Authorities Owe More: Expansion of the Duty to Protect the Right to Life

By: Anthony B. Emmi

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On September 17th, 2020, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued judgment on the case of Kotilainen v. Finland. The ECHR held that Finnish authorities violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention) when they failed to seize a school shooter’s firearm, which he later used to kill nine students and one teacher on September 23, 2008.

Police Vehicles at the Vocational School Where the Shooting Occurred, 23 Sept. 2008, Kauhajoki, Finland. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times.

The Court’s decision expands on previous case law regarding the obligation of authorities to protect identified persons’ rights to life by creating a general duty of protection. Nineteen relatives of the victims brought the case before the ECHR with the goal of holding the state accountable for allegedly failing to perform their due diligence to protect the lives of the deceased.

Section 92 of Finland’s Firearms Act allows police to seize at will the firearms of people suspected of misusing them. In 2010, domestic courts dismissed a claim of negligent dereliction of duty against the Detective Chief Inspector who interviewed the shooter, Matti Saari, the day before the shooting. Saari had posted troubling material online, including a comment attached to a video of the Columbine High School shooting, which stated, “entertainment as its best.”

The ECHR approached the case from two standpoints: one of the state’s duty to protect lives; and, two the state’s duty of diligence in the protection of public safety. On the duty to protect lives, the Court found that the evidence available to the police at the time did not demonstrate that Saari posed any immediate or specific risk. Thus, the police did not incur a duty to protect the specific lives of those who were killed.

However, the ECHR did find that the state failed to perform its duty of diligence in the protection of public safety. The 6-1 decision turned on whether it would have been reasonable for the authorities to seize the firearm given the circumstances and the inherent risk that a firearm poses to life. The Court stated that because seizure of the firearm would not have interfered with other articles under the Convention, and doubt surrounded Saari’s fitness to own a firearm, the police reasonably could have seized the firearm as a precaution. In failing to do so, the state did not exact its duty of diligence to protect public safety and violated Article 2 of the Convention. On this matter, the Court awarded approximately EUR 30,000 to the household of each applicant, as well as court expenses.

Judge Eicke was the dissenting member of the court. He reasoned the majority had applied a more general standard of due diligence, which extended beyond the duty of protection to specific individuals. He further argued that this decision created the possibility of “regulatory overreach,” which could make it difficult for authorities to comply while comporting with due process. Judge Eicke noted that compliance with this decision may require authorities to continuously supervise those persons licensed to own a firearm in the state.

For further information, please see:

European Court of Human Rights – Case Information Sheet: Finnish authorities failed to take the precautionary measure of seizing a student’s weapon before a school shooting – 17 Sept. 2020

European Court of Human Rights – Case of Kotilainen and Others v. Finland – 17 Sept. 2020

UUTISET – ECHR: Finland violated “right to life” of 2008 school shooting victims – 17 Sept. 2020

UUTISET – Charges Dismissed in School Shooting Case – 29 Jan. 2010

United States Stands against Justice by Issuing Sanctions Against the ICC

By: Hannah Gavin

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAAG, The Netherlands – This summer United States President Donald Trump issued an executive order leveling sanctions against the International Criminal Court’s lead prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and officials on the court.

ICC Lead Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. Photo Courtesy of NPR.

The sanctions were deemed a response to the ICC’s decision to investigate U.S. crimes in Afghanistan since the early 2000s. The ICC’s lead prosecutor asked for an investigation to be opened to examine the U.S.’s role in the country. Specifically, Bensouda wanted to look into the ways in which detainees were interrogated, and whether soldiers had committed war crimes including torture, cruel treatment, and sex crimes. The U.S. use of torture has been under a magnifying glass for decades and was only heightened by several public incidents of torture to detainees in U.S. custody, primarily in the Middle East and U.S. military prisons.   

The sanctions imposed cut off Bensouda and her colleagues from assets in the U.S. as well as from all commercial or financial transactions with U.S. banks and companies. This blow will turn not only American based companies away from the court but will affect the individual’s ability to utilize non-U.S. companies and banks who refuse their service for fear that they may be subject to sanctions for not complying. Sanctions have historically been utilized for terrorists, and to protect international peace and national security. They are not intended to be leveled against prosecutors who are working towards justice for international crimes. In addition, individuals have had severe restrictions placed on them regarding entrance to the U.S. 

This month a group of NGOs, faith-based groups, legal professionals, experts and former government officials released a letter in response to the sanctions. The signatures on the document comprised of 58 of the United States’ most respected organizations, colleges and professionals. They all unequivocally condemned the President’s actions. The group cited their reason for publishing the letter, “[I]t is uniquely dangerous, extreme, and unprecedented to utilize a mechanism designed to penalize criminals, their aiders, and abettors, against an independent judicial institution.” The letter went on to emphasize that the U.S. has placed itself on the side of impunity over justice. This effectively places the U.S. on the world stage against righteousness.  

