthattheterm"gender"referstothetwo
sexes,maleandfemale,withinthecontextofsociety.Theterm"gender"doesnotindicate
anymeaningdifferentfromtheabove.95
TheICCdefinitionisnotanewinventionbutratherareflectionofthedevelopmentof
international law since Nuremberg. Thus, the contemporary notion of crimes against
humanityasithasdevelopedthroughtheStatutesofthe adhoctribunals,thecaselawof
thosetribunalsandtheRomeStatuteanditsdraftel