Legitimacy of the Extra-Judicial Killings in The Philippines,

with respect to International Law and alternate methods to

combat drug trafficking.
Mihir Ganachari [1] [2]
Abstract

The current paper attempts to understand the existing situation in The Philippines. It has been
approximately 11 years since these acts have been taken up. The author of the paper is of firm opinion
that such acts are arbitrary and unconstitutional and the international community should quickly act
to put an end to the same, which otherwise would lead to the gross violation of human rights.
[3]“Sadly, The Philippines in the eyes of the international community has a very poor human rights
record due to its alarming incidence of extrajudicial killings and unexplained
disappearances/abductions of private individuals without anyone being held accountable. And now,
various sectors of the society are prodded to seek for viable solutions to address the poor human
rights problems of the country. We sincerely believe that the root of the problem is not really much
on the laws related to curbing and punishing human rights violators. Actually, it has always been the
implementation of these laws. As part of the judicial institution whose power is drawn from the pen,
we are here to present some issues to be mulled over.” The current research looks into the legal
frameworks in place, both national and international. The paper also looks into viable alternatives to
combat drug trafficking. The author thanks his readers for their interest and invites any suggestions
to the email provided.

1
The author is a sophomore at the Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, E-mail: mihir.ganachari@slsh.edu.in

2
I am thankful for the support of my lecturers and companions who have provided me with their valuable feedback. I
would specially mention my respected senior Mr. Nikhil Gangai, and Mr. Yasaswi Kondapalli for their constructive
feedback. This paper would not have been possible had it not been for their guidance.
3
“Thoughts on Extrajudicial Killings and Unexplained Disappearances”, PJ Ruben T. Reyes and Mariano C. Del
Castillio, available at http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php?action=mnuactual_contents&ap=j5050 , last updated on
17.05.2017 at 11:30 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 1

 CHAPTERS

Introduction 3

The Constitution of Philippines 4

Previous legal attempts to curb the extrajudicial killings 5

Promulgation of writs of Amparo and Habeas Data 5

Extra-Judicial Killings: A violation of the presumption of Innocence? 8

The International Criminal Court on the nature of Extra Judicial Killings 10

The Alternatives 13

CONCLUSION 15

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 2

 Introduction

The question raised by the President of the United States of America, Barrack Obama, on the
battle of the Philippines against the Drug regime garnered a negative remark by the Philippines
President, Rodrigo Duterte. Multiple sources have claimed that, in less than three months, Rodrigo
Duterte ha presided over three-quarters as many extra-judicial killings as there were lynchings of
black people in America between 1877 and 1950[4][5][6]. The President has taken a very confident
stand on his method of extra judicial killings [7], his country and it has been observed that this
affirmation by him has received a very positive response from the people of Philippines. The issue
in contention here is if such action by the President is backed by legal enforceability. This is exactly
what this paper tries to deal with. The bill of rights speaks about the protection of the civilians and
their legal rights, one of them, which happens to be - protection of civilians from deprivation of life,
without the due process of law. Clearly, the acts of the President are unconstitutional. It is time, that
these extra-judicial killings came to an end and that the President sought for an alternate remedy to
combat drug trafficking.
Audi Alteram Partem (Which is Latin for “Hear the other side “) is one of the basic principles
of Natural Justice. Which is the reason why, many Constitutions of the world, have adopted the
concept of fair trial as one of the fundamental rights. Natural justice is another name for common-

4
“Rodrigo Duterte may undo the economic gains of recent years”, The Economist (2016), available at
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21707167-new-President-not-just-crass-and-brutal-also-alarmingly-volatile-
rodrigo-duterte-may?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/ , last updated on 15.09.2016 at 2:45 P.M.

5
“Death toll in Philippines drug war hits 2,000, Reuters (2016)”, available at http://in.reuters.com/article/philippines-
duterte-idinkcn1151vv , last updated on 16.09.2017 at 2:45 P.M. This report is from the month of August, 2016. There
has been a considerable rise in the number of extra judicial killings ever since.

6
“History of lynching in U.S. worse than believed, study finds”, Reuters (2015), available at,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-lynching-iduskbn0le2vp20150210 , last updated on 16.09.2016 at 3:00 P.M.

