ASSASSINATIONS
International Law
Human Rights Reports
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Article 1, U.N. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions:
“Governments shall prohibit by law all extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions and shall ensure that any such executions are recognized as offences under their criminal laws, and are punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the seriousness of such offences. Exceptional circumstances including a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of such executions.
“Such executions shall not be carried out under any circumstances including, but not limited to, situations of internal armed conflict, excessive or illegal use of force by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity or by a person acting at the instigation, or with the consent or acquiescence of such person, and situations in which deaths occur in custody. This prohibition shall prevail over decrees issued by governmental authority.”
Principle 9, Basic Principles, U.N. Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions:
“Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or in defence of other against the imminent threat of death or serious injury…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.”
The Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War applies throughout the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967 (the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, West Bank and Jerusalem). This is stated in binding U.N. Security Council Resolutions 605 (22 December 1987) and 1322 (7 October 2000).
Article 4 of the Convention states that protected persons are all those who "at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." This applies directly to the Palestinians. Israel ratified the Geneva Conventions on 6 July 1951.
Article 3(d) prohibits at any time and in any place "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
Article 51 (3) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 says civilians are protected “unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities."
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is a State party, enshrines not only the ''inherent right to life'' but also states that:
“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
The right to life is also, according to the ICCPR, Article 4, one of the rights which may not be derogated from even in ''time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation''.
UN Human Rights Committee:
“The protection against arbitrary deprivation of life…is of utmost importance. The Committee considers that state parties should take measures…to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the state is a matter of the utmost gravity. Therefore the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by such authorities.” The right to life is the “supreme human right.”
HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS
Amnesty International, March 22, 2004:
“Israel has resorted to extrajudicial executions for several years without offering proof of guilt or right of defence. Some 200 Palestinians have been assassinated by the Israeli army in the past three and a half years. Such attacks have also resulted in the unlawful killing of more than 100 bystanders, including dozens of children. Amnesty International has repeatedly condemned these acts as unlawful.”
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150292004
Human Rights Watch, January 2004:
“In many cases, Palestinian civilians died in the course of these assassinations, sometimes because suspects were targeted while in residential buildings or on busy thoroughfares.
“The Israeli government used to claim that the Palestinians targeted for assassination were involved in plotting attacks against Israelis, although increasingly the government has not bothered to make that claim. Even when it does so, the summary nature of the claim means that there is nothing to stop Israel from declaring virtually any Palestinian an accomplice in the violent attacks and thus subject to assassination. Given that these assassinations are planned well in advance, Israel should provide evidence of direct involvement in plotting or directing violence before overcoming the legal presumption that all residents of occupied territories are protected civilians. Moreover, because unilateral allegations are so easy to make falsely or mistakenly, and in light of their lethal consequences, these claims should be tested before an independent review mechanism.
“Israel has made no effort to explain why these suspected participants in violent attacks on Israelis could not be arrested and prosecuted rather than summarily killed. Significantly, assassinations are taking place not on a traditional battlefield but in a situation of occupation in which the Fourth Geneva Convention imposes essentially law enforcement responsibilities on the occupier. These responsibilities do not preclude using war methods in the heat of battle, but the assassinations typically take place when there is no battle raging. In these circumstances, Israel has the burden of explaining why law enforcement means could not be used to arrest a suspect rather than war-like tools to kill him. Theoretically Israel might claim that its forces are unable to enter an area under occupation without triggering armed conflict, but in fact the Israeli military has shown itself capable of operating throughout the West Bank and Gaza with few impediments. In these circumstances, Israel would be hard-pressed to show that a law-enforcement enforcement option is unavailable. It would thus not be justified to resort to the war rules of assassination.”
