Section 3: The Findings — Report Sections V and VI
Information on the ultimate findings of the Commission including specific violations and the non-compliance of U.S. law and policy.
Section V: Systemic racist violence in policing has resulted in a pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
International human rights law guarantees human rights and fundamental freedoms to people of African descent in the United States.
“These include the right to life; the right not to be subject to extrajudicial killing (arbitrary deprivation of life); the right to security; the right to freedom from arbitrary detention; the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence; the right to be free from torture; the right to equality and freedom from discrimination based on race, gender, disability or status as a child; and the right to mental health. Countries have duties to effectively prevent, punish, and redress violations of these rights, and to thoroughly and independently investigate and provide effective remedies.” (Page 96)
Specific violations human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Violation of the right to life.
Violation of the right to liberty and security.
Violation of the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence.
Violation of the non-discrimination requirement
*”Discrimination against people of African descent in the U.S. is not only demonstrated by the disproportionate number of killings of Black people, but also in the racial profiling, pretextual traffic stops, order maintenance policing, and police violence against people of African descent in the U.S.” (Page 98)Violations of the prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Taser use may be torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Violations of the right to mental health.
Specific violations of the duties to investigate and ensure effective remedies.
Violations of the duty to investigate.
Violations of the duty to ensure effective remedies for violations.
*”As the Commissioners noted, the reasons for such lack of accountability range from prosecutors’ conflicts of interest in prosecuting police officers who are effectively their colleagues, the influence of police unions, the departure from standard grand jury procedure to benefit officers, and bias against Black victims in favor of police killers by not only prosecutors and police unions. but also by coroners, investigators. and the internal review board charged with disciplining officers.” (Page 103)
Specific violations of duties of law enforcement officials under the code of conduct.
Violations of the duty to seek medical attention.
Section VI: U.S. law and police practices do not comply with international human rights law and standards governing the use of force.
“U.S. law is woefully inadequate in protecting people of African descent from police violence.” (Page 106) In summary, the laws and practices do not comply with obligations, and the few limits set do not meet international standards. There is no national legal framework to govern use of force, and neither the Supreme Court, nor Congress, have taken no action to address the few limits. They further violate International Human Rights Laws and standards on the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.
Non-compliance of U.S. law with basic principles on the use of force.
Legal Basis:
UN Basic Principles require compliance with international human rights law and standards. The U.S. laws and police practices with regard to use of force do not.
All state laws fail to meet international law and standards according to a 2015 Amnesty International report. In 2020, the University of Chicago Law School failed to find one large US city in 20 evaluated that was in compliance.
Legitimate Objective:
“Under international law and standards in relation to police use of force, lethal force can only be used when necessary as the only means to prevent imminent death or serious injury, and then only after a clear warning of the intent to use a firearm with time for the warning to be observed.”
This is contrary to practice of US law and police, where use of force is allowed for reasons other than outlined above.
“In no case was there a legitimate objective under international law for the lethal use of force or firearms.”
“1985 Supreme Court Tennessee v Garner held that the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all individuals suspected of committing a felony, regardless of the circumstances, violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court, however, ruled that deadly force can be used to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed, non-dangerous fleeing suspect if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, the officer may use deadly force if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, warning has been given.” (Page 107)
“U.S. law and practice standards are remarkably different from international law and standards and do not comply with the requirement of legitimate objective.” (Page 108)
Necessity
“Law enforcement officers must employ non-violent means before using force and firearms. They may only utilize force if other means are ineffective and the use of force is unavoidable (i.e., a last resort). Force can only be employed in response to an imminent or immediate threat (occurring in seconds, not hours). One can only use the amount of force that is necessary, and no more than necessary, to achieve the objective272 Officers must identify themselves and give clear warning of the intention to use lethal force with time for individuals to hear and respond to the warning, unless such warning would place the officer or others at risk of death or serious harm, or would clearly be pointless or inappropriate.” (Page 108)
Neither state, as law enforcement is decentralized through state and local law, nor U.S. federal law and standards meets the international standard.
Precautions
“All possible measures should be taken in advance to avoid a situation in which the decision to pull the trigger arises. Failure to take proper preventative precautions constitutes a violation of the right to life.” (Page 108)
The Commission found that the U.S. instead allows law enforcement to “arbitrarily endanger the lives of Black people.” (Page 109) U.S, law and practices do not require the precautions to protect life required by international law and standards.
