Human Rights and the Use of Force
Following up on our discussion of political freedom last week, we will be talking about human rights and the use of force by the government.
1. When the use of force by the government is and is not a HR violation
It is widely agreed that governments should hold a monopoly of the use of force within the country. This means that only government authorities can legitimately use force; citizens cannot.
I'd like to start by emphasizing the basic difference between ‘force' and ‘violence' as exercised by the state.
Governments are legitimately allowed to use force to protect the population. The official security services of the government – the police, gendarmes and army- may use force to prevent people threatening the life, liberty or property of other people. The use of force does not conflict with human rights as long as it is used as a last resort to protect human rights.
When force is used out with this context, it is unjustified violence. For a clearer understanding of when it is appropriate for government agents to use force, I will refer to the United Nations' Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials UNHCHR (United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) 1990First of all it recognizes that law enforcement officials have a vital role in the protection of the right to life, liberty and security of the person, as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Bearing this in mind, while carrying out their duty, law enforcement officials (police, gendarmes), should use non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means are ineffective or hold no promise of achieving the intended result.
In addition, article 3 of the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (also by the UN) states that law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty.
Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.
It goes on to state that exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.
Guests' experiences.
2. Is Cameroon the only country that experiences this type of problem?
Absolutely not. The use of force by government authorities is a matter of great contention throughout the world.
Tasers
There is currently a debate going on in the world about the use of Tasers – electroshock weapons- by police. Amnesty International takes the position that the use of these weapons is not inkeeping with government obligations to protect the rights of citizens and to use force as a last resort. Amnesty International accepts that Tasers may be used as an alternative to firearms, but has opposed arming ordinary non-firearms trained police with Tasers. One of the major reasons for this is the extent to which Tasers have been used inappropriately by police officers in many different countries in way which amount to a violation of human rights. For example, instead of using Tasers to confront people who posed a significant threat to the lives of others, they have been used to wake sleeping suspects or to attack suspects who were running away. There are many documented cases of this in Canada , the United States and UK . In this context, Amnesty International states that the use of Tasers amounts to torture, which is an abuse of human rights. The UN Committee Against Torture has also expressed this view.
While governments understandably wish to protect their citizens to the greatest extent possible, doing so at the expense of human rights is counter-productive so the rules set out by the UN, as I outlined above, should be respected.
3. Use of Force in Politics
The use of force - by citizens or government authorities - to restrict freedom of expression or to make a person vote in a certain way is a violation of human rights. I want to focus here on the use of force and freedom of assembly, because that was a topic that many people were concerned about last week.
As everyone is allowed to participate in lawful and peaceful assemblies, in accordance with the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Governments, such meetings should not be broken up in the first place, and using force to do so is a clear violation of human rights.
The UN states then that law enforcement agencies and officials must adhere to the following rules concerning public meetings and the use of force.
1. In order to disperse assemblies that are unlawful but non-violent , law enforcement officials shall avoid the use of force or, where that is not possible, shall restrict such force to the minimum extent necessary.
2. In the dispersal of violent assemblies, law enforcement officials may use firearms only when less dangerous means are not practicable and only to the minimum extent necessary.
Guests' experiences. Political party meetings/ rallies, October 1.
4. Policing persons in custody or detention
UNHCHR states that law enforcement officials shall not use force against persons in custody or detention, except when strictly necessary for the maintenance of security and order within the institution, or when personal safety is threatened.
In addition, law enforcement officials, in their relations with persons in custody or detention, shall not use firearms, except in self-defence or in the defence of others against the immediate threat of death or serious injury, or when strictly necessary to prevent the escape of a person in custody or detention who poses a serious threat to others.
Case study
Amnesty International is concerned at the killing by prison guards of at least 17 prisoners, on the 29 and 30 June 2008, at New Bell prison in Duala, Cameroon.
Amnesty International condemns the use of a shoot-to-kill policy employed by the security forces in response to prisoners' attempt to escape from New Bell prison. Such a policy violates prisoners' right to life. The organisation acknowledges that Cameroonian authorities have an obligation to maintain law and order and to ensure that detainees do not escape from lawful custody. However, force used by security agents must be proportionate and necessary.
According to human rights defenders in Cameroon, tension had for several weeks been building up in New Bell prison, with some prisoners planning to break out of the prison. Although these plans were reportedly known to the prison authorities, they failed to take measures to prevent a mass prisoner escape. On the afternoon of 29 June, dozens of prisoners forced their way out of the prison. Fifteen prisoners were reportedly shot dead, by prison guards and other members of the security forces, in the ensuing manhunt, while two others were killed on 30 June. In one case on 30 June a 23-year-old man, René Mireille Bouyam, who lived near New Bell prison was shot and fatally wounded when members of the security forces found a prisoner hiding in his house. He and the prisoner were reportedly pinned to the ground and shot, killing the prisoner instantly. René Mireille Bouyam died the following day in hospital. At least two prisoners are known to have been critically shot and injured and are currently hospitalized.
During a visit to the prison on 1 July 2008 , the Secretary of State for Justice in charge of penitentiary administration is reported to have thanked the prison administration for the action they took against the prisoners who tried to escape. This is deplorable. Amnesty International calls upon the Minister of Justice to order an investigation into the prison outbreak and fatal shootings.
5. Torture
There have been many reports of torture experienced by prisoners and detainees in Cameroon . Several complaints have been made to GCI . Torture is an abuse of human rights and is never an acceptable use of force.
6. What to do if you think the government has used force in a way that violates HR.
First, stay calm. The situation will not be improved by resorting to violence yourself. The government authorities would have a justification for using force if you appear to present a threat to them or other people. Try to explain to the people using force why you think that this is a violation of human rights and therefore unacceptable. I understand that this is not an easy thing to do in the heat of the moment, but it is the only legitimatedefence you have.
Second, as soon as possible, make a record of the circumstances of the incident, including the names of as many people involved and the badge numbers of the government authorities if at all possible. Collect the names and contact details of witnesses.
Third, make a complaint. Human rights organizations such as Global Conscience Initiative can help you to do this. They can also help you to understand whether the use of force in this case was legitimate or if it was a violation of human rights. The human rights organization will take this complaint to the government and will work to collect support nationally and internationally for the complaint.
Human Rights and the Use of Force
1. When use of force by the government is and is not a violation of human rights.
To guest: Have you experienced excessive use of force by government authorities which amounts to a violation of human rights?
2. Is this problem unique to Cameroon ?
3. The use of force in politics.
Guest's experiences e.g. political party meetings/rallies, October 1.
4. The use of force on prisoners – when this is a violation of human rights.
5. Torture – is this ever acceptable?
Guest's opinion.
6. What should people do if they think the government has used force in a way that violates human rights?
Back to Human Rights Hour Page
Visitors since 23/01/08 |
 |