Section 7: THE SYSTEMIC RACISM AND POLICE VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT CONSTITUTE CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

 

Crimes against Humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

 

  1. The Commissioners considered whether the actions by the police and other state agents in the U.S. to unlawfully detain and/or extrajudicially kill people of African descent, constitute Crimes against Humanity (CAH). CAH are part of customary international law and considered peremptory norms from which no derogation is allowed. CAH were defined by the Nuremburg Principles following World War II and later through international courts such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. The Rome State of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), is a treaty that defines specific acts that constitute CAH and established the International Criminal Court (ICC) to ensure accountability for CAH and other crimes when national legal systems fail to do so.

 

  1. S. courts have held “the prohibition of CAH to be a norm that is customary, obligatory, and well defined by international jurisprudence” and as such they are “universally condemned behavior that is subject to prosecution.”[1]

 

  1. From the evidence adduced at the hearings regarding the widespread and systematic killing and maiming of unarmed Black people who posed no threat of death or serious bodily harm to police or others, based on systemic racism, the Commissioners find a prima facie case that Crimes against Humanity have been committed. On this basis, the Commissioners recommend that CAH be investigated and prosecuted as allowed by law.

 

  1. The CAH for which the Commissioners find a prima facie case, are discussed below followed by the findings in support of their conclusions.

 

  1. The Rome State of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), in paragraph 7, sets forth the most widely accepted[2] formulation of the pertinent CAH.

 

“For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:  (a) Murder;  (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;  (f) Torture;  (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;  (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.[3]

 

Common Elements

 

Widespread or Systematic

 

  1. A Crime against Humanity must be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against civilians. “Attack” is defined in the Rome Statute as “a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts.”[4]

Policy

  1. The attack must be carried out pursuant to or in furtherance of State or organizational policy to commit such an attack. The ICC has interpreted “policy” to mean “that a State or organisation intends to carry out an attack against a civilian population, whether through action or deliberate failure to take action.”[5] A “formal design” is not required.[6] Rather,

…the existence of such a State or organisational policy can … be inferred by discernment of, among other things, repeated actions occurring according to a same sequence, or the existence of preparations or collective mobilisation orchestrated and coordinated by that State or organisation.”[7]

  1. In Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,[8] the ICC Trial Chamber ruled:

the “policy” need not be formalized and may be inferred from a variety of factors which, taken together, establish that a policy existed, including: (i) the attack was planned, directed or organized; (ii) a recurrent pattern of violence; (iii) the use of public or private resources to further the policy; (iv) the involvement of the State forces in the commission of crimes; (v) statements, instructions or documentation attributable to the State condoning or encouraging the commission of crimes; (vi) an underlying motivation. (emphasis added) (para. 160)

 

  1. With respect to inferring a policy, after reviewing a number of factors, the Trial Chamber ruled that “any suggestion that the crimes were the result of an uncoordinated and spontaneous decision of the perpetrators, as, acting in isolation, is not a reasonable conclusion.” (emphasis added) (para. 685)

 

  1. The Trial Chamber ruled that a policy will (and in some cases must) be inferred when it is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from factors of: evidence of modus operandi (para. 676, 680); repeated commission of acts over a period of time (para. 676); repeated commission of acts over broad geographic area (para. 677); consistent evidence of perpetrators’ motives (para. 678); the scale on which the impugned acts were carried out indicated knowledge by the State authorities (para. 679); authorities gave orders “to exercise vigilance against civilians in the CAR, including the use of force towards them. (para. 682); inadequate training and Codes of Conduct (para. 683); or senior authorities aware of crimes and “failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the crimes.” (emphasis added) (para. 683)

 

Knowledge that the Actions Are Part of a Widespread or Systematic Attack

  1. Article 30 of the Rome Statute provides guidance on the requisite mental (knowledge) element:
    1. Unless otherwise provided, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court only if the material elements are committed with intent and knowledge.
    2. For the purposes of this article, a person has intent where:
  • In relation to conduct, that person means to engage in the conduct;
  • In relation to a consequence, that person means to cause that consequence or is aware that it will occur in the ordinary course of events.
  1. For the purposes of this article, ‘knowledge’ means awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events. ‘Know’ and ‘knowingly’ shall be construed accordingly.

