the first appointment of a person to study a particular type of human rights violation on a worldwide basis. In the following sections examples of the Special Rapporteur’s reports on states will be further examined. While the following guide will deeply inspect the causes and impacts of the extrajudicial executions it is important to note that extrajudicial executions are not a problem that can only be found in certain regions or only in low-income countries, almost every country faces or has faced extrajudicial executions. This also reflects that the measures in combating the extrajudicial executions must be independent from any nation and only linked to the idea of protection of the right to life. I. Defining Extrajudicial Executions In its broad context the term “extrajudicial executions” encompasses executions which violate domestic penal or humanitarian law. The word extrajudicial is explained in the UN Multilingual Terminology Database as “done outside of a court's jurisdiction; not founded upon or dependent upon the authority of a court“. The definition of “extrajudicial execution” is extensive; it covers any killing by both government forces and other groups, when the government fails to investigate and prosecute them in a position to do so. Most common forms of extrajudicial executions include killings caused by excessive use of force by enforcement officials, indiscriminate killings of civilians and murder by state security forces or paramilitary groups (group of civilians organized in a military fashion, especially to operate in place of or assist regular army troops), when these are not adequately investigated, prosecuted or punished. The state has to be involved in or at least tacitly accept the mission of the killings; therefore, to express it in different words: Extrajudicial execution is when state kills someone without due process of law or tolerates a killing made by the non-state actors. While one of the most important characteristics of extrajudicial execution is that they are carried out outside the ambit of law; aforementioned state involvement may happen directly or indirectly as follows: Extrajudicial execution can be made by direct agents of the state (such as the military or law enforcement), Presupposing that the private citizen does not have an affirmative defence that would hold up in the state’s courts (in other words when the killing is unjust), extrajudicial execution can be made by private citizens whom the state chooses not to punish for their actions by using
individual was fighting on behalf of the opposition group thus had not died in crossfire while community members claim the victim was not a combatant. The situations in which civilians are intentionally targeted for strategic reasons such as gaining military advantage in conflicts are quite common as well as situations in which killings performed in order to demonstrate power or as the counterinsurgency policy that are later-on announced as “caught in the crossfire of the conflict”. Too often civilians are trapped between state and rebel forces, or between warring rebel factions, in a struggle to avoid being threatened or killed by one or more sides as in the cases of Afghanistan, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reports of the UN agents have also addressed the importance of human security sector reform, military recruitment and vetting of military personnel for war crimes, humanitarian law training, killings by private security contractors, and the need for transparency and accountability mechanisms relating to right-to-life violations during armed conflicts and occupations. II. Situations When the Indirect Involvement of State Actors is the Case: Killings by Non-State Actors The right to life includes not only a prohibition on illegal killings by state authorities, but also entails state obligation to adequately protect this right and punish its violation by non-state actors. In situations of widespread killings, or traditions which tend towards regular violence against a particular portion of the population, such as LGBT groups, according to the obligation to ensure right to life, states can be held responsible for failure to adequately address systemic causes, for instance, through efforts to protect vulnerable populations and to improve education; addressing impunity, or correcting perceived inadequacies in law enforcement and the justice system which lead to vigilantism. The Category of Non-State Actors is not readily susceptible of a clear definition, which increases the complexity of the term. In recent years the term “non-state actors”, which was long used primarily to describe groups whose purposes are essentially benign such as organizations, religious groups and corporations, has increasingly come to be associated with groups whose agendas include harming innocent civilians. In 2004 four general categories of actors were identified by the UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston:
in fact distinct: For example, although vigilante killings are sometimes justified by individual perpetrators as they are distinct from killings lawfully committed in self-defence, because they are not actually carried out in response to an immediate threat or use of lethal force. Killings by vigilantes are distinct from insurgents, guerrillas and rebel groups because vigilantes are not against the state as such; nor do they seek fundamental changes in the structure of the state, or separatism. Governments tend not to accept responsibility for such killings on the grounds that private actors were responsible and there was nothing the Government could have done to prevent them. This indeed happens in many instances in which individuals or mobs act entirely of their own accord and in circumstances in which Government officials are either absent or helpless. Often the fully private killings may occur as extrajudicial executions when those killed were on the Government list of undesirables (suspected criminals etc.) and that the killings are not exactly lamented by the authorities; when complicity of the Governments is the case or at least when the passive acquiescence of the Government becomes apparent; or when Governments have act through the intermediary of alleged vigilantes on its operations. III. Victims of the Extrajudicial Executions Other than knowing the perpetrators of the killings; understanding the dynamics and causes of killings in particular situations will often require a focus on the victims’ membership to especially vulnerable groups which can be listed as civilians in armed conflict, women, refugees, indigenous people, those deemed to be “socially undesirable” who are not the main concerns of authorities in many states such as accused people, children, the elderly, the disabled, those perceived to be or identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual, human rights defenders, and journalists. There are also reports on so-called “honour killings” of women. The perpetrators of these crimes are mostly male family members, who go unpunished or receive reduced sentences on the justification of having murdered to defend their “family honour” where the state either approves of and supports these acts, or extends a form of impunity to the perpetrators by giving tacit or covert support to the practice. Prevention of the so-called honour killings may happen with ensuring the independence of judges and lawyers who monitor these incidents. Along with the