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k4/9.htm
Position paper of B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories:
“Those who profess the effectiveness of the method have not provided one shred of evidence in support of their claim that the policy has contributed to security in any way. Having said that, B’Tselem does not intend to debate whether the policy is effective or not, since whatever the conclusion, there can be no justification of Israel’s assassination policy. Human rights violations cannot be regarded as just simply due to the fact that they provide the results desired by the policy makers. The illegality lies in the policy itself regardless of its end results.
“Furthermore, the claim that there is no alternative to assassination under the current circumstances cannot excuse the continuation of the policy. The absence of alternatives does not negate the strict prohibition and Israel must find legal ways to achieve its goals
“Whether these are innocent people or people who have actually harmed Israelis, the policy is illegal. The accusations against the Palestinians, grave as they may be, cannot justify a departure from the principles of Israeli and international law.
“This policy is patently illegal, according to both Israeli and international law, a policy whose implementation involves a high risk of hurting bystanders and from which there is no turning back even if errors are uncovered after the fact. Israel must cease assassinating Palestinians immediately.”
http://www.btselem.org
Amnesty International, July 4, 2003:
“The Israeli army has not offered evidence that the Palestinians whom it has assassinated were about to, or on their way to, carry out attacks. Those who have been assassinated were in areas of the Occupied Territories removed from potential Israeli targets (such as settlements, settlers' roads or army positions).
“The prohibition of targeting civilians and civilian objects is a basic rule of customary international law which applies to all parties and in all circumstances, including in armed conflict.
“Palestinians engaged in armed attacks against civilians or in clashes with Israeli forces are not combatants. They are civilians who lose their protected status for the duration of the armed engagement. They cannot be killed at any time other than while they are posing an imminent threat to lives. Proof or suspicion that a person participated in an armed attack at an earlier point does not justify, under international law, targeting them for death later on. Those who are not posing an imminent threat to lives may not be assassinated as punishment or as a preventive measure.
“In most cases Israel has not provided evidence that those who were assassinated by the Israeli army posed an imminent threat to lives which could not be met by other means. In fact there is ample evidence to the contrary.
“Scores of men, women and children bystanders have been killed and hundreds have been injured in the course of assassinations or attempted assassinations of Palestinians by the Israeli army.
“Claims that efforts are made not to harm bystanders are inconsistent with the practice of carrying out attacks on busy roads and densely populated areas, knowing that it would be virtually impossible not to hurt bystanders. Such practices violate Israel’s obligations under both international human rights and humanitarian law.”
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150562003
John Jones, barrister specialising in war crimes and extradition who worked for the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, July 2002:
“Any state which has signed the Geneva conventions has not only the right, but also the duty, to prosecute perpetrators of 'grave breaches'. This is referred to as universal jurisdiction.
“No body of law applied consistently can be invoked to justify Israel's assassinations of wanted Palestinians. The laws of war, the law applicable to internal conflict, and human rights law in peacetime converge on the principle of the sanctity of human life.”
Israeli State Comptroller, page 35, July 2002:
"IDF documents indicate that most of the suicide terrorists and the car bombs crossed the seam area into Israel through the checkpoints, where they underwent faulty and even shoddy checks."
The report indicates that it would be possible for Israel to take measures to improve the effective control of people and vehicles crossing from the Occupied Territories into Israel.
Human Rights Watch, April 6, 2001:
“Extrajudicial executions are strictly prohibited under international law. Israeli officials argue that the individuals designated for "liquidation" are legitimate military targets because of their involvement in attacks against Israeli military personnel and civilians, but they have not made public any evidence to substantiate this claim. Decisions to kill particular individuals have not been subject to any transparent civilian or military review, raising concerns that civilians, as well as members of the Palestinian security services who have played no direct role in attacks against Israeli civilians or military personnel, may be among those targeted. In several cases, the "liquidation" killings have taken place in or near areas under Israeli control, where it may have been possible to arrest the suspects.”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6-04.htm
Amnesty International, February 21, 2001:
“Human rights abuses by opposition groups or individuals can never justify abandonment of human rights principles by a government.
