Call for the implementation of Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of Geneva Conventions
Senapati, January 9 (MExN): In order to limit the effects of war, a Consultation has urged the Government of India to implement the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, 1949 and Additional Protocol-II, 1977, in the North East region of India.
The Consultation held today on ‘United Nations’ Law of Armed Conflict and Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958’ in Puangringlong (Charoi Pandongba) village of Senapati district has urged the Government of India to “immediately investigate” cases of rape, torture, disappearances etc. committed by the “Government’s Security Forces in Manipur,” repeal AFSPA, 1958 and “provide compensation and assistance to the victims of rape, torture, trafficking and families of those civilians killed by the Indian Security Forces.”
‘Political Armed Opposition Groups’ in the region have also been asked to respect and implement the Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, reconcile and stop factional fights in the interest of civilians and sign and respect the ‘Deed of Agreement of Geneva Call.’ Geneva Call is a “neutral and impartial humanitarian” organization dedicated to engaging armed non-state actors towards compliance with the norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and human rights law.
The Consultation was jointly organized by North East Dialogue Forum (NEDF), People’s Action for Development NH-53 (PAD-53), Senapati district, Puangringlong (Charoi Pandongba) Village’s Authority, Women Society, Youth Club and Farmers’ Club.
Giving the key note address, P. Ashen President, PAD-53, noted that even though the North East region has been reeling under violent armed conflict for more than five decades, the very existence of armed conflict in the region has not been officially recognized by India. Taking a strong stance against the AFSPA, 1958, Ashen said, “Extra-judicial execution, torture, enforced disappearances, rape, illegal detention, committed against the indigenous Manipuris people with intention to destroy, a national or ethnic or racial or religious group in the pretext of counter insurgency is nothing but genocide.”
U. Nobokishore, Secretary of United NGOs Mission-Manipur, as a resource person, described IHL or “Law of War” as a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. He added that IHL classifies armed conflicts as international armed conflict (IAC) or non-international armed conflict (NIAC).
He explained that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 specifically applies in the case of conflicts “not of an international character.” Common Article 3 stipulates the minimum protection that must be afforded to all those who are not, or who are no longer, taking an active part in hostilities, for example, civilians, members of armed forces of the parties to the conflict who have been captured, are wounded, or surrendered. It provides for humane treatment and non-discriminatory treatment for all such persons, in particular by prohibiting acts of violence to life and person specifically murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, the taking of hostages, and outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. It prohibits also the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without judgment being pronounced by a regular constituted court providing all judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. Finally, it imposes an obligation on the parties to collect the wounded and sick and to care for them.
Additional Protocol II of 1977 provides for the humane and non-discriminatory treatment of all those who are not, or who are no longer, taking part in hostilities. Most of provisions of Protocol II are now considered as a part of customary IHL and, thus, binding on all parties to NIACs.
Nobokishore termed AFSPA a “racist piece of legislation and a symbol of a racist regime.” He also described the Act as “dated and colonial-era law that breach contemporary international human rights standards.” Above all, he said, the Act is a “discriminatory and genocidal legislation.”
He said that the Justice Jeevan Reddy Committee’s report also endorsed this aspect briefly as, “the Act has become a symbol of oppression, an object of hate and instrument of discrimination and high-handedness.” He also recalled the observation of Christof Heyns who stated, “it is therefore difficult to understand how the Supreme Court, which has been so progressive in other areas, also concerning the right to life, could have ruled in 1997 that AFSPA, did not violate the Constitution.”
Sobita Mangsatabam, speaking on the topic ‘Justice Verma Committee’s report and Rape as an Instrument of War’ stated that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820 of June 19, 2008 defined rape as an “instrument of war.” She further said that Verma Committee’s report also reflected the same observation and recommended for trial of rape cases in civil courts even while AFSPA is in use. Citing some incidents of rapes committed in the region, such as of Th. Manorama (Bamonkampu), Ningthoujam Ongbi Ahanjaobi (Takyenthongbal), Rose (Ngaprum Khullen Ukhrul) and during Operation Bluebird by the Indian Military, she said that rape and other forms of sexual violence have been used as “instrument of war by different actors in the ongoing armed conflict.” She called upon all likeminded civil organizations and individuals to come together and build a collective struggle to end the heinous crimes committed against women.
