468 Revista del Instituto Español de Estudios Estratégicos Núm. 2 / 2013 Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966), which may only be limited subject to strict conditions. Thus, Principle 9 of the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials establishes that these: “shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life”74. Principles that the General Assembly of the United Nations “welcomes”, as well as inviting “governments to respect them and to take them into account within the framework of their national legislation and practice”75. The issue of “imminence” is imperative in the case of drone strikes. This is in particular due to the risk of excessive subjectivity and a lack of transparency as to who is on the lists (in the US) to be assassinated and why76. Everybody also has the right to a fair trial and to not be subjected to inhumane or degrading treatment. An armed drone strike leading to a “targeted killing” or an “extrajudicial execution” clearly does not fulfil these requirements. In fact, the rigidity of IHRL in relation to cases of legitimate use of force, applicable in situations where there is no armed conflict (international or internal), will make it all the more difficult to justify drone strikes against people or groups of people, whether or not they are terrorists77. Moreover, other related matters that call them into question are beginning to be brought to national courts. In one case in the United Kingdom, Noor Khan, son of a Pakistani tribal leader, took the matter to court in 2011 following the death of his father in a CIA-led drone strike78. It should further 74 Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Havana (Cuba) from 27 August to 7 September 1990 (http://www2-ohchr.org; last accessed Friday 13 September 2013). 75 A/45/166. Human rights in the administration of justice, 18 December 1990, paragraph 4. 76 CASEY-MASLEN, Stuart: “Pandora’s box?...” cit., p. 619. 77 “Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal”, states the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions in his report from 2010. Vid. in particular paragraphs 85 and 86 of this report (Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston. Addendum, A/ HRC/14/24/Add.6, 28 May 2010, pp. 1-29 (p. 25); and, likewise, paragraphs 65 to 85 of the Report of the Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns on the matter from 2011 (A/66/330, 30 August 2011, pp. 1-21). 78 The case was brought to British courts based on the understanding that by passing intelligence
REVISTA IEEE 2
To see the actual publication please follow the link above