It is conspicuous that in Nigeria in particular and Africa in general, that the issue of suicide bombing is alien in the same vein terrorism like its most compatible accomplice (suicide bombing), has not had juridical back(s) in both Nigeria and African.
One may reasonably pose the query, how can a person who has indulged in suicide bombing be arraigned before a court? Take the case of Mohammed Manga48 as an example.
Notwithstanding the pitfalls above, we shall be considering few cases that cut across terrorism and human rights as were decided by the European court of human rights (hereinafter known as ECHR).
The court finding the methods to have caused intense physical and mental suffering, held in the case of Ireland V. the United kingdom49 that there had been a violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the convention (European convention on Human Rights) in the present case.
However, the court further held that there had net been a violation of articles 5 (right liberty and security) or 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the convention.
Aksoy (the applicant in the case above) complained in particular that his detention in 1992 on suspicion of aiding betting Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK), terrorists, was unlawful and that he had been tortured (“Palestinian hanging” i.e stripped naked, with arms tied together behind back, and suspended by arms).
The court, considering that the treatment inflicted to the applicant had been such a serious and cruel nature that it could only be described as torture held that there had been a violation of article 3( prohibition of torture) of the convention. It also found a violation of article 5 (right to liberty and security) and a violation of article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the convention in the present case.
Another case to be considered under this sub-topic is the case of Ramirez Sanchez V. France51, better known as “Carlos the Jackal” and viewed during the 1970s as the most dangerous terrorist in the world, the applicant complained about his solitary confinement for eight years following his conviction for terrorist related offences.
The court held that there had been no violation of article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the convention concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention at Israeli prison while concurring with the European committee for the prevention of torture’s concerns about the possible long-term effects of the applicant’s considered that, having regard in particular to his character and the danger he posed, the conditions in which the applicant was held during the period under consideration had not reached the minimum level of severity necessary to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the convention.
The court further found in this case a violation of article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the convention, on account of the lack of a remedy in French law that would have allowed the applicant to contest the decision to prolong his detention in solitary confinement.
Related Posts: CRIMINAL LAW, HISTORY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATION (H.I.R)
Be the first to comment