 

  1. The Elements of Crime[9] cautions against requiring that the perpetrator have knowledge of a State plan or policy but seeks to impose a requirement that the State actively promote or encourage the attack.

 

  1. ICC jurisprudence confirms that the perpetrator must know that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be part of a widespread or systematic attack.[10] There must be “proof that the perpetrator of the act knowingly participated in the attack directed against a civilian population…”[11] However, “proof that the perpetrator had knowledge of all of the characteristics of the attack or the precise details of the plan or policy of the State or organisation” need not be proven.[12]

 

  1. Again, in Prosecutor V. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo,[13] the ICC Trial Chamber ruled:

 

Paragraph 2 of the Introduction to Article 7 of the Elements of Crimes does not require proof that the perpetrator had knowledge of the precise details of the plan or policy only that the perpetrator knew or intended conduct to be part of an attack on a civilian population.

 

  1. The knowledge requirement “may also be satisfied by a perpetrator engaging in conduct envisaged by the policy, and with knowledge thereof.”[14]

 

 

There Is a Prima Facie Case that Systemic Racist Police Violence in the U.S. Amounts to Crimes against Humanity

 

  1. The findings of the Commissioners demonstrate a prima facie case of Crimes against Humanity warranting an investigation by the ICC. The crimes include murder, severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, persecution of people of African descent, and other inhuman acts, which occurred in the context of a widespread or systematic attack directed against the civilian population of people of African descent in the U.S.

 

  1. While the U.S. is not a State party to the Rome Statute, for the purposes of this analysis, and as stated in the Recommendations herein, the Commissioners recommend that the U.S. Executive Branch accept the jurisdiction of the ICC in recognition of the U.S.’s avowed commitment to promote human rights and oppose impunity for violations around the globe. The Commissioners also recommend that the U.S. president sign the Rome Statute and transmit it to the U.S. Senate for consent to ratification.

 

 

The Killing and Maiming of People of African Descent in the U.S. by Police Amounts to a Widespread or Systematic Attack Directed against the Black Civilian Population, with Knowledge of the Attack

 

  1. The following findings of the Commissioners establish the existence of a widespread or systematic attack directed against people of African descent:

 

  • The Commissioners found that use of force against unarmed people of African descent during traffic and investigatory stops is driven by racial stereotypes and racial biases;

 

  • The Commissioners found that U.S. law enforcement agencies routinely target people of African descent based on racist associations between Blackness and criminality;[15]

 

  • The Commissioners found that pretextual traffic stops are a common precursor to police killings and uses of excessive force against people of African descent;

 

  • The Commissioners found that race-based street stops, otherwise known as “stop-and-frisk,” are another form of “order maintenance” policing that drives not only racially disparate rates of arrests, but often triggers deadly use of force by police;[16]

 

  • The Commissioners found that order maintenance policing relies on racialized assumptions about what constitutes disorder and which communities are disorderly;

 

  • The Commissioners found a pattern of police killings of Black people after violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons and houses from unreasonable searches and seizures;

 

  • In nearly every case that Commissioners examined, they found police used excessive force against Black people, all of whom were unarmed or non-threatening.

 

  1. Further, national data show:

 

  • “Most killings began with police responding to suspected non-violent offensesor cases where no crime was reported,”[17] and

 

  • “Black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police when Blacks are not attacking or do not have a weapon.”[18]

 

 

  1. All of the above findings and data support the requisite element of “widespread and systematic attack” as one carried out pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy. As stated by the ICC Trial Chamber,[19] a policy will be inferred when it is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from factors including repeated commission of acts over a period of time (para. 676); repeated commission of acts over broad geographic area (para. 677); the scale on which the impugned acts were carried out indicated knowledge by the State authorities (para. 679); inadequate training and Codes of Conduct (para. 683); [or] senior authorities were aware of the crimes and “failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the crimes.” (para. 683).

 

  1. Such a policy may be inferred as to the U.S. and police killings of people of African descent. Specifically, since U.S. law does not comply with international law and standards on the use of force, and as the U.S. has repeatedly failed to bring its domestic law into compliance with international law and standards, a finding of the requisite policy is warranted.