7
The term ‘extrajudicial killing’ in its original meaning refers to homicides that are committed outside the legal system
with no prior judgement of a court. In this sense, the term comprises a large number of violent acts with different motives,
victims and perpetrators. For instance, acts that are predominantly seen as vigilante killings or lynching, carried out by
privately organized groups can be called an extrajudicial killing as well as homicides that are committed by the state
without legal proceedings.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 3

sense justice. Rules of natural justice are not codified canons, but they are principles ingrained into
the conscience of man. Natural justice is the administration of justice in a common-sense liberal way.
Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values, the administration of which, is to
be freed from the narrow and restricted considerations which are usually associated with a formulated
law involving linguistic technicalities and grammatical niceties. It is the substance of justice which
has to determine its form [8].
The only difference between the vigilante and the justice bestowed by a court of law is that, in
the case of vigilantism, the vigilante does whatever that is appealing to him. In the latter case, due
chance for the parties involved is given to present themselves (fair hearing) and then, an order is
passed. This is what demarcates a civilized society from an uncivilized one.
“Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his
defence. “Adam” says God, “where art thou? hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded
thee that thou shouldest not eat [9]”.
Time and again, emphasis has been laid on the need for everyone to be given a fair hearing.
So is the case with Philippines as well.

The Constitution of Philippines:

The 1987 Constitution of Philippines has presented its people with article 3 which is the bill of
rights. This particular article lays down all the fundamental rights, that a citizen is entitled to and
the rights, that will be protected by the state.
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.” [10]This section of the Constitution elucidates
that every person shall be protected from the deprivation of life without a due process of law.
Which is exactly what “Extra Judicial Killings” does. It deprives a person of his life, without the
due course of law. This is against §3, article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of Philippines, 1987,
that states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

8
Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 2009 SC 2375, ¶5

9
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works [(1863) 143 ER 414]

10
§1, Article III, Bill of Rights, Constitution of Philippines, 1987.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 4

 against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized”

Such proceedings have been termed as inhuman acts [11]. In its analysis, the court held that the case
was admissible since the substance before it pertained to occurrence of an alleged human rights
violation. Regarding the defendant’s argument that the interest of presumed dead persons cannot be
defended before court, the court stated that “it is indeed possible to sue a State for the ‘murder or
disappearance’ of human beings whose right to life the state is under obligation to protect.”

Previous legal attempts to curb the extrajudicial killings [12]:

Promulgation of writs of Amparo and Habeas Data:

In 2007, the Supreme Court hosted a summit on extrajudicial executions. [13] Following this summit,
the Court promulgated the writs of Amparo and habeas data, which were intended to serve as
protective tools against both extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances. The writ of
Amparo permits persons whose lives, liberty or security have been violated or are in danger of
violation to seek protection or information from respondent parties. The writ of habeas data, on the
other hand, permits the issuance of writs against violations to rights to privacy, liberty or security.
Most importantly for the purposes of this article, both writs were expressly made available against
private as well as public parties. In its annotation to the writ of Amparo, the Supreme Court defined

11
“ECOWAS COURT DELIVERS JUDGMENT ON ALLEGED EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS OF FIVE
NIGERIANS”, available at
http://www.courtecowas.org/site2012/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=283:ecowas-court-delivers-
judgment-on-alleged-extra-judicial-killings-of-five-nigerians&catid=14:pressrelease&Itemid=36 , last updated on
16.09.2016 at 3:15 P.M.

12
Not with respect to the current President Rodrigo Duterte. This is related to the pre-existing problem of extrajudicial
killings.
13
“National Summit on Extra Judicial Killings”, available at http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/summit/ , last
updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:00 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 5

‘extralegal killings’ [ 14 ] as ‘killings committed without due process of law, i.e. without legal
safeguards or judicial proceedings.’ Such killings comprised killings without due process ‘regardless
of the motive. ‘This, the Court said, would be more ‘protective’ of rights to life and liberty than a
writ available against the government alone.

Various remedies are available to a petitioner in a Writ of Amparo. For instance, there is a provision
for Temporary protection order [15], where The Court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio,
may order that the petitioner or the aggrieved party and any member of the immediate family be
protected in a government agency or by an accredited person or private institution capable of keeping
and securing their safety.

The Inspection order [16] under same writ, allows the court, justice or judge, upon verified motion
and after due hearing, to order any person in possession or control of a designated land or other
property, to permit entry for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or photographing the
property or any relevant object or operation thereon.

