The Scars of the Erasure_web

Erasure_4a 10.1.11 20:29 Page 8686 THE SCARS OF THE ERASURE3. Civil and political rights3.1 The right to lifeThe right to life, protected by Article 3 of the UDHR, Article 2 of the ECHRand Article 6 of the ICCPR, means that no one is allowed to deliberately take lifeand that the state must refrain from any acts that would jeopardize the life of aperson present within its territory. In the case of a person’s death, the state isobliged to investigate the circumstances that led to death and ensure effectivelegal mechanisms to protect the victims of the violation or their heirs. Article 2(2) of the ECHR defines the situations when the deprivation of life is not consi -dered to be in contravention of the provisions set forth in this document; theseinclude defense against unlawful violence, a lawful arrest or prevention of theescape of a person lawfully detained, or an action lawfully taken for the purposeof quelling a riot or insurrection. 7The expulsion from Slovenia left some erased people exposed to the violationof their right to life. Some were expelled because their documents wereinvalidated after they were deprived of resident status in Slovenia through theerasure, owing to the legal vacuum in the Aliens Act. Others, who were outsideSlovenia at the time of erasure, were denied entry into Slovenia because theirdocuments expired as a consequence of the erasure. Many of those who wereexpelled or were not allowed to come back to Slovenia were forced to go to regionsplagued at the time by armed conflict, and accordingly, it was the citizensof Bosnia and Herzegovina, or alleged citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, 8 whosesituation was the most precarious. Moreover, it was not rare for people exiledfrom Slovenia to be sent to the frontline, as was confirmed by an intervieweewith the pseudonym Dragan. 9 Naturally, it is not possible to say that Bosniakswho died in the war were killed by the state of Slovenia or officials in its stateadministration, but the direct and unlawful reason why they found themselvesin a territory where their life was in danger was the erasure and the resulting expulsionfrom, or prohibition on returning to Slovenia. Erased persons with Croatiancitizenship were in a somewhat better position than Bosnian citizens,because the former never needed a visa to enter Slovenia, so they could crossthe Slovenian-Croatian border with a valid passport and were consequently alsoless supervised once within Slovenia.In recognizing the erasure as an act leading to the violation of humanrights, some caution is in order to avoid the trap of argument non sequitur. This7 In the Council of Europe member states, the death penalty no longer represents an exemption from the absoluteprotection of the right to life, since the death penalty is prohibited by Protocol 6 of the ECHR.8 The term “alleged citizens” is used because in reality many erased persons were not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina;nevertheless, the Slovenian authorities asked them to first acquire Bosnian citizenship and then apply for permanentresidence in Slovenia.9 That the interviewee was aware of the gravity of his testimony is suggested by his request not to record this part ofthe interview.