Centro de Acción Jurídica / Das "Centre d'action juridique" / Pravni Centar / Центр юридической деятельности / المركز القانوني لترايال /

Human Rights and Impunity: What Connection?

The very idea on which ACT was founded – fighting impunity through human rights surveillance mechanisms – raises questions since human rights and criminal responsibility are often seen as two clearly separate issues.

Human rights are indeed values which every State is obliged to adhere to in its relationship with the individuals under its jurisdiction. They are established by specific international rules, generally speaking in the form of Conventions. Where they are breached, it is the responsibility of the State, and the State alone, which is engaged. On the other hand, the law on criminal responsibility concerns itself strictly with the individuals. It has as its basis the commission of or the participation in (by complicity, incitation) a criminal act, defined as such in a separate set of norms codified under criminal law.

However, despite the fact that these two concepts belong to two different legal domains, it is also evident that they both have much in common. To begin with, human rights and international criminal law, both serve the same ultimate purpose, which is to protect the inherent dignity of the human being. Moreover, a significant parallel exists between the acts considered under one or the other branches of law. Indeed, human or State behaviour constituting the most serious violations of fundamental human rights such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and enforced disappearances coincide substantially with the type of behaviour qualified as crimes under criminal law.

It is therefore not really surprising that international human rights law has taken into account the criminal law aspects of human rights infringements, by incorporating the requirement to have perpetrators brought before the relevant courts and by compelling States to adopt a whole series of firm commitments directed towards this end.

Thus, States are required to lead prompt, impartial and thourough investigations into human rights violations – an indispensable first step towards shedding light on possible criminal behaviour, to examine the circumstances in which it took place and identify the persons responsible for the abuses. Whenever these abuses constitute crimes, States must also take the necessary measures to ensure that the perpetrators are brought to trial and, when applicable, found guilty and sentenced to a punishment commensurate with the crime committed. In addition, each State is required to make available to the victims effective legal remedies, meaning that these should be easily accessible and able to compensate the injuries caused. Furthermore it falls within the duties of the State to ensure that victims receive adequate compensation, to enforce their right to learn the truth about the abuses they or their relatives suffered, as well as to undertake reforms or all other necessary measures in order to avoid the repetition of such acts. 

The absence of any serious efforts on the part of a State to take action, including criminal proceedings against those considered to be responsible for violating human rights, constitutes a failure to carry out its duty. This is because States are required not only to respect an individual’s recognised rights, but also to take measures to ensure that they are respected by other individuals. A State which is not dedicated to putting a stop to abuses perpetrated under its administration is not in a position to claim that it guarantees the rights concerned.

In a word, the control procedures under human rights law do not directly concern individuals guilty of international crimes, but rather are aimed at States. Thus, insomuch as criminal acts violate guaranteed rights, the international human rights should compel States to punish those responsible for their transgression in order to conform to the duties they have.