The Supreme Court has weakened the Fourth Amendment such that use of force is determined by what is “objectively reasonable” by the law enforcement official involved. This has influenced state response to potential charges. “Since 2005, approximately 15,000 people have killed by police in the U.S. During that same period, only 104 police officers have been charged with murder or manslaughter for killing a civilian while on duty and of those, only 35 were convicted of any crime.” (Page 109)
“In fact, Supreme Court jurisprudence enables police to use U.S. law and standards of practice as at least a de facto basis for racial profiling and violent overreaction by law enforcement officers against Black people. The Court has set relaxed standards for securing a search warrant, stopping and frisking an individual, and effectuating a traffic stop. These relaxed standards allow police officers wide discretion to target Black individuals whom they stereotype as criminals.” (Page 110, Item #396)
There are further, several cases where the deficient standards are not followed, “leading to particularly egregious violations of the precaution requirement.” (Page 110)
Proportionality
“The proportionality requirement assumes the presence of a threat counterbalanced by proportional force. The amount of force an officer uses must be proportionate to the seriousness of the harm it is meant to prevent. Lethal force may only be used to prevent an imminently lethal threat.” (Page 111)
“In no case was there a threat, no less an imminent threat of death or serious injury, to the officers or others at the scene. Police officers in the U.S. frequently use these deadly methods, particularly against Black people.” (Page 111)
“The body of U.S. laws governing the use of force is one such domestic legal system that elevates the maintenance of order over the preservation of life.” (Page 111)
“U.S. law and practices do not comply with international law and standards regarding the proportionality of law enforcement’s use of force.” (Page 112)
Protection of life
“The findings of the Commissioners further demonstrated that the violation of the duty to protect the right to life was flagrant. Police officers used force, not in the service of the protection of life, but rather for the racist and unwarranted taking of Black life.” (Page 112)
In 2020, the national statistics show that 58% of police killings did not involve a person threatening anyone with a gun.
“U.S. law and practices do not comply with international law or standards.” (Page 112)
Non-discrimination
“The Commissioners found a pattern of discrimination in the use of deadly force in violation of the nondiscrimination principle—some of which was carried out even in violation of the lower standards set forth in U.S law.” (Page 113)
Accountability
“The failure of a State to properly investigate deaths after the use of force by police is itself a violation of the right to life.” (Page 113)
“U.S. federal prosecutors have the ability to charge police officers with federal civil rights violations, although such charges are rarely sought. In 2019, for example, researchers found that of the 184,000 cases prosecuted by the Department of Justice, federal prosecutors brought only 49 civil rights charges. During that same period, prosecutors brought 119 charges for illegal hunting of fish and wildlife. Based on these outcomes, legal scholars have observed that federal statutory and constitutional law are roadblocks to, instead of vehicles for, justice and accountability. Civil remedies for victims fare no better. (Page 114)
“Over the last two decades, however, courts have expanded the defense of qualified immunity by functionally requiring a previous case finding a constitutional violation under nearly identical circumstances. This is a high bar to meet and often precludes parties injured by police violence from obtaining damages for their injuries.” (Page 114)
“The available laws for domestic redress of civil rights and constitutional violations do not comply with the U.S.’s obligation to provide for effective remedies.” (Page 115)
“The state of U.S. law, with respect to use of force principles, is especially egregious given that the U.S. has repeatedly been urged to bring its law and practices in relation to excessive force by police into conformity with international standards.” (Page 115)
Non-compliance of U.S. law with the prohibition against torture.
“The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and mandates that States Parties take action to prevent and/or end acts of torture and remedy violation in their jurisdictions.” (Page 116, Item #425)
In 1988, the Reagan administration, with consent of the Senate limited the interpretation of UNCAT enacting chapter 113C of the U.S. Code, which prohibits torture only outside of the country. The U.S. State Department deemed police violence not equal to the level of torture.
“By limiting its prohibition on torture only to torture conducted abroad, the U.S. law fails to comply with international law standards. With respect to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, in signing on to UNCAT, the U.S. made numerous reservations, such as limiting cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to standards consistent with the U.S. Constitution which requires a level of severity not required by international law.339 U.S. domestic law thus fails to comply with the requisite international law and standards.” (Page 117, Item #431)
Below are links to the other summaries of the report. It is my deepest hope that others will join my effort to bring light to this report, as well as the many recommendations found in Section 5. We must force action on behalf of the people of African descent who will continue to suffer these atrocities without change. This report must be reviewed and acknowledged by as many people as possible.
Section 1: The Introduction — Report Sections I, II and II
Information on the International Human Rights Laws; the formation and purpose of the Commission; and the history of racism within law enforcement and policy in the U.S.
Section 2: The Facts — Report Section IV
Information on the facts discovered by the Commission through research, studies and hearing testimony.
Section 4: The Crimes — Report Section VII
Information on the specific crimes committed, including remedies and prosecution options for accused crimes.
Section 5: The Recommendations — Report Section VIII
Information on the specific recommendations made by the Commission for a varied list of responsible parties within the U.S. and interested parties abroad.
For those, who want to read the entirety of the Commission report for themselves. Please click here to access a complete copy of The Report of the International Commission Inquiry on Systemic Racist Police Violence Against People of African Descent in the United States.