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.
            In the above case, the fact was that from August 1971 until December 1975 the untied kingdom authorities exercised a series of “of      [1]“extrajudicial” powers of arrest, detention and internment in Northern Ireland. The case concerned the Irish government’s complaint about the scope and implementation of those measures and in particular the practice of psychological interrogation techniques (will standing, hooding, subjection to noise and deprivation of sleep, food and drink) during the prevention detention of those detained in connection with acute of terrorism.
            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.
            In the case of Aksoy V. Turkey50, derogations were made by the Turkish Government in respect of south-east turkey due to disturbances between the security forces and members of the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan (PKK), a terrorist organization. These derogations were made in line with the provision of article 15 (derogation in time of an emergency) of European convention on human rights which provides; “in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any high contracting party may take measures derogating from its obligations [2]provided that such measures are not inconsistent with other obligations under international law”.
            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 [3]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.

48 The Nigerian Muslim who bombed the police Headquarters, Abuja, Nigeria  extracted from www.nairaland.com, 17 January, 2014  
49 European Courts of Human Rights, 18 July 1961
50 European Courts of Human Rights, 18 December 1996
51 European Courts of Human Rights, 4 July, 2006 (Grand chamber)
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin