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)