In the first year of his term, Donald Trump chose the slogan “America First” to represent some of his policies and his ideals for the nation. He has shown this to mean that he protects the America he wants to. Immigrants and “outsiders” are not included. Although his apprehension toward an investigation of U.S. troops is not surprising, it is unsettling. As one of the leading nations in the World, with troops stationed in nearly every country globally, we have a responsibility. If we choose to place ourselves on the world stage as a protector, we have a duty to take responsibility for actions that are contradictory to that. We must stand on the side of justice, or we risk allowing impunity to reign.

For further information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Non-Governmental Organizations, Faith-Based Groups, Legal Professionals, Experts, and Former Government Officials Unequivocally Oppose U.S. Sanctions Against the International Criminal Court – 21 Sept. 2020

NPR News – Trump Administration Sanctions ICC Prosecutor Investigating Alleged U.S. War Crimes – 2 Sept. 2020

Abd-Al-Rahman Transferred into ICC Custody, Confirmation Hearing Planned for December

By: Christian González

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman, an alleged leader of the Janjaweed militia in Sudan and commonly known as “Ali Kushayb”, has been transferred into International Criminal Court (ICC) custody on June 9th, 2020. Charges against Abd-Al-Rahman include various crimes against humanity and war crimes. The confirmation hearing for these charges is scheduled provisionally for December 7th, 2020.

Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman at his first ICC appearance on June 15th, 2020. Photo Courtesy of The ICC.

A Sudanese national, Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman has been accused of leading thousands of Janjaweed (Arabic for “mounted gunman”) soldiers in the Darfur region of western Sudan. The Janjaweed, composed mainly of nomadic tribesmen of Arab descent, had been conducting aggressive raids on villages throughout Darfur in 2003 and 2004. Because the villages targeted were known sources of recruitment for the rebel armies involved in the Second Sudanese Civil War, it is believed that the Janjaweed were supported by the government of Sudan.

Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman’s involvement with the Janjaweed allegedly included acting as a mediator between Janjaweed leadership and the Sudanese government, as well as enlisting, arming, supplying, and funding troops. He has been accused of both ordering troops to commit and personally participating in crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians. These actions were allegedly conducted in a joint government-Janjaweed counter-insurgency campaign.

Two warrants for arrest against Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman had been issued. The first, issued on April 27th, 2007, lists 50 counts of crime. These crimes were composed of twenty-two counts of crimes against humanity that include deportation, imprisonment, torture, inhumane acts of inflicting serious bodily injury and suffering, and rape; and twenty-eight counts of war crimes that include violence to life and person, outrage upon personal dignity in humiliating and degrading treatment, intentional attacks on a civilian population, pillaging, rape, and destroying or seizing property. These acts were conducted from August 2003 to March 2004 in the towns of Kodoom, Bindisi, Mukjar, and Arawala and constitute violations of articles 25(3)(a) and 25(3)(d) of the Rome Statute respectively. The second warrant, made public on June 11th, 2020, adds three charges of murder and other inhumane acts done in Deleig in March 2004.

After voluntarily turning himself in to authorities in the Central African Republic, Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman was transferred to ICC custody on June 9th, 2020, and on June 15th, 2020 his identity was confirmed at a hearing before Judge Rosario Salvatore Aitala. The judge ensured that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman was aware of the charges being brought against him. When asked about them, Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman stated that these charges were “untrue.”

The confirmation hearing scheduled for December 7th will be held to determine if there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds of a belief that Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman did indeed commit each of the alleged crimes. If any or all charges are confirmed, the case will move on to the trial phase. Mr. Cyril Laucci is serving as defense counsel for Mr. Abd-Al-Rahman. There is currently no representation for the victims.

For further information, please see:

International Criminal Court – Case Information Sheet: Situation in Darfur, Sudan – 15 June 2020

UN News – Arrest of Sudanese war crimes suspect ‘extremely significant’: UN rights chief – 9 June 2020

Slate – Who Are the Janjaweed? – 22 July 2004

International Criminal Court – Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – 17 July 1998

Reuters – Sudan war crimes charges are untrue, suspect say – 15 June 2020

YouTube, IntlCriminalCourt – Ali Muhammad Ali-Al-Rahman case: initial appearance, 15 June 2020 ENGLISH – 15 June 2020

Murdered Mexican Journalist’s Body Elevates Concern for Reporters in the Country

By: Elyse Maugeri

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

VERACRUZ, Mexico – A journalist in Mexico was found decapitated in the gulf coast state of Veracruz earlier this month. Julio Valdivia is, at least, the fifth journalist this year to be murdered in the country and the second in Veracruz. His name has been added to the long list of journalists who have been killed reporting on crime in Mexico.

Woman Places a Photo of Julio Valdivia on His Casket in Veracruz, Mexico. Photo Courtesy of AP News.

It has been estimated that over the past 20 years, around 140 journalists have been murdered on the job there. However, this year alone, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, the violence orchestrated against journalists has made Mexico the deadliest country in the world for reporting.

