Ireland v.

United Kingdom (1978):

This case involved allegations of inhuman and degrading treatment of individuals detained by British
security forces in Northern Ireland during the 1970s. The ECtHR found that the "five techniques" used by
the UK authorities constituted a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3
(prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment) of the ECHR.
Al-Skeini and Others v. the United Kingdom (2011):
In this case, the ECtHR examined allegations of unlawful killings of civilians by UK armed forces in Iraq.
The Court held that the UK had jurisdiction under Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the
ECHR over the actions of its armed forces in Basra, and found violations of the right to life (Article 2)
and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3) of the ECHR.
Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom (2011):
This case concerned the detention by UK armed forces of an Iraqi national in Iraq without trial or charge
for over three years. The ECtHR held that the UK had exercised effective control over the individual's
detention and had violated his right to liberty and security (Article 5) of the ECHR.
Georgia v. Russia (II) (2019):
In this case related to the 2008armed conflict between Georgia and Russia, the ECtHR found violations of
several articles of the ECHR, including the right to life (Article 2), the prohibition of inhuman or
degrading treatment (Article 3), and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8), due to
indiscriminate attacks, detention, and other human rights violations committed by Russian forces and de
facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
M.C. v. Bulgaria (2003):
This case concerned allegations of rape and sexual violence against a woman by police officers in
Bulgaria. The ECtHR found that Bulgaria had violated the woman's right to freedom from torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the ECHR) due to its failure to effectively investigate the
allegations of sexual violence and hold the perpetrators accountable.
Valiuliene and Others v. Lithuania (2013):
In this case, the ECtHR examined allegations of domestic violence and the failure of Lithuanian
authorities to provide adequate protection to the victims, including women and children. The Court held
that Lithuania had violated the victims' right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3)
and the right to an effective remedy (Article 13) of the ECHR due to its failure to provide effective
protection, investigation, and remedies for the victims of gender-based violence.
Opuz v. Turkey (2009):
This case involved allegations of domestic violence, including repeated physical and psychological abuse,
against a woman by her husband and the failure of Turkish authorities to provide adequate protection and
hold the perpetrator accountable. The ECtHR found that Turkey had violated the woman's right to
freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3), the right to life (Article 2), and the
right to an effective remedy (Article 13) of the ECHR due to its failure to provide effective protection,
investigation, and remedies for the victim of gender-based violence.

Denying justice to victims

Inter-American Court of Human Rights - Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988):
In this landmark case, the Inter-American Court held that states have an obligation to investigate,
prosecute, and punish human rights violations, including acts of sexual violence committed by state
agents. Granting amnesty to perpetrators was considered incompatible with the duty to ensure justice,
truth, and reparations for victims.

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) - Prosecutor v. Furundžija
(1998):
The ICTY emphasized that sexual violence constitutes a grave breach of international humanitarian law
and that perpetrators must be held accountable. Amnesty for such crimes would undermine the principles
of international justice and the rights of victims to truth, justice, and reparations.
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights - Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi
(2004):
The African Commission highlighted that granting amnesty for serious human rights violations, including
sexual violence, violates victims' rights to an effective remedy and reparation under the African Charter
on Human and Peoples' Rights.

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) - Aydin v. Turkey (1997):

The ECtHR ruled that states have an obligation to conduct effective investigations into allegations of
human rights violations, including sexual violence, and to ensure that perpetrators are prosecuted and
punished. Amnesty measures that prevent or hinder accountability can be considered a breach of this
obligation.

International Criminal Court (ICC) - Prosecutor v. Bemba (2016):

The ICC affirmed that sexual violence constitutes a war crime and a crime against humanity, and
perpetrators must be prosecuted and punished. Amnesty provisions that shield commanders or other
individuals responsible for such crimes from accountability are inconsistent with the ICC's mandate to
end impunity for the most serious crimes of international concern.

In light of these decided cases and principles, granting amnesty to a commander who committed sexual
acts can be seen as denying justice to the victim by:
Contravening International Human Rights Standards: Amnesty provisions that shield perpetrators
from prosecution and punishment for sexual violence violate victims' rights to truth, justice, and
reparations as recognized under international human rights law.

Undermining the Principle of Accountability: Amnesty undermines the principle of individual criminal
responsibility and fosters a culture of impunity, where perpetrators of sexual violence can evade justice
and continue to commit abuses without fear of repercussions.

Violating Victims' Right to an Effective Remedy: Victims of sexual violence have the right to an
effective remedy, including access to justice, truth, and reparations. Granting amnesty denies victims this
right by preventing them from obtaining justice and redress for the harm suffered.

Overall, international human rights obligations, as reflected in decided cases and judgments, emphasize
the importance of holding perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and ensuring justice for victims.
Granting amnesty to commanders or other individuals responsible for such crimes undermines these
obligations and denies justice to the victims.