1.1.4 Death threats Condensed: A death threat is a statement or other expression of a real or imaginary intention to kill a person or group of persons made by another person or group of persons without authorisation of the law. Death threats instil fear in the mind of the person(s) threatened that they will be killed. States are under an obligation to prevent its officials or other persons acting with its authority or acquiescence from making death threats to people under its jurisdiction whether such persons have been deprived of liberty or not. States are under an obligation to criminalise death threats by private individuals and investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. For a state to be held accountable the threatened person must present some objective evidence of the threats and there must be some link to the state either that the threats have been committed by state agents or that the state has not taken sufficient action to investigate the threats. Comprehensive: A death threat is a statement or other expression of a real or imaginary intention to kill a person or group of persons made by another person or group of persons without authorisation of the law. (See *death penalty*). Death threats instil fear in the mind of the person(s) threatened that they will be killed. (See *extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary execution or other unlawful killing*). According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, ‘[s]erious and credible threats, including death threats ... can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or even torture’.[1] Death threats also constitute a violation of the right to life.[2] The ACHPR held in Aminu v Nigeria :[3] It would be a narrow interpretation of [the right to life] to think that it can only be violated when one is deprived of it. It cannot be said that the right to respect for one’s life … would be protected in a state of constant fear and/or threats … States are under an obligation to prevent its officials or other persons acting with its authority or acquiescence from making death threats to people under its jurisdiction whether such persons have been deprived of liberty or not.[4] The state should take necessary measures to protect against threats, including investigation, prosecution, punishment and prevention of recurrence.[5] In Jayawardena v Sri Lanka a minister received death threats following a statement by the President that he was involved with the armed opposition group, the Tamil Tigers. The statement by the President and the lack of investigation of the death threats was held by the HRC to violate the right to personal security (article 9(1) ICCPR).[6] In Jiménez Vaca v Colombia, the HRC held: [7] The Committee must … consider the fact that … there was no reply to his request that the threats should be investigated and his protection guaranteed. The attempt on the author's life subsequent to the threats confirms that the State party did not take, or was unable to take, adequate measures to guarantee Mr Asdrúbal Jiménez's right to security of person as provided for in article 9, paragraph 1. States are under an obligation to criminalise death threats by private individuals and investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. (See *inadequate measures to prevent domestic violence*). In the case of Opuz v Turkey the failure of the respondent state to protect a person from the death threats of a private citizen was found to be a violation of the right to life. The ECtHR held that the state is responsible ‘when it knows of a real and immediate risk to life of a person ... and fails to take reasonable measures to avoid the risk’.[8] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted that ‘a state cannot be responsible for all situations in which the right to life is at risk’.[9]For a state to be held accountable the threatened person must present some objective evidence of the threats and there must be some link to the state either that the threats have been committed by state agents or that the state has not taken sufficient action to investigate the threats. The Committee against Torture noted in JAMO v Canada ‘the absence of objective evidence’: [10] The fact that at no time did the complainant seek the protection of the Mexican authorities, the inaccuracies regarding the identity of the persons who made the threats of which he complains, the time that has elapsed since the complainant left his job at the vehicle pound and the country, and the fact that his wife and daughter do not appear to have been targeted by such threats, do not allow for a finding that the complainants are the subject of persecution by the Mexican authorities.
[1] A/56/156 para 8. See also Opuz v Turkey application 33401/02 (ECtHR 2009). [2]See also art 4(2)(h) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 which prohibits threats to commit inter alia violence to life. [3]Aminu v Nigeria communication 205/97 (ACHPR 2000) para 18. [4]Delgado Paez v Colombia communication 195/1985 (HRC 1990) para 5.5. [5]Rochela Massacre v Colombia (IACtHR 2007) paras 155, 165. [6]Jayawardena v Sri Lanka communication 916/2000 (HRC 2002). [7]Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia communication 859/1999 (HRC 2002) para 7.2. [8]Opuz v Turkey para 129. [9]Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay (IACtHR 2006). [10]JAMO v Canada communication 293/2006 (CAT 2008) para 10.6.
