The Human Rights Agenda and the Struggle Against Impunity

                  This post is a summary of a book review with the title above, from the book, with the ttitle of, "Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda." This article was published in 2017 at https://www.lawfareblog.com/human-rights-agenda-and-struggle-against-impunity. The second summary is from the article published  in 2017 at  http://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/148191/human-rights-impunity. The third was published in 2008 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19289881

                Towards the end of the 20th century, the global human rights movement embarked on a major shift in its agenda and priorities. From the mid-1970 through the late 1980, human rights groups tended to direct their advocacy in opposition to State criminalization of political activity and abuses within domestic criminal justice systems. The primary tactic was naming and shaming; the principal target was the state. From at least the early 1990s, however, the human rights movement underwent a "criminal turn," increasingly directing its resources towards the promotion of criminal prosecution as an indispensable requirement for securing justice, peace and truth in the aftermath of mass atrocity situations. The primary tactic became the promotion of criminal accountability before domestic and international courts, the principal target was the individual. It is this turn towards an anti-impunity norm that forms the focus of a stimulating new collection co-edited by Karen Engle, Zinaida Miller and D. Davis: Anti-Impunity and the Human Rights Agenda. Arriving at a time when the international criminal project is increasingly under scrutiny and a surge in divisive and isolationist populism has put many in the human rights community on the defensive, this collection of essaies offers a timely problematization of the anti-impunity agenda that has come to dominate human rights thinking over the past two decades. Bringing together some of the most prominent and engaged scholars in the field, the collection comprises ten chapters divided into three parts. Part I, define and trace the development of the anti-impunity norm amongst human rights advocates, scholars and practitioners. Examines how moments of anti-impunity against perpetrators of crimes have simultaneously constituted moments of impunity for more actors and injustices caused by systemic inequality. Part II, turns to examine anti-impunity struggles within five specific contexts. Part III contains two chapters that explore alternatives to the struggle against impunity. Albeit in different ways, these chapters manage to successfully carve out space for discussing and more diverse conceptions of justice beyond those that fit neatly within the narrow frame of conventional anti-impunity thinking. Beyond questions of definition, several chapters seek to understand how the anti-impunity agenda rose to prominence over the course of the past few decades. One of the most striking traits of the struggle against impunity has been its self-portrayal as a movement operating both beyond and against the realm of politics. As Zinaida explains anti-impunity has generally been invoked by the human rights movement "as a barricade against a violent and chaotic domestic politics that might infect the international rule of law." Such a perpective depicts politics in reductive terms as a realm of uncontrolled violence that must be assimilated to the serene rationality of an impartial legal process.  Seeking to move away from this depoliticized depiction of the struggle against impunity, the writers explain that one of their shared aims in compiling the collection was "to bring back to the fore the national and global political contexts and stakes that have often been backgrounded by the turn to criminal law, whether in practice or rhetoric." 

                Our country is very much the focus of global concern and attention on the twin issues of human rights and impunity. The U.N. defines human rights as "universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions which interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity." They are inalienable and inherent in each person. The state, or, the government is the primary duty-holder in respecting and promoting human rights and fulfilling the mandates towards their full realization. For the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, impunity means "the impossibility, de jure or de facto, of bringing the perpetrators of violation to account, whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings, since they are not subject to any inguiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims," The 'de facto' impunity refers to the actual functioning of the state institutions to ensure that perpetrators of crimes will be punished, and that victims of crime will receive a compensation; and the 'the jure' impunity, meaning the existence of laws and authorities to hold accountable to perpetrators of crimes and others violations, impose a sanction and redressing the harm caused to victims." Definitely, decision-makers and citizens alike should address the gaps and instill measures to strengthen our institutions, vigorously promote the rule of law, and ensure that transparency and accountability in governance, before it is too late, before we regress to become a failed state like Haiti. The much-revered Senator Jose Dikno, capured  the essence of human rights by saying that, "no cause is more worthy than the cause of  human rights....they are what makes a person human. Deny them and you deny person's humanity." As cititzens, it is our shared duty to learn, promote and protect human rights through human rights education. Human rights are protected no less by our constitution. It unconditionally declares that "The state values the dignity of every human person and gurantees ful respect for human rights." With the wounds of the era of the dictatorship still fresh in our minds, a chapter on human rights is a very important part of our Constitution. Our independent tribunals, offices and commissions such as the Supreme Court, are clearly intended to be removed from the clutches of politics. The failure of a society to prioritize the compliance of laws leads to terrible distortions and structural problems that impede development. Democratic countries that have created strong security and justice intitutions can also achieve high levels of economic and social wellbeing.
              Case studies show that traumatized survivors of serious human rights violations, suffer from persisting impunity in their home countries. Ongoing impunity, the inability to overcome the legal protection of the perpetrators assured by impunity laws, incomplete truthfinding, missing integral reparation and a lack of the necessary acknowledgement by society, represents an important obstacle for the recovery of survivors of human rights violations. There are reports describing that a high percentage of surviviors shows an elevated mental vulnerability caused by impunity. Mental health problems resulting from traumatic experiences can persist or be reactivated by certain events.  In particular, family members of the forcibly disappeared suffer from an incomplete mourning due to the uncertain fate of their beloved ones. The ongoing search for the forcibly disappeared under an atmosphere of impunity puts family members under high risk of retraumatization. Studies from other continents also prove that impunity severely affects mental health. Due to the global character of impunity there can be only little evidence about a positive impact of justice on mental health. Nevertheless, a few examples, in particular from Latin America, show that the combined implementation of memory, truth and justice can have a healing impact on those who suffer from trauma. They demonstrate that the fight against impunity is not only a legitimate moral struggle for human rights, but also a basic need for the sustainable recovery of survivors.