[17]The court, justice or judge, upon verified motion and after due hearing, may order any person in
possession, custody or control of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things, or objects in digitized or electronic form, which constitute or

14
The Supreme Court adopted the term ‘extralegal killing’ on the ground that this was in accordance with United Nations
instruments. Phil. Sup. Ct., Annotation to the Writ of Amparo 3 fn. 10, availableat
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/Annotation_amparo.pdf , last updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:00 P.M. The United Nations, in
fact, also uses the term ‘extrajudicial executions,’ hence the term Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or
Arbitrary Executions in use since 1992. U.N. Comm’n on Human Rts. Res. 1992/82 (Mar. 5, 1992).
15
Section 14(a),“The Rule on the Writ of Amparo”, Supreme Court of The Philippines, available at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/The%20Rule%20On%20The%20Writ%20Of%20Amparo.pdf , last
updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:45 P.M.
16
Section 14(b),“The Rule on the Writ of Amparo”, Supreme Court of The Philippines, available at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/The%20Rule%20On%20The%20Writ%20Of%20Amparo.pdf , last
updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:45 P.M.
17
Section 14(c),“The Rule on the Writ of Amparo”, Supreme Court of The Philippines, available at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/The%20Rule%20On%20The%20Writ%20Of%20Amparo.pdf , last
updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:45 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 6

contain evidence relevant to the petition or the return, to produce and permit their inspection, copying
or photographing by or on behalf of the movant.

[ 18 ]The court, justice or judge, upon motion or motu proprio, may refer the witnesses to the
Department of Justice for admission to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program,
pursuant to Republic Act No. 6981. The court, justice or judge may also refer the witnesses to other
government agencies, or to accredited persons or private institutions capable of keeping and securing
their safety.

Moving on to assess the Writ of Habeas Data: [19]The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to
any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful
act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
20
Special” trial courts to give priority to political cases: In early March 2007, the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, Reynato Puno, issued Administrative Order 25-2007 designating 99 trial courts
across the country as special tribunals to try cases of political killings, a designation which is
apparently intended to give priority to such cases in the courts’ trial calendars. The order mandates
continuous trials for such cases, and limits the duration of such trials to 60 days after their
commencement, with judgment to be rendered within 30 days of the close of the trial. A spokesperson
for the Presidential Human Rights Committee told Human Rights Watch in October 2007 that only
a small fraction of relevant cases were in fact being tried in front of these special courts, while the
vast majority were being handled by regular courts.

18
Section 14(d) “The Rule on the Writ of Amparo”, Supreme Court of The Philippines, available at
http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/The%20Rule%20On%20The%20Writ%20Of%20Amparo.pdf , last
updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:45 P.M.
19
Section 1, “The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data”, Supreme Court of The Philippines, available at
http://www.chanrobles.com/writofhabeasdata.html#.WRyfNBhh3Vo , last updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:47 P.M.
20
“Universal Periodic Review of The Philippines”, 07.04.2008, available at
http://pantheon.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2008/03/10/philip18248_txt.htm , last updated on 17.05.2017 at 11:55 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 7

21
There was an establishment of new human rights offices to deal with extrajudicial killings, enforced
disappearances and other issues. President Arroyo also ordered the creation of the new Presidential
Human Rights Committee, in addition to the existing Commission on Human Rights and the
Ombudsman’s Office, which are largely tasked with similar functions. So far, these offices have done
much to advertise the government’s rather cosmetic measures taken on the issue of extrajudicial
killings and enforced disappearances but have done little to help bring perpetrators to justice.
Such attempts by the courts show that there is no insufficiency of on the part of the legal
frameworks22.

Extra-Judicial Killings: A violation of the presumption of Innocence?

