Considered as a plague afflicting humanity, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions are both

outlawed under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. This paper presents
treaty provisions under both international law regimes to show the existing principles, norms, and
standards applicable to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions.

This report shows who and how may perpetrators be held liable for committing these abominable crimes.
Relevant jurisprudence are presented to show how the doctrines of command responsibility and common
purpose can be made to apply to the officers and personnel of the police and armed forces who ordered,
planned, and actually carried out enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions. Treaty provisions
are also presented to show that the scourge of enforced disappearances can be considered, under certain
circumstances, as a crime against humanity.

This paper discusses the state obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators, provide
effective remedies to victims, and prevent the recurrence of enforced disappearances.

Due to impunity, state actors are able to undermine the rule of law through their perpetuation of enforced
disappearances and extrajudicial executions on a national scale. The systematic and widespread
perpetration of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances in various parts of the country
indicates that the perpetrators are committing these crimes in pursuance of a plan, policy, or scheme
formulated and directed by high-ranking officials. The wide scale commission of enforced disappearances
and extrajudicial executions can make the perpetrators liable for crimes against humanity.

Breaking down the wall of impunity poses an enormous challenge to the courts and other stakeholders.
Multifaceted and multilevel initiatives and responses in national and international levels, especially in the
preventive aspect, needed to be carried out.

The Philippine executive, judicial, and legislative departments need to muster a strong political will to
investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of enforced disappearances and extrajudicial
executions.
An extrajudicial killing (also known as extrajudicial execution) is the killing of a person by governmental
authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are
mostly seen by humanity to be unethical, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which
they occur.[citation needed]Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and
social figures and are only those carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed
forces or police, as extra-legal fulfillment of their prescribed role.
Section 3(a) of the United States Torture Victim Protection Act contains a definition of extrajudicial killing:
a deliberate killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regular constituted court affording
all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however,
does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a
foreign nation.
Extrajudicial killing is defined as a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment
pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are
recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252
(11th Cir. Fla. 2009)
Arbitrary arrest and arbitrary detention are the arrest or detention of an individual in a case in which there is no
likelihood or evidence that they committed a crime against legal statute, or in which there has been no proper due
process of law
Arbitrarily depriving an individual of their liberty is strictly prohibited by the United Nations' division for human rights.
Article 9 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rightsdecrees that "no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile";[5] that is, no individual, regardless of circumstances, is to be deprived of their liberty
or exiled from their country without having first committed an actual criminal offense against a legal statute, and the
government cannot deprive an individual of their liberty without proper due process of law. As well, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifies the protection from arbitrary arrest and detention by the Article 9.

The US has been known to employ extrajudicial tactics including Extraordinary Rendition, the term
"torture by proxy" is used by some critics to describe situations in which the CIA[8][9][10][11] and other US
agencies have performed such rendition techniques upon suspected terrorists by transferring them to
countries known to utilize torture. It has been claimed that torture has been employed with the knowledge
or acquiescence of US agencies (a transfer of anyone to anywhere for the purpose of torture is a violation
of US law), although Condoleezza Rice (then the United States Secretary of State) stated that:[12]
the United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we
believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons
will not be tortured."
The CIA has been accused of operating secret detention and interrogation centres known as black sites.
These are allegedly located in countries other than the US, thus evading US laws as they are outside US
jurisdiction.

1. There is a need for a clear-cut definition of what extrajudicial killing is, for homicide and murder are extrajudicial
killings too. The name is a misnomer since every killing, outside of the death penalty, is extrajudicial. Shouldnt the crime
be called a political killing instead? When will a case fall under extrajudicial killings in order that the special court can
assume jurisdiction? Thus, the motive must be determined during investigation. This is relevant in the light of the
existence of special courts to handle such cases. A categorical definition would pinpoint who are to be held liable and who
are the victims.

An international NGO observed that such extrajudicial killings in the Philippines show a common pattern:

Surveillance and threats to the victims presumptively by officers;

The above traits, however, may also be present in killings made by groups like the Abu Sayaff, MILF, or even political
opponents. How then do we distinguish these crimes, especially in determining jurisdiction of special courts?

2. The investigation, evidence-gathering, and the witness protection program of the State must be strengthened. A speedy
and full investigation on the part of the police must be done. Also, the witnesses to these human rights crimes must be
encouraged to testify, for they will have to go up against the police and the military. They must be assured that they will be
protected during the investigation and the trial proceedings.

