By Robert Gonzaga
Central Luzon Desk
06/18/2008
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—A top prosecutor in the genocide trials in Cambodia says citing command responsibility “without proof of direct link” in the prosecution of cases involving extrajudicial killings is unjust.
“It’s easier to prosecute someone with blood on his hands than the person who ordered, or perhaps more relevant to the context, the person who let it happen,” said Robert Petit of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT).
“You have to prove that the person is specifically responsible in some way. Just holding a general responsible for the action of subordinates if he had no way of knowing is just undermining the system,” said the UNAKRT prosecutor.
Petit addressed prosecutors, lawyers and human rights workers during a two-day conference on the prosecution of crimes against international human rights and international humanitarian law here. The conference started on Monday at the Vista Marina Hotel.
Targets of atrocities
The conference discussed issues that concerned human rights workers, journalists and lawyers who, according to a participant, were “targets of atrocities most often suspected to be sanctioned by the state.”
Petit, however, believed that without established links to masterminds in government or the military, it was “unjust to go after persons in authority.”
“I’m saying you have to have that proof. You prove that every day [in court]. You prove that this person knew, or should have known, but did not act to prevent [the crime] and did not act to sanction [the perpetrator],” he said.
He said motives could be “very relevant” to sentencing because “not all murders are equal and not all murderers are equal.”
“But if you put motive as an element that the prosecution must prove, for example, that you acted because you wanted to stifle dissent, or you wanted to prevent prosecution of a political-based crime, or you wanted to scare an activist, you are just making it hard for the prosecution,” he said.
Distinguishing killings
Ibarra Gutierrez Jr., director of the University of the Philippines’ Law Center, sought to separate extrajudicial killings involving human rights workers, journalists and legal professionals from ordinary killings.
He said distinguishing extrajudicial killings from murder or homicide would go beyond the definition of merely taking the life of a particular victim. He said a political slaying was “actually more a violation of certain state obligations or the rule of law.”
Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima said the CHR would continue to monitor compliance by the government of its obligation under international treaties and instruments on human rights.
De Lima, who was appointed to lead the CHR in May, assured the participants that the commission would be “independent, credible and transparent.”
Central Luzon Desk
06/18/2008
SUBIC BAY FREEPORT—A top prosecutor in the genocide trials in Cambodia says citing command responsibility “without proof of direct link” in the prosecution of cases involving extrajudicial killings is unjust.
“It’s easier to prosecute someone with blood on his hands than the person who ordered, or perhaps more relevant to the context, the person who let it happen,” said Robert Petit of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT).
“You have to prove that the person is specifically responsible in some way. Just holding a general responsible for the action of subordinates if he had no way of knowing is just undermining the system,” said the UNAKRT prosecutor.
Petit addressed prosecutors, lawyers and human rights workers during a two-day conference on the prosecution of crimes against international human rights and international humanitarian law here. The conference started on Monday at the Vista Marina Hotel.
Targets of atrocities
The conference discussed issues that concerned human rights workers, journalists and lawyers who, according to a participant, were “targets of atrocities most often suspected to be sanctioned by the state.”
Petit, however, believed that without established links to masterminds in government or the military, it was “unjust to go after persons in authority.”
“I’m saying you have to have that proof. You prove that every day [in court]. You prove that this person knew, or should have known, but did not act to prevent [the crime] and did not act to sanction [the perpetrator],” he said.
He said motives could be “very relevant” to sentencing because “not all murders are equal and not all murderers are equal.”
“But if you put motive as an element that the prosecution must prove, for example, that you acted because you wanted to stifle dissent, or you wanted to prevent prosecution of a political-based crime, or you wanted to scare an activist, you are just making it hard for the prosecution,” he said.
Distinguishing killings
Ibarra Gutierrez Jr., director of the University of the Philippines’ Law Center, sought to separate extrajudicial killings involving human rights workers, journalists and legal professionals from ordinary killings.
He said distinguishing extrajudicial killings from murder or homicide would go beyond the definition of merely taking the life of a particular victim. He said a political slaying was “actually more a violation of certain state obligations or the rule of law.”
Commission on Human Rights Chair Leila de Lima said the CHR would continue to monitor compliance by the government of its obligation under international treaties and instruments on human rights.
De Lima, who was appointed to lead the CHR in May, assured the participants that the commission would be “independent, credible and transparent.”
No comments:
Post a Comment