A/HRC/15/33 12. Witnesses’ and victims’ right to protection occupies a prominent place in recent international criminal practice and procedure. Ensuring that witnesses can testify in a safe and secure environment is crucial for the implementation of the mandates of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). The statutes and rules of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court contain provisions for the protection of witnesses and victims participating in proceedings.20 Similarly, the statutes and rules of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)21 and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)22 contain provisions for the protection of victims and witnesses. C. Practice and jurisprudence at the international and regional levels 13. The practice and jurisprudence of international and regional human rights bodies, as well as international tribunals and courts demonstrate that the protection of witnesses and victims is the cornerstone on which combating impunity, providing justice and ensuring effective remedy rest.23 14. In the case of Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka, the Human Rights Committee interpreted article 9, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as encompassing the right to protection in order to ensure the enjoyment of the right to security. The Human Rights Committee ruled that the State had violated article 9, paragraph 1 of the Covenant since it had failed to take adequate action to ensure that the author was and continues to be protected from threats issued by police officers since filing his petition in his fundamental rights case.”24 In this case, the State did not provide witness protection, and the complainant went into hiding out of fear of reprisals. The Human Rights Committee observed that article 9 does not allow a State party to ignore threats to the personal security of non-detained persons subject to its jurisdiction. The Human Rights Committee concluded that the State party was obliged “to take effective measures to ensure that the author is protected from threats and/or intimidation with respect to the proceedings” and “to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.”25 The Human Rights Committee made similar observations in other cases and emphasized that the right to security does not only apply to “formal deprivation of liberty” by way of arrest or detention, and that States are “under an obligation to take reasonable and appropriate measures” to protect individuals whose lives have been threatened.26 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 GE.10-15173 See ICTY Statute, article 22; ICTR Statute, article 22; Rome Statute, articles 68 and 87.4; also ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, rules 16, 50 and 86; ICTY Rules of Procedures and Evidence, rule 34; ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, rule 34. SCSL Statute, article 16.4; SCSL Rules of Procedure and Evidence, rule 34. Law on the Establishment of ECCC, article 33; ECCC Internal Rules (rev.5), rule 29. For a detailed discussion on the relevant international human rights framework, see REDRESS, Ending Threats and Reprisals Against Victims of Torture and Related International Crimes – A Call to Action, December 2009, available at http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c46c73e2.html. Rajapakse v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/87/D/1250/2004), paragraph 9.7. Ibid. See Delgado Paez v. Colombia (CCPR/C/39/D/195/1985); Bwalya v. Zambia (CCPR/C/48/D/314/1988); Bahamonde v. Equatorial Guinea (CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991), Cagas, Butin and Astillero v. Philippines (CCPR/C/73/D/788/1997); Prince v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/44/D/269/1987); Campbell v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/47/D/307/1988); Adams v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/58/D/607/1994). 7