The facts of the case
In this case before European Court of Human Rights, which concerned an investigation into an airstrike in Afghanistan that killed the Applicant’s two sons, RSI intervened on behalf of the Applicant. The two Afghan brothers, aged 8 and 12, were killed in an air-strike ordered by the German Government on 4 September 2009. It is estimated that between 14 and 142 Afghans died in the strike, of whom 14 to 113 were civilians.
The significance of Hanan v. Germany rests on two main questions. The first is whether the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention”) applies to the armed forces of Member States deployed abroad under Article 1. For this reason, a number of Member States’ governments, such as the British and French, were given leave to intervene in the case. The second question pertains to Germany’s investigation into the airstrike, and whether this adequately fulfilled its procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention.
RSI’s intervention in the case
RSI made submissions on the following three issues:
- The extent of states’ jurisdiction in respect to human rights obligations applied extraterritorially in the context of an airstrike. Consistent with human rights treaties and the Court’s own jurisdiction, RSI argued that that the Court should apply a “functional” approach to jurisdiction. This would entail a finding that jurisdiction exists for the purposes of the applicability of the Convention where it is within a state’s power to perform certain functions that are consistent with their ratification of the Convention – the protection of human rights, the investigation of human rights abuses, etc.
- The nature and scope of states’ duties to investigate violations of the right to life in international law. RSI submitted that regardless of the co-application of international humanitarian law, the ‘substance of investigatory obligation upon a State in relation to a potentially unlawful death remains constant,’ and demands the same key hallmarks as found in the Court’s jurisprudence.
- The nature and scope of the states’ duties to provide effective remedies for rights violations generally in international law, with specific analysis of the rights to truth and its impact on the adequacy of remedies under international law for rights violations.
The judgment in the case
The judgment in Hanan v. Germany is pending. The Court held the latest hearing in this case on 26 February 2020, starting with oral submissions by parties as well as submissions by third party interveners France, the UK, and RSI.
What does this mean for our work?
In our intervention, RSI supported its colleagues in their attempts to re-apply established rule of law principles to the changing nature of the conflict. This case contributes to our ongoing commitment to advocacy surrounding thorough investigations of violations of the right to life.