3. The possibility of putting up a multisectoral agency composed of representatives from the NGOs, civil society, military,
police, church, media, and the judiciary. Such will focus solely on investigating such human rights crimes and serve as
prosecutor. And this agency can report its findings to the court handling the case.

4. The need to educate and orient the police and military thru seminars about our laws on human rights, reminding them
that the country is a civilian society and that the rights of the people to association, to privacy, to liberty, and to life, must
be protected at all times. The police and military should act within the bounds of law and not attack indiscriminately
whom they call insurgents.
5. The judiciary will have to bring back the confidence of the people in it by speedily disposing cases involving human
rights violations, holding the perpetrators fully accountable to the crimes. Incidentally, another thing to consider is this: If
one is merely acting under the orders of a superior, will the former be exculpated or will there be a solidary liability as
principals?

We hope that this summit will not turn out to be just rhetoric. The judiciary for sure is facing another challenge and
expresses its cooperation to address the problem. The bottom line is actually the political will Are we ready to
prosecute the top guns behind these human rights crimes?

NHRIs are usually able to deal with any human rights issue directly involving a public authority. In
relation to non-state entities, some national human rights institutions have at least one of the
following functions:

addressing grievances or disputes involving certain kinds of company (for instance state-owned
enterprises, private companies providing public services,or companies that operate at the
federal level)
addressing only certain types of human rights issue (for instance non-discrimination or labour
rights)
addressing complaints or disputes raising any human rights issue and involving any company.[6]
Additionally they may promote and protect the responsibilities of the state and the rights of the
individual by:

providing advice to the state to help determine its international and domestic human rights
obligations and commitments
receiving, investigating and resolving human rights complaints
providing human rights education and publicity for all sections of society (particularly minority
groups such as refugees)
monitoring the human rights situation in the state and its subsequent actions
engaging with the human rights international community to advocate for human right
recommendations and to raise pressing issues for the state.[7]
Promoting and educating human rights may involve informing the public about the commission's own
functions and purposes; provoking discussion about various important questions in the field of
human rights; organizing seminars; holding counselling services and meetings; as well as producing
and disseminating human rights publications.[7] Another important function of a human rights
commission is systematically reviewing a government's human rights policy in order to detect
shortcomings in human rights observance and to suggest ways of improving.[7] This often
includes human rights proofing of draft legislation, or policies. The degree to which the
recommendations or rulings produced by a human rights institution can be enforced varies based on
the human rights climate surrounding the institution.
Human rights commissions may also monitor the state's compliance with its own and with
international human rights laws and if necessary, recommend changes. The realization of human
rights cannot be achieved solely through legislation and administrative arrangements; therefore,
commissions are often entrusted with the important responsibility of improving
community awareness of human rights.
According to the Paris Principles, the 'National human rights institutions' are obliged to make
"preparation of reports on the national situation with regard to human rights in general, and
on more specific matters"; and this is mostly done in annual status reports
The Commission on Human Rights passed resolutions in 1992 which recommended promotion of
such institutions by government's that did not yet have any, and also promote the development of
those that did.[9] At the end of the 20th Century the United Nations Commission would take over
tasks that require international involvement. Regional human rights agreements also encouraged
this development and establishment of human rights institutions as technical assistance was
provided through international arrangements (such as the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human
Rights Institutions).[9]
NHRIs in some member states work at the international and regional level (such as in the
European Union).[10] They may work as preventative mechanisms for non-discrimination of minority
groups or international crimes (such as torture).[10] The authority and expertise that NHRIs
customarily hold provides them the ability to promote equal treatment. Ultimately they are a useful
tool in assisting states to comply with international rights standards by providing a uniquely objective
perspective and addressing and resolving issues at the domestic level.[10]
Coupled with the United Nations, NHRIs are protecting and providing comprehensive and wide-
ranging solutions. However some states are unwilling to give effect to these sanctions, and the
United Nations is unable to conduct the widespread and analytical monitoring of countries. In
order to be legitimate, effective and credible NHRIs must be independent and effective.[11] One of the
most effective tools that NHRIs have is their unique position between the responsibilities of
government and the rights of civil society and non governmental organisations (NGOs). This
conceptual space gives NHRIs a positively distinctive role, acting as a different protection service for
the people and different tools available to hold the state and other bodies accountable for human
rights breaches.[11] However being independent from government and NGOs provides greater
difficulty when funding, and working relationships are taken into account.[11] In most countries
they receive government funding, and are also created and appointed by a governmental
body.[11] This creates somewhat of a parallel obligation and taints the idea of the institutions
autonomy and makes it harder to pursue their individual agenda.