The remains of Valdivia’s tortured body were found on railroad tracks near his motorcycle in the municipality of Tezonapa; only about five miles from where he lived. The details regarding the whereabouts of his body were reported by his employer El Mundo de Córdoba.

The area where Valdivia was reporting is a known Jalisco New Generation cartel territory. The border between Veracruz and Oaxaca is regarded as violent and often journalists have to rely on self-censorship to remain alive. The State Commission for the Attention and Protection of Journalists (CEAPP) released in a statement that Valdivia had not received any special protection measures since he never reported any aggression or threats to his life.

A friend of the family, Angela Carrasco, mentioned in an interview with the Associated Press that Valdivia, a father of six, was working on a rate of about 1,000 pesos, or $47, a week. She stated he did this work for his family, and it was his life.

In a recent press release, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) condemned the murder stating that this was the most extreme form of censorship. Journalists have faced disappearances, torture, and murder with little intervention from the Mexican government throughout the years. The IACHR’s Office of the Special Rapporteur pointed to their 2018 Special Report on the Situation of Freedom of Expression in Mexico, reiterating how dangerous it still is to report on the news in the country. They called for the prosecutor’s office in Veracruz to remain unbiased and thorough in their investigation and to recognize the significant role Valdivia’s job played in his murder.

The prosecutor’s office in Veracruz released in a statement that they will, in fact, use Valdivia’s job as a key point in their investigation; something rarely done by prosecutors in Mexico. Authorities have sacrificed true justice, when investigating the murders of journalists, due to their relationships with the local cartels.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a staunch anti-cartel advocate, has praised the journalists operating in the area, calling their work “heroic.” He has been vocal about investigating these instances and punishing those involved in the murders. For now, the investigation remains open.

For further information, please see:

Associated Press – Mourners gather to bid farewell to murdered Mexican reporter – 10 Sept. 2020

Associated Press – A Mexican newspaper says a reporter slain, decapitated – 9 Sept. 2020

CNN – Another journalist found dead in Mexico, one of the most dangerous countries for reporters – 11 Sept. 2020

IACHR – Office of the Special Rapporteur condemns the murder of journalist Julio Valdivia in Mexico and reiterates concern on the persistence of attacks against the life and integrity of communicators – 21 Sept. 2020

The Beauty in Uncertainty

By: Melissa Berouty

3L at Syracuse University College of Law

What will the job market look like post-grad? Will online classes prepare me for the Bar exam? In March, questions like these began to spin through my mind. I was afraid of the uncertainty. I was afraid of what the future held for myself and my loved ones. I can now see the beauty in uncertainty.

This summer, I split my time between Columbia Law’s Eviction Moratorium Project and Harvard Law’s Worklife and Labor Program. I spent the summer researching the eviction crisis in Hawaii and Indiana. To my surprise, Hawaii led the nation in homelessness rates. Daily, I read devastating testimonies of families fearing eviction as moratoriums lifted around the United States.

Additionally, I researched worker’s rights in various industries. I learned about workplace conditions and safety, which were evidently dwindling in the face of COVID-19. I read stories of employees being furloughed or fired as businesses had no choice but to shut their doors.

It was humbling work, to say the least. I spent most of my summer quarantined in Florida with my best friend’s family. While yes, it would have been nice to be back home in California with my family, not once did I fear not having a roof over my head as millions across the United States were. I did not face the uncertainty of whether I would have a bed to sleep on at night or a warm meal on the table for dinner. For so many, housing is a symbol of security and stability. Without it, where would you be? It is a necessity of life— a human right.

While I worried about obtaining summer employment, employees significantly more qualified than me lost their jobs. As I conducted my work at the kitchen table with my best friend’s dog laying at my feet, essential workers’ put their lives at risk while being offered inadequate workplace protections. Before COVID-19 and our living rooms actually becoming our offices, many spent more time in their respective workplaces than their actual homes. A workplace should feel like a second home. Safe and healthy working conditions, a globally recognized human right, should be a non-negotiable.

While my fears of uncertainty were valid and justified, they were a product of a privileged space. After work, I logged off my computer and tuned back into “my reality.” My reality was secure employment, a roof over my head, and good health. My reality was extra time. Time I used to work out, to laugh with family and friends, and to try my hand at baking rosemary bread. During this pandemic, not everyone could simply log off and carry on with their days. Around the United States and beyond, peoples’ realities were the topics we law students researched.

In law school, I have been guilty of reading cases, extracting the rule, and moving on. I try my best to humanize the parties, but this can get lost in the mundane task of outlining. There are people behind every case, who have stories. Stories that both you and I can relate to. Stories that even on my worst day, I could never imagine experiencing.

This summer, my employers cared about these stories. Of course, I researched the law, but I also researched the impact of the law on the most vulnerable and I am better for it. Just because your reality is fortuitous, does not mean everyone is so lucky. Just because you feel as if an issue does not touch your world, does not mean it is nonexistent. Take a step out of your bubble, wearing a mask of course, and look at the world around you. What can you do to make it better? A consideration as simple as this, I firmly believe would make our world a better place.