It is a well-known fact under the Criminal law that a man is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. That is clearly not the case when it comes to extra-judicial killings. Let alone “until proven
guilty”, one is shot dead merely upon “suspicion”. Philippines acceded to the International covenant
on civil and political rights. It is mentioned in this covenant that “Everyone charged with a criminal
offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” The
concept of extra judicial killing violates the very fundamental aspect of criminal law, which is -
presuming one to be innocent until proven guilty. The principle of presumption of innocence implies
two elements: a rule regulating the location and standard of the burden of proof and secondly a policy
directive that the subject of a criminal investigation must be treated as innocent at all stages of
criminal proceedings irrespective of the probable outcome of the trial.
This is not the first time that a contention has been raised against the concept of extra judicial
killing. In December 2015, in the Israel and Palestine coup, there have been a series of extra judicial
killings, conducted by Israel. To this, Secretary of State, John Kerry expressed his views saying “We
urge everybody to exercise restraint and restrain from any kind of self-help in terms of the violence”
[23]

21
Supra note 20.
22
Ibid note 3
23
“Israel applies lethal response to wave of Palestinian attacks, Reuters (2015)”, available at
http://in.reuters.com/article/israel-palestinians-casualties-idinkbn0ts1wq20151209, last updated on 16.09.2016 at 3:17
P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 8

 Part III, article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and political rights states that “Every
human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his life.” Doesn’t extra judicial killing do the exact opposite? Does it not
promote arbitrariness? It places the lives of people in the hands of the others, who might arbitrarily
deprive them of their right to live at any point of time.
A careful analysis of India reveals the existence of the very same problem. AFSPA [24] is one
of the measures taken, which was enacted in 1958 to bring under control what the government of
India considered ‘disturbed’ areas. The Tripura government on Thursday decided to lift the
controversial law which according to a Press Trust of India report “was in effect for the last 18 years
to curb insurgency.” The special powers for "disturbed areas" were first used in 1958 by the central
government and subsequently extended to most of the northeast, most recently to Arunachal Pradesh,
which borders China. They have been in force in the disputed region of Kashmir since 1990. But, the
withdrawal of the AFSPA was credited to various human rights groups [25], as they believed that the
arbitrary power bestowed upon the personnel was being misused. People have to live without fear
and the state police will always have to be there to protect them. If the very people are scared of their
own “protectors”, then the government has failed its country’s citizens, which again was stated by
the Supreme Court of India that the use of excessive force by the armed personnel is not permissible
[26].

24
Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958.

25
“Tripura strips army of shoot-to-kill powers”, Reuters (2015), available at http://in.reuters.com/article/tripura-afspa-
army-idinkbn0od1ue20150528 , last updated on 16.09.2016 at 3:20 P.M.

26
Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (EEVFAM) & Anr. Versus Union of India & Anr, (W.P. (CRL.)
129 OF 2012

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 9

 The International Criminal Court on the nature of Extra Judicial Killings:

Despite these offences, it becomes imperative to understand if the leading international court
on crimes, considers such acts as arbitrary. The answer is a yes. The International Criminal Court
(hereinafter referred to as the ICC), as per the Roman Statute (the governing mandate) considers
arbitrary deprivation of a person’s life as a crime. [27]
As per the Republic act number 9851 (hereinafter referred to as the R.A. No.9851) is an act
passed by the government of Philippines that identifies and penalizes activities that are categorized
as crimes against humanity under the international law. This has been considered as a breakthrough
[ 28 ] in the area of international humanitarian law and has been widely appreciated by various
governments.
[29]While the context of this provision refers to war crimes, genocide, and “other crimes against
humanity” under R.A. No. 9851, this sets a statutory precedent for its extension to the cases of other
serious crimes like torture, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings in the corresponding
special laws, if any, on such crimes. This Philippine statutory codification of the doctrine of
command responsibility, we might say, is only fitting because the roots of the doctrine are usually
traced to the 1946 ruling in the Yamashita case [30] for atrocities committed by the Japanese armed
forces in the Philippines during the Second World War, albeit the relevant ruling is the one by the
U.S., not the Philippine, Supreme Court.
The historical development or evolution of the doctrine was extensively discussed in the 2007 Melo
Commission Report [31] on extrajudicial killings, which recommended a special law for strict chain-
of-command responsibility for police and military forces and other government officials with respect

