Crimes against humanity, defined

Article 7
Crimes Against Humanity

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;
b. Extermination;
c. Enslavement;
d. Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
e. Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law;
f. Torture;
g. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization,
or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
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;
i. Enforced disappearance of persons;
j. The crime of apartheid;
k. Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
a. ‘Attack directed against any civilian population’ means a course of conduct involving
the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian
population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit
such attack;

Elements of the crime

According to Article 7 (1) of the Rome Statute, crimes against humanity do not need to be
linked to an armed conflict and can also occur in peacetime, similar to the crime of
genocide. That same Article provides a definition of the crime that contains the following
main elements:

1. A physical element, which includes the commission of “any of the following acts”:
2. A contextual element: “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population”; and
3. A mental element: “with knowledge of the attack”
The contextual element determines that crimes against humanity involve either large-scale
violence in relation to the number of victims or its extension over a broad geographic area
(widespread), or a methodical type of violence (systematic). This excludes random,
accidental or isolated acts of violence. In addition, Article 7(2)(a) of the Rome Statute
determines that crimes against humanity must be committed in furtherance of a State or
organizational policy to commit an attack. The plan or policy does not need to be explicitly
stipulated or formally adopted and can, therefore, be inferred from the totality of the
circumstances.

In contrast with genocide, crimes against humanity do not need to target a specific group.
Instead, the victim of the attack can be any civilian population, regardless of its affiliation
or identity. Another important distinction is that in the case of crimes against humanity, it
is not necessary to prove that there is an overall specific intent. It suffices for there to be a
simple intent to commit any of the acts listed, with the exception of the act of persecution,
which requires additional discriminatory intent. The perpetrator must also act with
knowledge of the attack against the civilian population and that his/her action is part of
that attack.

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.html

Article 7 Crimes against humanity

Introduction

The last two elements for each crime against humanity describe the context in which the
conduct must take place. These elements clarify the requisite participation in and
knowledge of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. However, the
last element should not be interpreted as requiring proof that the perpetrator had
knowledge of all characteristics of the attack or the precise details of the plan or policy of
the State or organization. In the case of an emerging widespread or systematic attack
against a civilian population, the intent clause of the last element indicates that this
mental element is satisfied if the perpetrator intended to further such an attack.

3. “Attack directed against a civilian population” in these context elements is understood to

mean a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in article 7,
paragraph 1, of the Statute against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of
a State or organizational policy to commit such attack. The acts need not constitute a
military attack. It is understood that “policy to commit such attack” requires that the State
or organization actively promote or encourage such an attack against a civilian population.6