 

  1. Moreover, the Commissioners’ findings with respect to systemic impunity, complicity of legal actors, and qualified immunity further support the finding of a policy pursuant to which a “widespread and systematic attack” was carried out.

 

  1. Accordingly, the systematic racial targeting of people of African descent by law enforcement in the U.S, supports a finding of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population. Thus, this contextual element of CAH is met.

 

U.S. Police Officers Act with Knowledge of the Systematic Attack on People of African Descent

 

  1. As stated in Article 7, the knowledge element is satisfied “if the perpetrator intended to further” a widespread or systematic attack. The element “may also be satisfied by a perpetrator engaging in conduct envisaged by the policy, and with knowledge thereof.”[20] Article 30 defines knowledge as “awareness that a circumstance exists or a consequence will occur in the ordinary course of events.” As the police officers knowingly engaged in conduct envisaged by the policy, the knowledge requirement is satisfied as to all crimes.

 

The Commissioners Find a Prima Facie Case Has Been Established of the Commission of the Following Crimes against Humanity: 

 

Police Killings of People of African Descent in the U.S. Amount to the Crime against Humanity of Murder

 

  1. In addition to the existence of a widespread or systematic attack and the presence of the requisite knowledge, the perpetrator of the CAH of murder must have killed one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population, and the conduct must have constituted, or taken place as part of, a mass killing of members of a civilian population. (Rome Statute, Article 7(1)(a))
  2. Forty-three of the 44 cases heard by the Commissioners resulted in the victims’ deaths. A finding of murder requires that the killing occurred as part of “a mass killing of members of a civilian population.” As previously stated, “Black people are 3.5 times more likely than white people to be killed by police when Blacks are not attacking or do not have a weapon.”[21] Today one out of 1,000 Black men can expect to be killed by police violence over the course of his life, which is roughly 2.5 times the likelihood of white men being killed by police.[22] Black women are significantly more likely to be killed by police than their white counterparts, as they are 1.4 times more likely to be killed by police than white women.[23] In 2020, 1,127 people were killed by police, of which 28% were Black.[24] Thus, both in absolute numbers and rate of incidence within the population of people of African descent, a finding of mass killing is warranted. Further, there are no facts to support a finding that U.S. law enforcement does not knowingly participate in an attack directed against a civilian population of people of African descent.

 

  1. As determined by the ICC in Gombo, a policy will or must be inferred when the existence of a state policy is the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. From the cases reviewed by the Commissioners, the existence of a policy to allow the killing of people of African descent by police with impunity must be inferred, in light of the evidence of: repeated commission of acts over time and locations, consistent evidence of methods used to kill victims, the lack of legal justification, knowledge by the State authorities of disproportionate unlawful killing and injury by police of people of African descent, and the absence of effective prophylactic or remedial measures taken by the State.

 

Police Killings of People of African Descent in the U.S. Amount to the Crime against Humanity of Severe Deprivation of Liberty

 

  1. Under article 7(1)(e), the severe deprivation of liberty of people of African descent constitutes a CAH if the following criteria are proven:
  2. A person of African descent was detained or otherwise severely deprived of his or her physical liberty;
  3. The detention was arbitrary, that is, without legal basis or due process of law. The legal basis justifying detention cannot be contrary to international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
  4. The perpetrator intended to deprive a person of African descent of his or her physical liberty and/or intended to cause that consequence, or was aware that it would occur in the ordinary course of events; 
  5. There was a course of conduct involving the commission of multiple arbitrary detentions of people of African descent. People of African descent were targeted as the primary population, that is, as an identifiable group/collective and not a limited and randomly selected number of individuals or an incidental group. 
  6. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber interpreting Article 7(1) (e) of the Rome Statute established the requirement that the deprivation of liberty is “in violation of fundamental rules of international law” and that brevity of the deprivation is not a defense.[25]

 

  1. The lack of due process and legal basis for deprivation of physical liberty is the essence of arbitrary detention. Freedom from arbitrary detention is enshrined in Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)[26] and guaranteed by Article 9 of the ICCPR.[27] The International Court of Justice (ICJ) emphasized that wrongful deprivation of liberty “is in itself manifestly incompatible with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as well as with the fundamental principles enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”[28] The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) characterizes the prohibition of arbitrary detention as a peremptory or jus cogens norm of international law, a fundamental rule of international law prohibited by customary international law.[29]

 

  1. In General Comment No. 36,[30] the UN Human Rights Committee (HR Committee) defines the arbitrary deprivation of liberty as:
  • Lacking a legal basis or inconsistent with life-protecting laws and procedures (Article 11); or,
  • Inconsistent with international or domestic law (Article 12).