27
Republic Act Number 9851: ‘AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST INTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING
JURISDICTION, DESIGNATING SPECIAL COURTS, AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES’
28
“R.A. No. 9851 – breakthrough law for IHL enforcement in the Philippines”, available at
http://www.preda.org/media/research-documents/r-a-no-9851-breakthrough-law-for-ihl-enforcement-in-the-
philippines/ , last updated on 03.05.2017 at 2:45 P.M.
29
Supra note 16
30
U.S. Supreme Court: In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1 (1946), No. 61, Misc. Argued January 7, 8, 1946, Decided February
4, 1946, 327 U.S. 1
31
“Meet the Melo Commission”, available at http://pcij.org/blog/2006/08/24/meet-the-melo-commission , last updated on 03.05.2017 at 2:55 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 10

to such killings and other offenses committed by personnel under their command, control or
authority. The 2007 National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced
Disappearances convened by the Supreme Court recommended the enactment of a law to address the
lack of understanding of the doctrine of command responsibility. The 2007 Alston Mission Report[32]
on extrajudicial killings in the Philippines specifically recommended that “The necessary measures
should be taken to ensure that the principle of command responsibility, as it is understood in
international law, is a basis for criminal liability within the domestic legal order.” R.A. No. 9851 is
thus a major step forward in acting on these several related recommendations.

In its provision on orders from a superior [Sec. 12] [33], R.A. No. 9851clarifies that “orders to commit
genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.” In customary IHL, every
combatant has in fact a duty to disobey a manifestly unlawful order. So, this could also extend to war
crimes, and not just the aforesaid two serious international crimes. In R.A. No. 9851’s provision on
non-prescription [Sec. 11] [34], “The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, their prosecution,

32
A/HRC/8/3/Add.2, 16 April 2008: ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions,
Philip Alston’ available at http://www.hr-dp.org/files/2014/06/27/Mission_to_Philippines_2008.pdf , last updated on
03.05.2017 at 3:00 P.M.

33
Section 12 of the R.A. 9851: Orders from a Superior. - The fact that a crime defined and penalized under this Act has
been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a government or a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not
relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless all of the following elements occur:

(a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the government or the superior in question;

(b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

(c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

For the purposes of this section, orders to commit genocide or other crimes against humanity are manifestly unlawful.

34
Section 11 of the R.A. 9851: Non-prescription. - The crimes defined and penalized under this Act, their prosecution,
and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 11

and the execution of sentences imposed on their account, shall not be subject to any prescription.”
This is already well-established for war crimes in customary IHL.

[35]In 2016, the alleged killing of the President Rodrigo Duterte’s of Philippines against the brutal
war on the illegal drugs, the ICC’s chief prosecutors have started close inspection against the said
perpetuators, they said that any persons who engaged in acts of mass violence including by ordering,
requesting, encouraging or contributing in any other manner to the commission of crime within the
jurisdiction of ICC is potentially liable to the prosecution before the court.

In light of the above initiatives taken by the government of Philippines itself, it is evident that
Philippines has already identified ‘extra-judicial killings’ as arbitrary, unlawful and an international
crime and is continuing to participate in the furtherance of the said crimes, thereby, attracting the
jurisdiction of the ICC. This has accordingly taken the shape of a case filed at the ICC [36]. Going as
per the facts of the present situation, the President shall be held liable for all sorts of mass killings
that he has promulgated during his tenure.

35
‘Extra Judicial Killings and the role of the International Criminal Court’, Abhilasha Shrawat.
36
Criminal case vs Duterte filed before International Criminal Court, Patricia Lourdes Viray, available at
http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/04/24/1693489/criminal-case-vs-duterte-filed-international-criminal-court ,
last updated on 03.05.2017 at 3:15 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 12

 The Alternatives

What Philippines requires, is an alternate law enforcing remedy. Definitely not the option of extra
judicial killing.

The United Nations also wasn’t myopic to the fact that the war on drugs needs to be more
health oriented. It very well knew the same principle of regulation. Which is why it passed the First
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs [37].

To hit the drug cartels at the very foundation would be to strike their primary source of revenue. The
sale of drugs. Uruguay is the best model for this. In 2012, Uruguay legalized the use of Marijuana
for personal use and sales and this was a huge blow to the drug market. Uruguay also bravely paved
way for other countries to look at it as an initiator for legalizing drug intake. This is quite a strategic
move as it reverses the tables. What serves as a source of income for major drug cartels is now a
source of income for the government itself. So now, one can buy these drugs from a licensed
pharmacy. This is a win - win situation for both the government and society. While the government
makes some extra cash, the society is comparatively safer due to reduced crimes of drug abuse. Also,
there have been rehabilitation centers established to combat over intake.
This is a progressive way to bleed the cartels to extinction.
Another case study could be of the Netherlands. They're not criminalizing the people who use
the drugs. In the past, Amsterdam has undertaken a citywide campaign [38] to inform people about
the white heroin on the market — and to reassure them they can seek medical assistance without fear
of police reprisal. This is in line with Dutch drug law, which prioritizes providing aid over
stigmatizing drug use.