Article 7 (1) (a) Crime against humanity of murder

Elements

1. The perpetrator killed one or more persons.

a. Statistics
b. Albeit defenses are being interposed, the fact remains that people were killed.
2. The conduct was committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed
against a civilian population.
a. In speeches made after his inauguration on June 30, Duterte urged citizens
to kill suspected criminals and drug addicts. He said he would order police to
adopt a shoot-to-kill policy, and would offer them a bounty for dead
suspects.[20]
b. On July 3, 2016, the Philippine National Police announced they had killed 30
alleged drug dealers since Duterte was sworn in as president on June
30.[35][36] They later stated they had killed 103 suspects between May 10
and July 7.[37]
c. At a press conference on September 30, 2016, on his arrival in Davao City
after a two-day official visit in Vietnam,[67] Duterte appeared to make a
comparison between the Drug War and The Holocaust.[68] He said that
"Hitler massacred three million Jews. Now there are three million drug
addicts. I’d be happy to slaughter them."
d. the government’s failure to arrest—let alone prosecute—a single police
officer for their role in any of the “war-on-drugs” killings that Duterte has
encouraged sends a message that those involved need not fear being held to
account, and that future killings can be carried out with impunity.
e. No evidence thus far shows that Duterte planned or ordered specific
extrajudicial killings. But Duterte’s repeated calls for killings as part of his
anti-drug campaign could constitute acts instigating law enforcement to
commit the crime of murder. His statements encouraging vigilantes among
the general population to commit violence against suspected drug users
could constitute incitement to violence.
f. Still and all, President Duterte himself has assured policemen and
soldiers that if they should face legal suits for killing suspects, they
would not have to go to jail for it because “akin ‘yun, ako mauuna sa
inyo.” Presumably, he means he is ultimately responsible and he will
be the first to take the blame.
g. The unlawful killings being carried out by police forces ultimately under
Duterte’s command have repeatedly been brought to his attention by the
media, the United Nations, foreign governments, and domestic and
international nongovernmental organizations, including Human Rights
Watch. His public comments in response to those allegations are evidence
that he knows about them. As their continuing public statements make
clear, Duterte and his top subordinates have denied or downplayed the
illegality of police actions, showing no inclination or intent to investigate
alleged crimes.
h. Yet even worse, under Duterte, police operations against illegal
drugs have been marked with apparent token compliance with — or
even open defiance of — the rules and protocols enrolled in the 200-
page Philippine National Police Handbook PNPM-Do-Ds-3-2-13 or
Revised PNP Manual on Operational Procedures published in
December 2013.
i. Under PNP’s Handbook, Rule 7 on the “Use of Non-Lethal
Weapon” prescribes a calibration of force that should be
designed only to immobilize and not kill suspects all at once.
“When suspect is violent or threatening, and that less physical
measures have been tried and deemed inappropriate, a more
extreme, but non-deadly measure can be used such as
baton/truncheon, pepper spray, stun gun, and other non-
lethal weapon to bring the suspect under control, or effect an
arrest,” the manual states.
ii. Even when faced with an armed suspect, the PNP Handbook
says the “Application of Necessary and Reasonable Force”
should mean this: “During confrontation with an armed
offender, only such necessary and reasonable force should be
applied as would be sufficient to overcome the resistance put
up by the offender; subdue the clear and imminent danger
posed by him; or to justify the force/act under the principles of
self-defense, defense of relative, or defense of stranger.”
iii. The police, the Handbook says, should pay attention to certain
factors to discern “the reasonableness of the force employed.”
The Handbook states: “The reasonableness of the force
employed will depend upon the number of aggressors, nature
and characteristic of the weapon used, physical condition, size
and other circumstances to include the place and occasion of
the assault. The police officer is given the sound discretion to
consider these factors in employing reasonable force.”
i. On January 31, 2017, Amnesty International published a report of their
investigation
i. A police officer with the rank of Senior Police Officer 1, a ten-year
veteran of a Metro Manila anti-illegal drugs unit, told AI that police
are paid 8,000 pesos (US $161) to 15,000 pesos (US $302) per
"encounter" (the term used for extrajudicial executions disguised as
legitimate operations); there is no payment for making arrests. He
said that some police also receive a payment from the funeral home
they send the corpses to. Hitmen hired by police are paid 5,000 pesos
(US $100) for each drug user killed and 10,000 to 15,000 pesos (US
$200–300) for each "drug pusher" killed, according to two hitmen
interviewed by AI.[9]
ii.
 3. The perpetrator knew that the conduct was part of or intended the conduct to be
part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population
a. However, the last element should not be interpreted as requiring proof that
the perpetrator had knowledge of all characteristics of the attack or the
precise details of the plan or policy of the State or organization

Maderal, 42, and Avanceña, 33, are casualties in President Rodrigo

Duterte’s “war on drugs.” Police say that 2,004 people have been shot
and killed by officers in self-defense during anti-drug operations since
the president took office on July 1.

When the police open fire in Duterte’s war, the suspects almost always
die.

Reuters reviewed 42 drug-related shooting incidents involving the

police in the Manila region covered by its journalists, as well as
another 9 cases investigated in the same area by the government-
funded Philippines’ Commission on Human Rights (CHR). In these
combined 51 cases, police officers killed a total of 100 suspects and
wounded just three. Of the three people who were shot but survived in
these cases, two played dead and the third was arrested as he tried to
flee the scene.

The kill ratio is much higher than in countries with comparable drug-
related violence.

His remarks generated an international outcry. US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said
[68]

the statement was "deeply troubling".[69][70] The German government told the Philippine
ambassador that Duterte's remarks were "unacceptable."[71] On October 2, Duterte made an
apology to the Jewish community following his remarks. He said that he did not mean to
derogate the memory of 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Germans.[72][73]

At the beginning of October, a senior police officer told The Guardian that 10 "special ops"
official police death squads had been operating, each consisting of 15 police officers. The
officer said that he had personally been involved in killing 87 suspects, and described how
the corpses had their head wrapped in masking tape with a cardboard placard labelling
them as a drug offender so that the killing would not be investigated, or they were dumped
at the roadside ("salvage" victims). The chairman of the Philippines Commission on Human
Rights, Chito Gascon, was quoted in the report: "I am not surprised, I have heard of this."
The PNP declined to comment. The report stated: "although the Guardian can verify the
policeman's rank and his service history, there is no independent, official confirmation for
the allegations of state complicity and police coordination in mass murder."[74]

Family members and witnesses repeatedly contested the police description of how people
were killed. Police descriptions bore striking similarities from incident to incident; official
police reports in several cases documented by Amnesty International claim the suspect’s
gun “malfunctioned” when he tried to fire at police, after which they shot and killed him. In
many instances, the police try to cover up unlawful killings or ensure convictions for those
arrested during drug-related operations by planting “evidence” at crime scenes and
falsifying incident reports—both practices the police officer said were common.

—  Amnesty International report “If you are poor you are killed”: Extrajudicial Executions
in the Philippines’ “War on Drugs”[93]

Since June 2017[edit]

Allegations of destroying evidence by police[edit]

In June 2017 Reuters reported that "Police were sending corpses to hospitals to destroy
evidence at crime scenes and hide the fact that they were executing drug suspects." Doctors
stated that corpses loaded onto trucks were being dumped at hospitals, sometimes after
rigor mortis had already set in, with clearly unsurvivable wounds, having been shot in the
chest and head at close range. Reuters examined data from two Manila police districts, and
found that the proportion of suspects sent to hospitals, where they are pronounced dead on
arrival (DOA), increased from 13% in July 2016 to 85% in January 2017; "The totals grew
along with international and domestic condemnation of Duterte's campaign."[103]

"One-time, big-time" operations[edit]

On August 16, over 32 people are killed on multiple "one-time, big-time" antidrug
operations in Bulacan within one day.[108] On Manila, 25 people, including 11 suspected
robbers, are also killed in consecutive anti-criminality operations.[109] The multiple deaths
in the large-scale antidrug operations received condemnation from human rights groups
and majority of the Senate.[110][111]
Deaths of teenagers[edit]
On August 17, Kian Loyd delos Santos, a 17-year-old Grade 11 student, was shot dead on
an antidrug operation in Caloocan.[112][113] CCTV footage appeared to show Kian being
dragged by two policemen. Police say they killed him in self-defense, and retrieved a gun
and two packets of methamphetamine.[112] Delos Santos was the son of an overseas Filipino
worker, a key demographic in support of Duterte.[114] The teenager's death caused
condemnation by senators.[115][116] His funeral on August 25, attended by more than a
thousand people, was one of the largest protests to date against the Drug War. [117]
Carl Angelo Arnaiz, a 19-year-old teenager, last found in Cainta, Rizal, was tortured and
shot dead also in August 17 (the same date Kian delos Santos was killed) by police after
robbing a taxi in Caloocan.[118] His 14-year-old friend, Reynaldo de Guzman, also called
under the nickname "Kulot", was stabbed to death thirty times and thrown into a creek
in Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Along with the deaths of Kian delos Santos, the deaths of the two
teenagers also received public outrage and condemnation.[119]