E. Rotania May Not Justify Its Actions Referring To The Crimes Committed By Detainees

The most important principle for proving the violation of international law by Rotania is point 6 of the Body: “No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”[24]. Consequently, Rotania could not cite the fact that the detained Adovan citizens were terrorists or any other circumstance to justify their subjection to torture. Firstly, the Proclamation of Colonel Vinitsa should be admitted illegitimate. Secondly, Samara Penza and other members of LAPS are not terrorists. Therefore, Rotania may not justify its actions.

Furthermore, the detainees were not informed by Rotania of the reasons for their arrest at the time of arrest. This contradicts with the principle 10 of the Body: “Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him”. Also the detainees had to receive the information on and an explanation of their rights and how to avail themselves of such rights. This is readily apparent from the principle 13 of the Body: “Any person shall, at the moment of arrest and at the commencement of detention or imprisonment, or promptly thereafter, be provided by the authority responsible for his arrest, detention or imprisonment, respectively with information on and an explanation of his rights and how to avail himself of such rights”. Rotania and its officials did not keep the procedure of the detention and it also constitutes the infringement of international law.

In this case after the apprehension of Adovan citizens, in his public statement the Prime Minister of Adova on 4 April 2007 (Comp.31) demanded that Rotania immediately disclose the location of the detainees. Rotania failed to fulfill this demand. However, this demand is corroborated by Principle 16 of the Body:

“1. Promptly after arrest and after each transfer from one place of detention or imprisonment to another, a detained or imprisoned person shall be entitled to notify or to require the competent authority to notify members of his family or other appropriate persons of his choice of his arrest, detention or imprisonment or of the transfer and of the place where he is kept in custody.

2. If a detained or imprisoned person is a foreigner, he shall also be promptly informed of his right to communicate by appropriate means with a consular post or the diplomatic mission of the State of which he is a national or which is otherwise entitled to receive such communication in accordance with international law or with the representative of the competent international organization, if he is a refugee or is otherwise under the protection of an intergovernmental organization”. [25]

Therefore, Rotania has also infringed this principle.

Finally, the principle 37 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988 contains the following provision: “A person detained on a criminal charge shall be brought before a judicial or other authority provided by law promptly after his arrest. Such authority shall decide without delay upon the lawfulness and necessity of detention. No person may be kept under detention pending investigation or trial except upon the written order of such an authority. A detained person shall, when brought before such an authority, have the right to make a statement on the treatment received by him while in custody”.

The detained Adovan citizens were held in custody in Camp Indigo (Merkistan) since they were apprehended on 3 April 2007 and till 26 April 2007 when they were finally transferred to the custody of the Rotanian Military Commission and arraigned. They were not brought before any authority to decide upon the lawfulness and necessity of their detention. Therefore, this fact also constituted the violation of international law.

Date: 2015-12-17; view: 590