Would you ever entertain the idea of hiring a housekeeper or a nanny who insisted on absolute immunity—an arrangement that would allow them to act without consequence, no matter what harm they caused? The answer, of course, is a resounding no. Absolute immunity erases accountability, and without accountability, justice becomes impossible.

Yet, paradoxically, in developed democracies such as the Netherlands and elsewhere, ordinary citizens remain governed by political elites shielded by various forms of immunity. This protection allows officials to make decisions that may infringe upon fundamental rights without fear of personal legal consequences. Globally, tens of millions of people—including children—continue to suffer horrific abuses perpetrated by individuals and governments emboldened by legal immunity.

As citizens of the 21st century, can we truly accept being ruled by leaders who are effectively placed above the law, behaving in ways disturbingly similar to medieval tyrants? While liberal democracies claim allegiance to both national and supranational laws, sovereign immunity is frequently invoked to evade accountability. This legal shield has been used to block investigations into war crimes, corruption, and systematic violations of human rights. For example, international courts have often struggled to prosecute state officials accused of atrocities in Syria, Myanmar, or Sudan because governments invoke sovereign immunity to shield their leaders.

Why Sovereign Immunity Must End

To remedy this antiquated legal loophole, we must educate the public about the origins of sovereign immunity—an inheritance of the medieval doctrine that “the King can do no wrong.” This principle granted rulers unchecked power and legitimized their oppression. Today, it continues to enable authoritarian behavior, even within systems that claim to be democratic.

Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) affirms:

“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

So long as sovereign immunity exists, this universal principle is violated. True equality before the law demands dismantling immunity privileges, ensuring that no ruler, politician, or official can place themselves above the rights of ordinary people.

The establishment of an international enforcement mechanism is urgently needed—one with the authority to override immunity claims and hold governments accountable for violations. Such a body would need real power to issue binding rulings, not merely recommendations. Council bodies such as FREMP (Working Party on Fundamental Rights, Citizens Rights, and Free Movement of Persons) could expand their role, making human rights protection a cross-cutting priority across all EU policies. At a global level, stronger enforcement tools under the International Criminal Court (ICC) or a newly established tribunal could close the gaps left by current legal frameworks.

Sovereign Immunity and the Divine Right of Kings

The history of sovereign immunity cannot be separated from the doctrine of monarchical absolutism that dominated Europe for centuries. According to the divine-right theory, kings derived their authority from God and therefore could not be held accountable by earthly institutions like parliaments.

This concept can be traced to the medieval belief that God distributed temporal power to rulers and spiritual power to the Church. By the 16th and 17th centuries, monarchs increasingly asserted control over both realms.

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627–1704), a French theorist, argued that royal power was sacred, absolute, and derived directly from God.
Sir Robert Filmer (1588–1653), an English royalist, claimed the state was like a family: the King was the father and thus wielded unquestionable authority.
King James I of England (1603–1625) championed the divine right fiercely, even as calls for greater parliamentary power grew.

However, anti-absolutist thought also began to rise. John Locke’s First Treatise of Civil Government (1689) directly refuted Filmer, laying the philosophical groundwork for constitutional democracy.

Events soon followed that eroded the doctrine of divine right:

The Glorious Revolution (1688–89) in England curtailed royal power in favor of parliamentary authority.
The American Revolution (1775–83) and the French Revolution (1789) dismantled absolutism further.
The Napoleonic Wars and the rise of constitutional governments across Europe stripped the doctrine of its last credibility.

Yet, remnants of this ideology survive today in the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity, which continues to grant rulers protection from accountability. In essence, the medieval principle that “the King can do no wrong” has been repackaged in modern democracies—allowing politicians and heads of state to evade responsibility.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-is-the-number-of-victims-86TPeMmWS_ic4rnO4wZWzw

What is the number of victims in Europe of human rights violations committed by government employees through their immunity?

There is no precise or widely published figure for the number of victims in Europe of human rights violations committed by government employees through the abuse of their immunity. Statistical reporting on this specific intersection—victims harmed by state actors who evade responsibility due to immunity—is extremely limited, as most data focuses on broader categories like core international crimes or total human rights complaints.

Scope and Nature of Immunity

Legal immunity for government officials means criminal and civil proceedings against them are rare and often excluded from reporting by European courts. Some landmark cases (such as Naït-Liman v Switzerland and the JOOLA case in France) illustrate how victims often fail to obtain redress because courts uphold immunity, denying access to effective remedies. The European Court of Human Rights has only heard a handful of cases that explicitly address state immunity as a bar to relief for victims.

Case and Trend Data

The Eurojust Genocide Network reported 3,171 ongoing cases related to the most serious international crimes in EU countries in 2021, but this includes all suspects, not necessarily government employees acting under immunity.

The application of immunity remains a significant obstacle, as courts balance it against the right to judicial remedies, but do not systematically record the number of victims denied compensation or justice due to these legal barriers.

Human rights organizations and legal authorities note that most affected individuals remain uncounted in official statistics, given the complexity and secrecy surrounding immunity cases.

Limitations in Reporting

There is no central European database monitoring “immunity-protected human rights violators” or quantifying victims.
Most sources offer qualitative insight into the impact—barriers to justice, frustration for victims, and calls for reform—but not exact numbers.

In conclusion, while it is well-recognized that immunity for government officials blocks accountability and enables ongoing human rights violations in Europe, there is no official victim count available for this specific category. The issue is acknowledged in legal and policy debates, but remains statistically invisible.