U.N. experts urge U.S., Yemen to explain erroneous drone strikes

GENEVA Thu Dec 26, 2013 12:54pm EST

GENEVA (Reuters) - United Nations human rights experts told the United States and Yemen on Thursday to say whether they were complicit in drone attacks that mistakenly killed civilians in wedding processions this month.

The independent experts questioned the legitimacy of drone attacks under international law and said the governments should reveal what targeting procedures were used.

Local security officials said on December 12 that 15 people on their way to a wedding in Yemen were killed in an air strike after their party was mistaken for an al Qaeda convoy. The officials did not identify the plane in the strike in central al-Bayda province, but tribal and local media sources said that it was a drone.

Stressing the need for accountability and payment to victims' families, the U.N. statement issued in Geneva said that two attacks, on two separate wedding processions, killed 16 and wounded at least 10 people.

"If armed drones are to be used, states must adhere to international humanitarian law, and should disclose the legal basis for their operational responsibility and criteria for targeting," said Christof Heyns, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.

The United States has stepped up drone strikes as part of a campaign against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), regarded by Washington as the most active wing of the militant network. Yemen, AQAP's main stronghold, is among a handful of countries where the United States acknowledges using drones, although it does not comment on the practice.

Heyns urged Yemen and the United States to disclose whether they were responsible, and if so, what targeting standards were used, how many civilians were killed, and whether they plan to provide compensation for the victims' families.

"Yemen cannot consent to violations of the right to life of people in its territory," he added.

Juan Mendez, U.N. special rapporteur on torture, voiced concern about the legitimacy of the airstrikes. Each state was obliged to undertake due investigation into the reported incidents, including their effect on civilians, he said.

"A deadly attack on illegitimate targets amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if, as in this case, it results in serious physical or mental pain and suffering for the innocent victims," Mendez said.

(Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Ruth Pitchford)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
WhyMeLord: shame on you for stereotype people

Dec 26, 2013 2:44pm EST  --  Report as abuse
so Reuters mods are bias.. but thanks for validating my opinion that you are a left leaning news source.

Dec 26, 2013 3:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
MikeBarnett wrote:
If the US refuses to allow investigations, the correct response might be to destroy the oil and gas infrastructure and the electrical power grid in the USA. This could stop the US from making the drones and missiles by crippling its economy because the economy pays for the war machine and develops its technological tools. The US economy depends on oil, gas, and electricity at this time. The main targets would be refineries, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, oil tank railroad cars, drilling rigs, and pumping rigs for oil and gas. Transformers would be the main targets for electricity. The US should consider taking all possible steps to make its attacks conform to international law and act as humanely as possible before people inside and outside of the US decide that strategic attacks are the only way to encourage the US to behave properly.

Dec 26, 2013 3:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.