Recently, the new DMP Commissioner was reported to have said at a meeting with journalists that the police might open fire to protect innocent people. When challenged, he argued that the police had powers to use force "up to causing death of a person to ensure protection of life and property of innocent people" under sections 97, 100 and 103 of Bangladesh Penal Code. The Commissar also said that he would himself shoot if he found "some one mugging or robbing and trying to flee."

The Police Commissioner's virtual declaration of a shoot on sight policy raises many issues. Admittedly, terrorism and increasing violence are serious problems in our country. It is also true that a number of highly repressive laws remain on our statute books, many inherited from the British colonial period. But can we combat terrorism merely through further wide-ranging and potentially lethal powers to law enforcers? Do we want to turn our country into a Police State?

Political parties have already noted their concern regarding the DMP Commissioner's remark, although from their own political perspectives. Human rights activists have also expressed their fears regarding the potential arbitrary application of such powers and their extensive potential for abuse of human rights.

Indeed implementation of a shoot at sight policy would result in very serious breaches of the Constitution, existing laws and of fundamental human rights. The Commissioner's remark demonstrates at best ignorance, and at worse, total disrespect for international human rights standards. Any action taken on the basis of this remark would result in breaches of the provision of the UN's Basic Principles for Use of Lethal Forces, as well as of the UN Convention against Torture (CAT) to which Bangladesh is now a state party.

Right to Life

Recent studies indicate that extra-judicial killings by law enforcement agencies are one of the main causes of violation of international human rights guarantees, including that of the right to life.

All four major human rights treaties underscore the obligation not to derogate from the right to life under any circumstances, even during an emergency. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person", while article 6 (1 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights clarifies the meaning and scope of the right to life and states: "Every human being has an inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

The UN Human Rights Committee, which is charged with monitoring the implementation by states of the ICCPR, interpreted the scope of Article 6 of the ICCPR in two of its general comments. In the first, it stated that the right to life is a right which should not be interpreted narrowly. The Committee considered that states should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security and police forces. The deprivation of life by state authorities is a matter of the utmost gratuity. Therefore, "the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life." The Committee also state that where a deprivation of life purport to be justified under international human rights standards, certain principles may be invoked to assess such a claim.

Permissible Deprivation of the Right to Life

Firstly, the deprivation of life must be a proportionate response in the circumstances. A killing can never be justified solely by proof that it resulted from the application of force for a purpose permitted by law. The deprivation must be in the circumstances necessary to accomplish the purpose(s). As the European Court of Human Rights noted in the Handyside Case (1976), the concept of proportionality is inherent in the idea of necessity. All international human rights instruments accept the principle of proportionality in the use of force. The application of proportionate force, which may cause deprivation of life, should be judged by the circumstances of a particular case, and must be based on an assessment that no lesser degree of force was possible to achieve the requisite and lawful purpose. However, the concept is directed to the notion of force as continuum, ranging from no force to the ultimate degree of force. Because the laws grant the power or authority to use force it does not entail that any degree of force may be used to apply that power. Thus, it is argued that in some cases it may be unjustified to use any force whatsoever, for example, where a suspect willingly submits to arrest but is physically assaulted and manhandled. In the Farreell Case (1982), the European Commissioner of Human Rights observed that" "the 'end' of arresting could not justify a deliberate decision to kill, unless the circumstances were such that there was an immediate threat to life, whether the soldiers' life or some other life".

Secondly, deprivation of life may be justified only in defence of life. The standard which should evolve at the international level, if the right to life is to have the status intended in the international instruments as the supreme right, is that life may only be lawfully taken to protect life. It is not permissible under international human rights standards to subordinate the value of life to other values such as protection of honour, property, law enforcement or national security. Thus it is not permitted to shoot causing deprivation of life of alleged or suspected muggers or robbers trying to escape. Deliberate killing of another and use of lethal force is justifiable only in principle when it can be shown that this was a response to the imminent threat of injury or death from the victim or victims.

Thirdly, the question of justification of a deprivation must be subject to an independent judicial process. It is recognised under international human rights that a minimum requirement must be that all killings are subject to an independent judicial process, wherein if a trial of a person who has killed is possible, a decision can be made as to whether it was justifiable or not. If the killing was not justified, the person responsible should be punished. If the use of deadly force by security or police personnel is not a subject to prosecution, or the possibility of prosecution, all such killings must be treated as arbitrary. International standards preclude the concept of Acts of Indemnity or Immunity, where they result in the non-prosecution of officials for acts violating the right to life during emergencies or otherwise.

Despite the existence of these international standards, globally thousands of people are reportedly arbitrarily killed every year by security, police and law enforcement officials. Many organisations, groups and individuals concerned with human rights have become more and more aware of the extent and gravity of inhuman practices perpetrated by governments and other organised forces in many parts of the world. The arbitrary application of special legislations, which empower the security forces to use force and to shot to kill, without providing necessary safeguards against abuse of such powers, is an immediate cause of many such killings.

On several occasions, the UN Human Rights Committee has urged states to amend such repressive laws. In the De Guerroro vs Colombia Case (1982), it asked the Colombian government to amend the laws which empower the law enforcement authority to use force disproportionately, and provide immunity from any judicial action. In its recent comments on India's periodical report, the Committee also asked the Indian Government to change the laws (such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958) which became a continuous threat to the right to life citizens. In my view, the DMP Commissioner's remarks seem totally inconsistent with international human rights jurisprudence and principles.

Other International HR Instruments

The DMP Commissioner's proposal is also inconsistent with UN document regarding law enforcement authorities. In 1979, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, Article 3 of which states that "Law enforcement officials may use force only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of the duty."

The UN's Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials 1990, sets out clear conditions when the use of force and firearms permitted. Principle 9 states: "Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life."

Rule of Law Not of Force

Our society is currently hostage to terrorism and violence. Giving police the authority to 'shoot at sight' will never solve these problems. Enacting new repressive laws or empowering the police with more lethal arms will not even begin to address the deeply rooted problem of violence. Rather this kind of initiative will only serve to invite and initiate more violations of human rights. We strongly believe that such an initiative should not be taken. As we face the challenges of the twenty-first century. we need rule of law not rule of force.

The writer is a Ph.D candidate at Nottingham and a member of Ain o Salish Kendro (ASK).