Condensed:
A death threat is a statement or other expression of a real or imaginary intention to kill a person or group of persons made by another person or group of persons without authorisation of the law. Death threats instil fear in the mind of the person(s) threatened that they will be killed.
States are under an obligation to prevent its officials or other persons acting with its authority or acquiescence from making death threats to people under its jurisdiction whether such persons have been deprived of liberty or not. States are under an obligation to criminalise death threats by private individuals and investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. For a state to be held accountable the threatened person must present some objective evidence of the threats and there must be some link to the state either that the threats have been committed by state agents or that the state has not taken sufficient action to investigate the threats.
Comprehensive:
A death threat is a statement or other expression of a real or imaginary intention to kill a person or group of persons made by another person or group of persons without authorisation of the law. (See *death penalty*). Death threats instil fear in the mind of the person(s) threatened that they will be killed. (See *extrajudicial, arbitrary or summary execution or other unlawful killing*). According to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, ‘[s]erious and credible threats, including death threats ... can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or even torture’.[1] Death threats also constitute a violation of the right to life.[2] The ACHPR held in Aminu v Nigeria :[3]
It would be a narrow interpretation of [the right to life] to think that it can only be violated when one is deprived of it. It cannot be said that the right to respect for one’s life … would be protected in a state of constant fear and/or threats …
States are under an obligation to prevent its officials or other persons acting with its authority or acquiescence from making death threats to people under its jurisdiction whether such persons have been deprived of liberty or not.[4] The state should take necessary measures to protect against threats, including investigation, prosecution, punishment and prevention of recurrence.[5] In Jayawardena v Sri Lanka a minister received death threats following a statement by the President that he was involved with the armed opposition group, the Tamil Tigers. The statement by the President and the lack of investigation of the death threats was held by the HRC to violate the right to personal security (article 9(1) ICCPR).[6]
In Jiménez Vaca v Colombia, the HRC held: [7]
The Committee must … consider the fact that … there was no reply to his request that the threats should be investigated and his protection guaranteed. The attempt on the author's life subsequent to the threats confirms that the State party did not take, or was unable to take, adequate measures to guarantee Mr Asdrúbal Jiménez's right to security of person as provided for in article 9, paragraph 1.
States are under an obligation to criminalise death threats by private individuals and investigate and prosecute the perpetrators. (See *inadequate measures to prevent domestic violence*). In the case of Opuz v Turkey the failure of the respondent state to protect a person from the death threats of a private citizen was found to be a violation of the right to life. The ECtHR held that the state is responsible ‘when it knows of a real and immediate risk to life of a person ... and fails to take reasonable measures to avoid the risk’.[8]
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted that ‘a state cannot be responsible for all situations in which the right to life is at risk’.[9] For a state to be held accountable the threatened person must present some objective evidence of the threats and there must be some link to the state either that the threats have been committed by state agents or that the state has not taken sufficient action to investigate the threats. The Committee against Torture noted in JAMO v Canada ‘the absence of objective evidence’: [10]
The fact that at no time did the complainant seek the protection of the Mexican authorities, the inaccuracies regarding the identity of the persons who made the threats of which he complains, the time that has elapsed since the complainant left his job at the vehicle pound and the country, and the fact that his wife and daughter do not appear to have been targeted by such threats, do not allow for a finding that the complainants are the subject of persecution by the Mexican authorities.
[1] A/56/156 para 8. See also Opuz v Turkey application 33401/02 (ECtHR 2009).
[2]See also art 4(2)(h) of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 which prohibits threats to commit inter alia violence to life.
[3]Aminu v Nigeria communication 205/97 (ACHPR 2000) para 18.
[4]Delgado Paez v Colombia communication 195/1985 (HRC 1990) para 5.5.
[5]Rochela Massacre v Colombia (IACtHR 2007) paras 155, 165.
[6]Jayawardena v Sri Lanka communication 916/2000 (HRC 2002).
[7]Jiménez Vaca v. Colombia communication 859/1999 (HRC 2002) para 7.2.
[8]Opuz v Turkey para 129.
[9] Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v Paraguay (IACtHR 2006).
[10]JAMO v Canada communication 293/2006 (CAT 2008) para 10.6.