“It is a basic rule of customary international law that civilians and civilian objects must never be made the target of an attack. This rule applies in all circumstances including in the midst of full-scale armed conflict. Due to its customary nature it is binding on all parties. Israel is prohibited from attacking civilians and civilian objects.
“The impunity allowed to those who kill unlawfully has played its part in cheapening the value of human life in the Occupied Territories.
“The acceptance and even instigation of unlawful killings by the Israeli Government and its failure to investigate each death caused by its security services is leading to a culture of impunity in the IDF (Israeli Defence Force). The Israeli security forces who carry out the extrajudicial executions offer no proof of guilt, no right of defence. The identity of the person who authorizes the killing is as secret as the information which allegedly 'justifies' such an extreme and unlawful action. In some of the cases Amnesty International investigated, the targets were killed in circumstances where they might easily have been arrested...many of the killings have taken place in situations where no Israeli life was in danger.”
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150052001
Hanny Megally, executive director of the Middle East and North Africa division,
Human Rights Watch, February 14, 2001:
"This amounts to a policy of officially-sanctioned killing without public accountability. Here we have the prime minister effectively acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury in a secret process leading to death sentences that can't be appealed."
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2001/02/14/isrlpa289.htm
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, 1998:
“Any violations on the part of the insurgents...which the Special Rapporteur acknowledges are most likely to have occurred and to continue to occur, cannot be used as an excuse for violations by the Government.
“International human rights...are very clear: torture, disappearances and extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war.”
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, 1996:
“Governments must respect the right to life of all persons, including members of armed groups and even when they demonstrate a total disregard for the lives of others.”
UN Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions, 1983:
Describes the right to life as “the most important and basic of human rights. It is the fountain from which all human rights spring. If it is infringed the effects are irreversible.”
Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (JPPI):
“Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian activists is illegal according to both Israeli law and international law. Israel has outlawed the death penalty; however, its policy of extrajudicial killings allows it to circumvent this prohibition and execute people by other means. Worse yet, Israel is executing people without charging them with having committed a specific crime; without furnishing any evidence as to their "guilt"; and without the due process of a free and fair trial. Vaguely worded assurances from Israeli security agencies (which readily admit to torturing Palestinians to extract information) that those targeted for assassination are guilty of "acts of violence and terror" are hardly credible. This policy seriously undermines Israel's claim to being a democratic state based on the rule of law.
“Furthermore, Israel's policy of assassinating Palestinian activists is in clear violation of customary international law that protects basic human rights such as the right to a free and fair trial. The policy also violates the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, to which Israel is a High Contracting Party. It is time to hold Israel accountable to its commitments and to international norms of civilized behavior.
“In carrying out its extrajudicial killings, Israel also is violating U.S. law by employing U.S.-supplied weaponry, including Apache helicopter gunships, in a manner which is proscribed by the U.S. Foreign Assistance and Arms Export Control Acts. United States law stipulates, inter alia, that any defense articles and defense services to any country shall be furnished "solely for internal security, [or] for legitimate self-defense" (22U.S.C. 2302 and 2754). Israel's policy of extrajudicial killings, designed to eliminate Palestine's political leadership and to cow the Palestinian people into submission to Israel's military occupation, hardly qualifies as legitimate self-defense.
“Israel's policy of extrajudicial killings is ultimately counter-productive to its own long-term interests in peace and security, and to the overall stability of the region. The Israeli government claims that its policy of extrajudicial killings is necessary to ensure its security against "terrorists"--Israel's term for any Palestinian who resists its military occupation. However, this policy is short-sighted: By killing Palestinian activists and innocent bystanders, Israel will only succeed in embittering Palestinians more (if this is possible) and increasing their will to resist the occupation. History has proven time and again that it is impossible to kill an idea. No matter how many Palestinian activists Israel murders, it will not succeed in quelling the desire of the Palestinian people to live in freedom, dignity and peace.”
http://www.jppi.org/assassinations.html