• Under human rights framework, there is no need to categorize various acts into
piracy, armed robbery at sea, those, which threaten the maritime security, and
those, which do not.
• Its emphasis on victimization means that all of these acts can equally be regardless of where they take place or the types of act involved, provided that they
breach relevant norms and principles.
17
The international human rights instruments have fuelled these considerations. For
instance, the ICCPR places a clear duty in relation to victims’ access to remedies.
Article 2(3) reclaims that States have to ensure that any person whose rights or
freedom as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy. Similar
provisions exist in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the American
Convention on Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights affirmed on 12th July 2008, in the case of
Medvedyev and Others v. France,
18 which can be transposed to the case of piracy,
that States are obliged to ensure to everyone within their jurisdiction their basic
rights and freedom guaranteed by the international instruments on human rights. The
court asserted that France had breached its obligation to conform to human rights as
stipulated in Article 5 (1) of ECHR. The court justified this position by considering
that the legal norms cited as a reason for the detention of persons intercepted under
the combat against drugs trafficking did not constitute the conditions of deprivation
of the liberty on the ship and therefore the authorities did not offer an adequate
protection from arbitrary interference to the right to liberty.
This case, has undoubtedly given a different vision to actions taken by States in
the combat against piracy. Thus, States may be required to justify the lawfulness of
the arrest of suspect buildings, the confiscation or the destruction of materials and
arms, and conform to human rights conventions. Furthermore, they have to justify
the conditions of arrest, the transfer and the detention of pirates alleged in order to
judge them, extradite them, or to transfer them to a third country. The obligations
arising from the international human rights dictate to States some of their behavior.
Combating piracy and other act of violence at sea must be treated not only under
current legal framework arising from the international law of the sea, but also by
adhering to the international human rights conventions. These two frameworks are
complementary to each other and leveraging both of them should yield dividend and
a positive outcome for the captives.
17 Ibid, 23-24.
18 This case concerns the capture and detention of people in the high seas in the case of drug
trafficking.
The Application of Human Rights and Ethics Principles to Self-. . .
395
piracy, armed robbery at sea, those, which threaten the maritime security, and
those, which do not.
• Its emphasis on victimization means that all of these acts can equally be regardless of where they take place or the types of act involved, provided that they
breach relevant norms and principles.
17
The international human rights instruments have fuelled these considerations. For
instance, the ICCPR places a clear duty in relation to victims’ access to remedies.
Article 2(3) reclaims that States have to ensure that any person whose rights or
freedom as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy. Similar
provisions exist in the European Convention on Human Rights and in the American
Convention on Human Rights.
The European Court of Human Rights affirmed on 12th July 2008, in the case of
Medvedyev and Others v. France,
18 which can be transposed to the case of piracy,
that States are obliged to ensure to everyone within their jurisdiction their basic
rights and freedom guaranteed by the international instruments on human rights. The
court asserted that France had breached its obligation to conform to human rights as
stipulated in Article 5 (1) of ECHR. The court justified this position by considering
that the legal norms cited as a reason for the detention of persons intercepted under
the combat against drugs trafficking did not constitute the conditions of deprivation
of the liberty on the ship and therefore the authorities did not offer an adequate
protection from arbitrary interference to the right to liberty.
This case, has undoubtedly given a different vision to actions taken by States in
the combat against piracy. Thus, States may be required to justify the lawfulness of
the arrest of suspect buildings, the confiscation or the destruction of materials and
arms, and conform to human rights conventions. Furthermore, they have to justify
the conditions of arrest, the transfer and the detention of pirates alleged in order to
judge them, extradite them, or to transfer them to a third country. The obligations
arising from the international human rights dictate to States some of their behavior.
Combating piracy and other act of violence at sea must be treated not only under
current legal framework arising from the international law of the sea, but also by
adhering to the international human rights conventions. These two frameworks are
complementary to each other and leveraging both of them should yield dividend and
a positive outcome for the captives.
17 Ibid, 23-24.
18 This case concerns the capture and detention of people in the high seas in the case of drug
trafficking.
The Application of Human Rights and Ethics Principles to Self-. . .
395