 

  1. The WGAD describes as arbitrary any detention where, inter alia, “it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the deprivation of liberty” or “deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of the international law for reasons of discrimination based on birth; national, ethnic or social origin…”[31]
  2. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties[32] also prohibits State Parties to the ICCPR and other treaties from invoking domestic law as a justification for violation of treaty obligations.

Article 27 – Internal law and observance of treaties

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46.

 

  1. The overall findings of the Commission justify the conclusion that people of African descent are subjected to severe deprivation of liberty in the U.S. by the practice of unlawful arbitrary detention in connection with their killing and maiming by police. Specifically, in every case heard by the Commissioners, victims were stopped, detained, or restrained such that they were severely deprived of their liberty.

 

  1. All such detentions violated international law. Article 9 of the ICCPR provides: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.” The Commissioners found a widespread pattern of police arbitrarily detaining people of African descent.

 

  1. The Commissioners found a pattern of police killings of Black people after violations of their Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons and homes from unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of domestic law, and necessarily in violation of the higher standard set by international law. While not all victims were stopped in violation of the Fourth Amendment, given that the Fourth Amendment and the international law obligations are not coextensive, the presence of racial profiling in all cases heard by the Commissioners nonetheless establishes that victims were detained in violation of the international law regarding nondiscrimination. The CAT and HR Committee have concluded that racial profiling is a prohibited form of discrimination. The CERD recently identified people of African descent as particularly vulnerable to racial profiling.[33] The HR Committee General Recommendation No. 35 states, “[a]n arrest or detention may be authorized by domestic law and nevertheless be arbitrary.”[34] As the detention of victims in the cases heard by the Commissioners was arbitrary—as discussed with regard to use of force—such detention violates international law.

 

  1. The circumstances under which the victims were detained support a finding that law enforcement officers intended to detain the victims. The Commission’s findings supporting “widespread or systematic attack” and mass killings of people of African descent in connection with the crime of murder, equally support a finding that people of African descent were targeted as the primary population for detention. Indeed, in every case but one, the same targeting that culminated in murder began with detention.

 

  1. Accordingly, because the requisite elements under the Rome Statute are met, the Commission finds that in cases before it, people of African descent were victims of the CAH of severe deprivation of liberty.

 

Police Killings and Maiming of People of African Descent in the U.S. Amount to the Crime against Humanity of Torture

 

  1. With respect to torture, the Commissioners have previously set forth their findings that support a violation of the UNCAT by the use of Tasers, restraints, rough rides, and vehicular attacks, and intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering in the cases heard by the Commissioners. In addition, police choking, suffocating, shooting, and denial of medical care after shootings and maiming of Black people amounts to torture. As previously stated, the elements of a “widespread or systemic attack” are met and the intention and knowledge of the consequences of the commission of the act established.

 

Police Killings of People of African Descent in the U.S. Amount to the Crime against Humanity of Persecution

 

  1. The elements required to establish the Crime against Humanity of Persecution, including intention and knowledge, are as follows:

 

  1. In violation of International Law, the perpetrator deprived one or more persons of their fundamental rights;

 

  1. The perpetrator targeted such person or persons by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity or targeted the group or collectivity as such;

 

  1. Such targeting was based on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, of the Statute, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law; and,

 

  1. The conduct was committed in connection with any act referred to in article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.

