by Hector Guerra, Coordinator of the IANSA Survivors Network
For many member states, any reference to the rights of victims or
victims’ assistance in the final treaty language of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
will be particularly difficult to adopt and it will be unlikely that states in
favor of these references will be able to convince their counterparts to
include such a provision in the final document. This opposition to adopting victims’
rights language corresponds to both a realpolitik
perspective, which would limit the Treaty to such a minimal expression that, if
possible, would not even include references to International Humanitarian Law
(IHL) in the instrument, as well as to the perspective of those states that are
in favor of basic references to IHL and human rights but believe it is
necessary to make concessions, such as foregoing victims’ assistance, for the
sake of consensus.
These positions are understandable,
but not necessarily justifiable. More than ever, within the context of armed
violence, increasing levels of arms production and its trade are killing
civilians around the world, both in armed conflicts and in other situations of
violence. Every minute one person dies due to armed violence, and for every
fatality, ten more persons are injured (Time
to Act: ATT Basics 2012), maimed or traumatized. The welfare of entire
families is gravely affected.
The omission of victims’ rights
is even less justifiable in the context of the advances made in national laws
for the rights of victims, as has been the case in Colombia, and more recently
in Mexico. These national advances represent just a portion of what countries
are willing and able to do for access to justice, restitution, compensation,
and assistance when, around the world, over half a million people die each year
as a consequence of armed violence (Global
Burden of Armed Violence 2011).
On the other hand, there are
existing international and regional instruments that address the rights of
victims of different forms of violence, namely the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Remedy and Reparation
for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious
Violations of International Humanitarian Law, as well as the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of
Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. Even
more directly, with regards to disarmament, there are two pertinent examples of
international law that have set the foundation for humanitarian disarmament:
the Mine Ban Treaty of 1997 and the Convention on Cluster Munitions of 2008.
Accepting, producing, storing, selling,
and otherwise using weapons, even when it is done legally and legitimately, bestows
a certain responsibility and acknowledgment of the potential effects of such
weapons on innocent unarmed victims. Therefore, states must seize every
opportunity to make advancements in disarmament and arms control and to
include, as much as possible, the rights of victims, specifically victim assistance
and survivor participation. Victim assistance should be part and parcel of multilateral
disarmament agreements, while survivor participation should be included
explicitly in national positions, survivors should be engaged with national
focal points, and national delegations.
It is worth remembering that the
big push for the ATT, for over a decade, has not been for abstract or
theoretical considerations, but for explicit humanitarian reasons calling for
an international legally-binding instrument with tangible effects for
individuals and communities in armed-violence ridden zones.
If states are true to their
international commitments as signatories of at least the most basic IHL and
human rights treaties, they will take into account the fate of victims—and not
just within their territories, but address victims’ rights on a global scale.
In the case of the ATT, at the
very least, a preambular reference to the rights of victims and the inclusion
of victim assistance in the section on international cooperation and assistance
should be adopted. In this sense, consistent communication with civil society organizations
with expertise in this area, backed by the direct participation of victims of
armed violence, will provide for excellent background on and movement forward
on this issue.
This is not too much to ask when
there is a growing need for an international registry of victims and a fund to
produce repairs and compensations, among other steps that should include
guarantees of non-repetition and memorials.
Perhaps the aforementioned
elements (preambular reference to the rights of victims and the inclusion of
victim assistance in the international cooperation and assistance section) do
not seem so superlative, but in the big picture they represent a decisive step
toward the construction of an international regime for the protection and
promotion of the rights of victims of armed violence. Excuses for putting
victims aside should not continue, as these victims represent some of the most
vulnerable populations in the world.
