publications

<<previous  | index

APPENDIX

Human Rights Watch Policy on Accountability for Past Abuses

Human Rights Watch holds that those who commit gross abuses of human rights should be held accountable for their crimes. It is a responsibility of governments to seek accountability regardless of whether the perpetrators of such abuses are officials of the government itself and its armed forces, or officials of a predecessor government, or members of anti-government forces, or others. We oppose laws and practices that purport to immunize those who have committed gross abuses from the exposure of their crimes, from civil suits for damages for those crimes, or from criminal investigation, prosecution and punishment.

Human Rights Watch recognizes the difficulty that some governments may face in holding members of their own armed forces accountable for the gross abuse of human rights. Also, we recognize that military regimes may insist, explicitly or implicitly, on immunity from accountability as a condition for relinquishing their offices and permitting the establishment of elected civilian governments. We do not believe that these difficulties justify disregard for the principle of accountability. We consider that accountability for gross abuses should remain a goal of a government that seeks to promote respect for human rights.

In pursuing that goal, Human Rights Watch holds:

1. That the most important means of establishing accountability is for the government itself to make known all that can be reliably established about gross abuses of human rights; their nature and extent; the identities of the victims; the identities of those responsible for devising the policies and practices that resulted in gross abuses; the identities of those who carried out gross abuses; and the identities of those who knowingly aided and abetted those who carried out gross abuses;

2. That laws and decrees purporting to immunize the perpetrators of gross abuses from accountability are null and void: (a) when promulgated by the perpetrators themselves; (b) when applied to crimes against humanity; or (c) when otherwise in conflict with international law;

3. That the duty to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for gross abuses is proportionate to the extent and severity of the abuses and the degree of responsibility for such abuses. Accordingly, though we advocate criminal prosecution and punishment for those who have the highest degree of responsibility for the most severe abuses of human rights, we recognize that accountability may be achieved by public disclosure and condemnation in cases of lesser responsibility and/or less severe abuses. The determination of who should be prosecuted will have to be made according to the circumstances of each situation. In making such determinations, we believe it is essential that there should be no granting of impunity either because of the identity of those responsible for gross abuses of human rights or because of the identity of the victims;

4. That popular disinclination to hold accountable those responsible for gross abuses does not negate the responsibility of a government to pursue accountability, particularly in circumstances where the victims of abuses may have been concentrated among members of a racial, ethnic, religious or political minority. A government's duty to demonstrate respect for human rights extends to all persons, and it is not the prerogative of the many to forgive the commission of crimes against the few;

5. That laws, decrees and practices that immunize members of the armed forces from accountability do not enjoy any greater validity because of a purported symmetry with amnesties for all anti-government forces. Though amnesties for crimes of opposition to the state and the established political order, including by means of armed combat, may be justified as a means of persuading members of anti-government forces to lay down their arms, we oppose their extension to those within such forces who have committed gross abuses of human rights;

6. That obedience to orders (in circumstances other than duress) is not a valid defense to charges of responsibility for gross abuses of human rights. To the extent that obedience to orders is relevant to prosecuting, it should be only as a mitigating circumstance that may be considered by judges according to the facts of each case in determining the appropriate punishment;

7. That the means employed by a government in making known what can be reliably established about gross abuses, and in investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible, should at all times conform to internationally recognized principles of due process of law.

Human Rights Watch believes that non-governmental human rights groups can themselves make a valuable contribution in securing accountability for gross abuses by insisting that a government's policies on these matters be publicly debated; by gathering evidence on gross abuses for submission to the government; and, in circumstances when a government has not fulfilled (or not yet fulfilled) its duty to hold accountable those responsible for gross abuses, by gathering and publishing their own carefully documented accounts.

Human Rights Watch will pursue such opportunities as may be available to strengthen the commitment to accountability in international law; will attempt to use the machinery of international law in appropriate cases to secure accountability; and will aid domestic human rights groups in other countries in securing accountability in accordance with the policies stated above.

As used here, the term gross abuses of human rights applies to the following: genocide; arbitrary, summary or extrajudicial executions; forced or involuntary disappearances; torture or other gross physical abuses; and prolonged arbitrary deprivation of liberty.


<<previous  |  index

October 23, 1992