 

  1. The overall findings of the Commissioners amount to a prima facie showing that people of African descent are subjected to persecution within the meaning of the Rome Statute. The failure of U.S. law to comply with international law deprives people of African descent of fundamental human rights. Specifically, the statistics regarding people of African descent being subjected to widespread criminalization, denigration, surveillance, arbitrary arrest, warrantless search, arbitrary detention, targeting with lethal force, killing, and disparate policing establishes that Black people are targeted “by reason of the identity.” This targeting is recognized as impermissible under international law, as evidenced by the remarks of the CERD’s comments on torturous, cruel, and degrading treatment against Black people in the U.S. in its General Recommendations No. 36. CERD found that racial profiling of Black individuals can lead to numerous forms of inhuman and degrading treatment. These consequences include “the overcriminalization of certain categories of persons protected under the Convention; the reinforcement of misleading stereotypical associations between crime and ethnicity and the cultivation of abusive operational practices; disproportionate incarceration rates for groups protected under the Convention; the underreporting of acts of racial discrimination and hate crimes; and the handing down by courts of harsher sentences against members of targeted communities.”[35] These acts of persecution occur in the context of the Crimes against Humanity of murder and torture as discussed above.

 

Police Killings of People of African Descent in the U.S. Amount to the Crime against Humanity of Inhuman Treatment

 

  1. Under the Rome Statute, a finding of inhuman treatment requires that “the perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health, by means of an inhumane act,” “of a character similar to any other act referred to in article 7” as part of “widespread or systematic attack,” of which the perpetrator was aware.

 

  1. The testimony of the victims’ family members establishes community trauma resulting from criminalization, racial profiling, order maintenance, and the police killings and torture of family members, loved ones, and others persons of African descent. These widespread practices have resulted in collective mental suffering of and negative health effects on Black people throughout the U.S. This collective mental suffering is of a character similar to persecution and occurs pursuant to the same policy that amounts to a “widespread or systematic attack” on people of African descent. Given the long-documented history of the effects of structural racism and police violence against Black people, supported by statistical evidence and further evidenced by the largest protest movement in the history of the U.S. during the summer of 2020 in response to the killing of George Floyd, the knowledge requirement is also met. Accordingly, the Commissioners find that the police killings of people of African descent in the U.S. amount to inhuman treatment of the U.S. Black population.

 

  1. In sum, the Commissioners find a prima facie case of the CAH of murder, severe deprivation of liberty, torture, persecution, and inhuman treatment, as set forth above.

 

Effective Remedies for Crimes against Humanity

 

  1. All International Human Rights treaties provide that victims of human rights violations by state actors and actions are entitled to an effective remedy. Without effective remedies, rights on paper provide no protection to victims of such violations.[36]

481. The HR Committee stated that impunity may be “an important contributing element in the recurrence of … violations,” and that the article 2(3) State duty to provide an effective remedy may in appropriate cases require guarantees of non-repetition and changes in relevant laws and practices.[37] 

  1. Although the U.S. participated in negotiations leading up to creation was a progenitor of the Rome Statute, the U.S. voted against it in 1998 (joining China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen); signed it in 2000; and, formally withdrew its signature in May 2002.

 

  1. The Commissioners recommend the U.S. accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC under Article 12. The Commissioners further recommend that the U.S. president sign the Rome Statute and transmit it to the U.S. Senate for consent to ratification.

 

  1. Absent such action, or the U.S. failure to prosecute the above crimes as CAH in U.S. courts, such crimes may be prosecuted under the concept of Universal jurisdiction.

 

Prosecuting Crimes against Humanity under Universal Jurisdiction

 

  1. Universal jurisdiction is a well-established doctrine that allows a State to prosecute foreign nationals for CAH even if the crimes did not take place in the territory of the prosecuting State and were not alleged to have been committed by or against a national of the state. Some crimes, including war crimes, Crimes against Humanity, and genocide, are deemed so atrocious they should not go unpunished. “The perpetrators are considered hostes humani generis – ‘enemies of all mankind,” Rick Gladstone wrote in The New York Times. The Geneva Conventions and CAT obligate (and customary international law allows) States to bring foreign nationals to justice for Crimes against Humanity, which are considered grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides:

 

Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions], and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.