relevant to the protection of the right to life. UDHR sets common standards of achievement for all the states; while Article 3 sets the general standard for the right to life, Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ICCPR establishes respect for the right to life. Also in the ICCPR there are clauses acknowledging the permissibility of restricting some rights on the grounds such as the need to maintain public order such as articles 18(3), 19(3), and 21; however, arbitrarily depriving even the most hated “terrorists” of their life is never justified. Article 4 of the ICCPR provides for the possibility of derogations from rights under the Covenant ''in time of public emergency threatening the life of the nation''. However the right to life, cannot be derogated from even during public emergencies, a protection accorded to a very limited number of rights. While the protection of the right to life under international law is stricter, the legal status of extra-judicial executions warrants a deeper discussion. Furthermore only in Articles 6 (right to life) and 14 (right to a fair trial) of the ICCPR, the due process rights or the minimum safeguards required for an execution by the state to be lawful under international law can be found which includes the following: "i) Capital punishment must not be imposed except pursuant to a final judgment of a competent, independent and impartial court established by law; ii) The accused has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty; iii) The accused has the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence and to communicate with counsel of the accused's choosing; iv) The accused has the right to be tried in his or her presence, to defend him or herself in person or through legal assistance of his or her own choosing; to be informed of this right; and to be provided legal assistance where the interests of justice require; v) The accused has the right to have his or her conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." Through, presuming that the accused is guilty, bypassing the judicial system, and not allowing accused persons to properly defend themselves, extrajudicial executions in police encounters are by definition a violation of due process and the aforementioned safeguards. C. PREVENTING EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS Preventing extrajudicial executions can be achieved by eliminating its motives. Efforts should be made to protect vulnerable populations, education should be improved,
To examine the modalities of creation of a mechanism of compensation for the families of victims of extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.” In July 2013 a joint meeting was held and the working group on death penalty and extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in Africa discussed relevant issues with the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. f. League of Arab States At the regional level, Arab states launched the Arab Plan on the Education of Human Rights, its Guideline Manual, the Arab Plan on the Promotion of the Culture of Human Rights and they mended the Arab Charter on Human Rights. Moreover a number of human rights mechanisms were established to protect and promote human rights, mainly, the Arab Human Rights Committee, the Legislative, Legal Affairs and Human Rights Committee, and the Permanent Arab Human Rights Committee at the Secretariat of the League of Arab States. II. Non-Governmental Organizations a. Amnesty International Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in over 150 countries and territories; independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and funded mainly by its membership and public donations who campaigns to end grave abuses of human rights. Under these human right abuses extrajudicial executions remains being one of the crucial violations to prevent. b. Human Rights Watch Human Rights Watch is one of the world’s leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights by focusing international attention where human rights are violated, “they give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes.” In the case of violations of right to life by extrajudicial executions, they are trying to support the cause of human rights mostly by raising public awareness, listening to the eyewitnesses, preparing reports; in other words they are trying to cover the lack of effective media and adequate information. G. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the issues undertaken in this document is of utmost importance, as it contributes to having a broad perspective towards the violations of the right to life especially via extrajudicial executions.
As stated above extrajudicial executions can happen in two ways: firstly it may happen with the direct involvement of the state and secondly the indirect involvement of the state can be the case. Also further divisions are made to better understand the extrajudicial executions, its perpetrators and its victims. Societies suffering from such killings face many impacts such as public distrust to the government officials, lack of faith to the judicial system, increase in the mob violence. Another issue is that while the importance of eliminating extrajudicial executions is vital, challenges in combating it remains as a great problem; such as the absence of information, media censorship, and inefficiency of the regional human right mechanisms. To stop the violations the Committee must take specific actions; discuss the situations where the serious violations of the prohibition of extrajudicial executions are apparent. Caution has to be shown, awareness of the issues has to be grown at all levels. Much more effective mechanisms for accountability must be achieved. H. POINTS THAT A RESOLUTION SHOULD COVER Measures to prevent disproportionate use of force by the state actors Measures to increase accountability of state actors in extrajudicial executions Methods to achieve effective use of the media relevant to the extrajudicial executions Methods to facilitate social reconciliation in countries that are faced or currently facing extrajudicial killings Ways of overcoming the abuse of impunity Methods to promote a effective justice system that will not encourage and will not let the extrajudicial killings happen Ways of ending the violations of right to life trough the extrajudicial killings by non-state actors Ways of improving the efficiency of actions taken against the extrajudicial executions by both international and non-governmental organisations Ways of overcoming the lacking statistics problem Methods to terminate extrajudicial executions carried out by non-state actors