37
“ SINGLE CONVENTION ON NARCOTIC DRUGS, 1961”, Available at
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf , last updated on 7th September, 2016 at 8:30 P.M.

38
“Eileen Shim, The Netherlands Just Did Something to Fight Its Drug Problem That the U.S. Would Never Do”. Mic
(2015), available at https://mic.com/articles/105584/the-netherlands-just-showed-the-u-s-what-a-sane-drug-policy-
looks-like , last updated on 15.09.2017 at 4:00 P.M..

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 13

 The country has recently followed the example of Netherlands and Germany and opened “fix
rooms [39]” for serious drug addicts where they can safely consume and inject drugs in a supervised
environment. The facilities are on offer to adults with serious addictions can bring their illegal drugs
and take them, legally, under the watchful eye of a nurse. The capital Copenhagen opened the first
with other cities following suit.
One may take a gander at Portugal for a case. 16 years prior, Portugal took a jump and
decriminalized the ownership of all medications — everything from marijuana to heroin. By most
measures, the move has paid off. Today, Portuguese powers don't capture anybody discovered
holding what's viewed as not exactly a 10-day supply of an illegal medication — a gram of heroin,
euphoria, or amphetamine, two grams of cocaine, or 25 grams of cannabis. Rather, tranquillize guilty
parties get a reference and are requested to show up before alleged "prevention boards" made up of
legitimate, social, and mental specialists. Most cases are essentially suspended. People who over and
again precede the boards might be recommended treatment, extending from motivational guiding to
sedative substitution treatment, precisely in which, the legislature needs to contribute as opposed to
subsidizing the medication war.
When Portugal decided to decriminalize in 2000[40], many skeptics assumed that the number
of users would skyrocket. That did not happen. With some exceptions, including a marginal increase
among adolescents.s
Nearly a decade and a half later, Portugal demonstrates that decriminalization does not
definitely prompt increments in medication use, nor does it lead to a society of wilderness. Without
a doubt, none of the feelings of dread of faultfinders have happened. Rather, law authorization and
the criminal equity framework work all the more proficiently, and Portugal has possessed the capacity
to put resources into enhancing the wellbeing and prosperity of individuals battling with medication

39
“Drug laws around the world - does anyone get it right?”, The Telegraph, available at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11197559/drug-laws-around-the-world-does-anyone-get-it-right.html
last updated on 15.09.2016 at 4:00 P.M.

40
“Portugal's Example: What Happened After It Decriminalized All Drugs, From Weed to Heroin” | VICE News VICE
News RSS, By Samuel Oakford, available at https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-
decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin last updated on 15.09.2016 at 4:15 P.M.

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 14

problems. Community relations with the police have additionally significantly improved [41]. This
health centric approach by the government is well appreciated and one might learn lessons from this.
There are so many alternatives available that limit human atrocities which is better both for the
government as well as the citizens. So, there is no reason why a government should resort to extra-
judicial killings.

CONCLUSION:

The extensive ascent in extra judicial killings, in the condition of Philippines to "secure
lawfulness" and bring the "lawbreakers" to equity, is a children's story idea. Who are the criminals?
What is this Justice? Who decides the status of these criminals? How is the justice bestowed
supported? Every one of these inquiries stays unanswered. This stipend of an infamous approach to
abet wrongdoing rates is an infringement of human rights as well as an aggregate homicide of human
rights. Every case of murder at the hands of the law enforcement agencies is an act of crime
committed by the state and it is a negation of the principles of natural justice. Encounter killing [42]
or whatever euphemistic term we attribute to these murders, is a denial of justice to a suspect. It is a
violation of the fundamental right to fair hearing and denial of the fundamental right to life. So, by
this sense we can say that extrajudicial killing seems to be a Murder of Human Rights, rather than
violation Human Rights.

41
“Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: A Health-Centered Approach”, available at
https://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf , last
updated on 7.08. 2016 at 8:30 P.M.

42
“EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLING IN BANGLADESH: A MURDER OF HUMAN RIGHTS “by A. Z. M. Arman Habib

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 15

EXTRA-JUDICIAL KILLINGS MIHIR GANACHARI PAGE 16