Human rights protection during armed conflict презентация

Outline
Legal framework in armed conflicts
International Humanitarian Law & International Human Rights Law:
what is the difference?
Mutual reinforcement of International Humanitarian Law & International Human Rights Law
Cases concerning the Turkey-Cyprus issue
Cases concerning the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
Case concerning the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Overview of the cases in which Article 2 or Article 3 applied
Conclusion

War has changed.
development of nuclear and biological weapons
new techniques of warfare
growth of cities population
increased lethality

International Humanitarian Law &
International Human Rights Law:
what is the difference?
International Humanitarian Law
(IHL)
applicable only in context of armed conflict
based on distinctions between civilians and combatants
less important territorial link of person
lex specialis
International Human Rights Law
(IHRL)
always applicable
provides protection for every human being regardless of his or her status
essentially territorial

Mutual reinforcement of International Humanitarian Law & International Human Rights Law
"Lex specialis derogat generali", but
the protection provided by Human Rights law continued in armed conflict
nothing in Human Rights treaties shows that they would not be applicable in context of armed conflict
"Human Rights Law and Humanitarian Law are complementary and mutually reinforcing"
© Human Rights Council

Frequently applied articles of European Convention on Human Rights
Article 2 (Right to life)
Article 3 (Prohibition of torture)
Article 5 (Right to liberty and security)
Article 6 (Right to a fair trial)
Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life)
Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy)

Cases concerning the Turkey-Cyprus issue
Varnava and Others v. Turkey
18 September 2009 (Grand Chamber)
A continuing violation of:
-Article 2 (right to life) on account of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of the nine men who disappeared;
-Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) in respect of the applicants;
-Article 5 (right to liberty and security) by virtue of the failure of the authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of two of the missing men.

Cases concerning the Turkey-Cyprus issue
Andreou v. Turkey
27 October 2009
A violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention. The use of potentially lethal force against the applicant had not been “absolutely necessary” and had not been justified by any of the exceptions permitted under Article 2 of the Convention.

Cases concerning the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
Chiragov and Others v. Armenia
16 June 2015 (Grand Chamber – judgment on the merits)
A continuing violation of:
-Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
-Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention;
-Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.

Cases concerning the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh
Sargsyan v. Azerbaidjan
16 June 2015 (Grand Chamber – judgment on the merits)
A continuing violation of:
-Article 1 (protection of property) of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
-Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life);
-Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court considered in particular that while it was justified by safety considerations to refuse civilians access to the village, the State had a duty to take alternative measures in order to secure the applicant’s rights as long as access to the property was not possible.

Case concerning the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina 18 July 2013 (Grand Chamber)
-a violation of Article 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention
The Court found that the applicants could have received lower sentences had the 1976 Code been applied.

Overview
Lack of effective investigation into the deaths of civilians (Article 2):
Inderbiyeva v. Russia
Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom
Kadirova and Others v. Russia
Jaloud v. the Netherlands
Inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3)
Er and Others v. Turkey
Pitsayeva and Others v. Russia
Meryem Çelik and Others v. Turkey
Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. the United Kingdom
Hassan v. the United Kingdom
Benzer and Others v. Turkey

Conclusion
IHL & IHRL are both applicable in situation of armed conflict; these branches of law are mutually reinforcing
While IHL is applicable in situation of armed conflict, whether it is international or non-international, IHRL is applicable regardless for such context
Although IHL is applied as lex specialis, the protection provided by IHRL continued in armed conflict
Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13 of ECHR are frequently applied in situation of armed conflict
IHRL provides more coherent as well as a more realistic regulation of conduct in armed conflicts in general and in non-international armed conflicts in particular

References:
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950
ICRC, “How is the term “armed conflict” defined in international humanitarian law?”
Jean Pictet et al., eds., Geneva Convention I for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Commentary (Geneva, ICRC, 1952), p. 32.
Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic ́, para. 70.
Prosecutor v. Ramush Haradinaj et. al., case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgement of 3 April 2008, paras. 49 and 60.
Varnava and Others v. Turkey
Andreou v. Turkey
Chiragov and Others v. Armenia
Sargsyan v. Azerbaidjan
Maktouf and Damjanović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina
Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom