Human Rights and International Governance

The case of former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori is, unfortunately, further proof that impunity remains one of the greatest obstacles blocking the advancement of human rights. Very briefly, Fujimori was in office from 1990 to 2000. During that time, state authorities were responsible for horrific acts that included, among other things, torture, ill-treatment, extrajudicial executions and “disappearing.” After leaving office in 2000, authorities in Peru charged Fujimori and other members of his government with committing human rights violations and corruption. Fujimori responded by fleeing to Japan in November of that year. In 2001, a Peruvian judge issued a detention order against him after allegations were made that he was involved abuses and killings committed by the “Colina Group,” a group that was formed in 1991 within Peru’s Military Intelligence Service, and has been described as a “counter-insurgency death squad.” Despite the charges against him, the Japanese government shielded the former President from prosecution; for five years, authorities in Tokyo refused to extradite the former leader, who is also a citizen of Japan, back to Peru. In 2005, Fujimori was finally detained, but not by Japanese officials. That year, Fujimori left Japan to visit Chile. While there, Chilean authorities placed him under house arrest, and began formal extradition proceedings to determine whether he should be returned to Peru. Despite this development, Fujimori’s fate is by no means sealed. Earlier this month a court in Chile ruled against extradition. The decision, which human rights organizations have been highly critical of, is currently being reviewed by the Chilean Supreme Court.
     Alas, Fujimori is by no means the only former Head of State to escape justice for human rights violations committed while in office; indeed, one of the unfortunate realities of the current international system is that it has allowed a culture of impunity to become deeply engrained.
     Thankfully, cracks in the armour have begun to appear, as significant gains have been made in recent years to bring human rights violators to justice. Although in the end he did not face justice, General Augusto Pinochet’s arrest in Britain in 1998 for human rights abuses sent shockwaves through the international community, the message being that diplomatic immunity for former Heads of State was no longer absolute. At the international level, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a number of the Special Tribunals were created, at least in part, to end impunity for those in authority who commit violations that “shock the conscious” of the international community, namely genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
     Despite these important advancements, progress has been slow and sporadic. International criminal justice, whether between states or at the multilateral level, has yet to be enforced in a consistent or equitable manner. To date, those who have been or are in the process of being tried have all come from either the developing South or Eastern Europe. No former head of state from the NATO alliance has ever been brought before an international tribunal. Nor for that matter has any high level official from one of the Permanent Five on the Security Council. There is a perception amongst some circles that there are two-tiers of justice, one for the weak and one for the strong. Whether this is true or not, the optics suggest that these institutions may in fact be reinforcing existing power imbalances within the international system, which may ultimately undermine their legitimacy in the long run.
     While Fujimori may still be brought to justice, too many of the world’s current and former leaders remain immune from prosecution under the current system. Unless this changes, ending impunity will remain a tough nut to crack.

The opinions expressed are the personal views of the author only, and do not represent the views of any organization or institution with which he is affiliated.