 

  1. Universal jurisdiction was used by Israel in the early 1960’s to try, convict, and execute Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust even they had no direct connection to Israel. The U.S. prosecuted, tried, and sentenced Chuckie Taylor of Liberia to U.S. federal prison for torture committed in Liberia, which was unconnected to the U.S.

 

  1. If the systemic racist police violence committed in the U.S. against people of African descent is found to qualify as Crimes against Humanity, other States, in the absence of the US taking the actions required by international human rights law, may seek to take lawful actions to prevent and remedy violations including, where possible, seeking to prosecute suspected perpetrators, accomplices, and supervisors. Indeed, the global outrage following the public execution of George Floyd, and continuing killings of African-Americans in the U.S., may lead other States to prosecute under universal jurisdiction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Doe v. Rafael Saravia, 348 F.Supp.2d 1112 (E.D. Cal 2004). 

[2]  See Sean D. Murphy, First report on crimes against humanity, International Law Commission, 67th Sess., U.N. Doc A/CN.4/680 (2015) at ¶ 26-64, 121, available at: http://legal.un.org/docs/?symbol=A/CN.4/680.

[3] The Rome Statute provides definitions of the terms in Paragraph 1 of Section 7 as well as the elements of the above listed crimes.   The specific provisions considered by the Commissioners are provided in the International Law Addendum appended to this report.

[4] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 art. 7(1), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a84.html [accessed 26 March 2021]. The specific provisions considered by the Commissioners are provided in Appendix 2 to this report.

[5] Prosecutor v Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute (7 March 2014) at para 1108 (ICC, Trial Chamber II).

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at para 1109.

[8] Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08 (Mar. 21, 2016), available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2016_02238.PDF.; The Appeal Chamber Decision (June 8, 2018) (ruled on other grounds), available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/180608-bemba-judgment-summary.pdf.

[9] See Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ff5dd7d2.html (accessed 4 March 2021).

[10] Katanga, at ¶ 782.

[11] Id. at ¶ 1125.

[12] Id.

[13] Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo No.: ICC-01/05-01/08, at ¶ 167. (Mar. 21, 2016), https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2016_02238.PDF.

[14] Id. at ¶ 161.

[15] Khalil Gibran Muhammad, The Condemnation of Blackness: Race, Crime, and the Making of Modern Urban America (Harvard University Press, 2019).

[16] Pathway to Police Violence, supra n. 100.

[17] Sawyer, supra. n. 96.

[18] Ray, supra. n. 4.

[19] Gombo, supra.n. 356.

[20] Prosecutor v Jean-Pierre Bemba, No.: ICC-01/05-01/08, at ¶ 161.

[21] Ray, supra n. 4.

[22] Edwards, Lee, & Esposito, supra n. 6.

[23] Id.

[24] Mapping Police Violence, supra n. 175.

[25] ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Burundi, ICC-01/17-X-9-US-Exp, at ¶

  68 (Oct. 26, 2017), available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/CourtRecords/CR2017_06720.PDF.

[26] G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, at art 9.

[27] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, June 8, 1992, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

[28] See United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v Iran), Judgment, 1980 I.C.J. 3, ¶

  1.  

[29]UN H.R.C., Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, ¶ 75, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/22/44 24 (Dec. 2012), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/511cca5e2.html (accessed Feb. 19 2021).

[30] UNHRC, General Comment No. 36: Article 6 (Right to Life).

[31] A/HRC/22/44 24 at ¶ 38.

[32] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S 331(signed by the U.S. on 24 April 1970), available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3a10.html (accessed Feb. 18, 2021) (hereinafter (“VCLT”).

[33] CERD, General Recommendation No. 36 on preventing and combating racial profiling by

law enforcement officials, ¶ 6, U.N. Doc CERD/C/GC/36 (Dec. 11 2020).

[34] CCPR General Comment No. 35, Article 9 (Liberty and security of person), ¶ 12, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/GC/35 (Dec. 16, 2014).

 

[35] CERD/C/GC/36 at ¶ 30.

[36] Based on the UDHR, the ICCPR, ICERD and UNCAT all require effective remedies for violations of the rights guaranteed in those treaties.

[37] H.R. Committee, General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, ¶ 18, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6, (April 24, 2004), available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/478b26ae2.html.

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Telegram
Email
Print