| This study examines the role of international law in internal armed conflict in the pursuit of justice and accountability. It provides an analysis of international and domestic law and their potential of providing redress to victims of human rights violations. Can international law address such violations within sovereign countries? To what degree have international law provisions been incorporated in domestic legislation? What mechanisms exist to implement that law?;Answers are easier in the case of international conflict. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the First Additional Protocol of 1977 designate certain violations as "grave breaches," or war crimes: murder, torture, outrages upon personal dignity. An international tribunal can prosecute and punish perpetrators. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II also prohibit such practices in internal armed conflicts, but designate them "grave breaches" only in international conflict.;Human rights violations in internal conflict have been left unpunished until recently. The Tribunal for Rwanda marks an advance toward the prosecution of violators in internal conflict, under international law. The Security Council here invoked Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Protocol II, provisions applicable to non-international conflicts.;International law, which has traditionally regulated relations between states, is rapidly evolving toward protection of the individual as direct subject of rights. Regionally, the European Human Rights Court and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights offer recourse to victims when national systems fail. Since the convention system binds only signatory states, the Courts' jurisdiction excludes dissident groups.;Human rights violations, currently treated differently in international and in internal conflict, should be subjected to universal jurisdiction and treated equally. In support of such jurisdiction, I propose an international instrument, a solemn declaration which would not require ratification by states. It would help national and international courts in asserting the criminal responsibility of violators.;Peru, as a case study, in its struggle with Sendero Luminoso provides an instance of protracted conflict and of international human rights law in domestic conflict. It permits us to evaluate possible legal remedies to be invoked to redress human rights violations under domestic and international law. |
