Nearly four months after federal immigration agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis, the ordinary mechanisms of accountability have failed. The Justice Department has brought no charges in either case and declined to open a civil rights investigation into Good’s killing at all. Federal agencies have withheld evidence from state investigators, prompting Minnesota and Hennepin County to sue. Internal agency review, DOJ civil rights prosecution, and state prosecution – the three conventional paths to holding law enforcement officers accountable for unlawful use of force – have each been blocked, declined, or obstructed. A less-invoked framework in the U.S. offers a way forward: the Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death, which the United Nations Special Rapporteurs have expressly urged U.S. authorities to apply to these cases.
The Minnesota Protocol, adopted by the U.N. in 2016 as the revised Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, sets international standards for investigating “potentially unlawful death,” including any death that may have been caused by acts or omissions of the state or its agents. Minnesotan academics, particularly the late University of Minnesota Professor David Weissbrodt, were instrumental in developing the concept of “summary executions” and establishing international mechanisms to investigate them.
Human rights defenders around the world rely on the Minnesota Protocol to promote proper investigations and accountability for summary executions by state agents. It is essential that the people, politicians, and prosecutors in Minnesota become familiar with this protocol, especially in light of the recent summary executions of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. The tactics that Minnesota lawyers helped to develop as international tools to investigate abroad should now be deployed in American cities.
The Minnesota Protocol emphasizes the need for thorough investigations and prosecutions of those responsible, as well as for providing reparations to victims and their families. It also highlights the importance of preventive measures to ensure such events do not recur. This involves critically examining the rationale behind deploying federal agents in the first place and evaluating their tactics considering obstructing justice concerns. Training, including elements like anger management, for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is also a necessity.
How these killings are characterized shapes what accountability is possible. Failing to classify the killings of Good and Pretti as summary executions allows for a narrative focused on self-defense, diverting attention from the political context of these acts. Labeling these as summary executions situates them within a broader campaign against political dissent and reminds agents of their primary responsibility to protect rights and act accordingly, using force only when absolutely necessary. The protocol treats each death as a “potentially unlawful death” triggering a binding duty to investigate and it anchors the use-of-force analysis in the international standard incorporated into the Protocol: lethal force is permissible only when strictly unavoidable to protect against an imminent threat of death or serious injury, and only after less extreme means have been tried or shown to be insufficient. Under that standard, the tactical record in both killings does not survive scrutiny, as multiple options were available that could have safeguarded both the agents and the victims.
The administration’s justification for the federal response – and for declining to investigate it – rests on alleged criminal conduct by the victims. But a summary execution is defined as the immediate killing of an individual accused of a crime without due process, often in the context of political activity or protest. Administration officials have reportedly alleged criminal behavior of the Minneapolis victims to justify the federal response (or lack of it). But, even if Good or Pretti had committed a crime, such as obstructing justice, their actions do not warrant the death penalty and in most cases, if prosecuted, would result in a fine.
The Minnesota Protocol further illustrates that the use of force was not only unnecessary but disproportionate. The record in both cases illustrates how far the encounters fell short of that standard. There was no justification for approaching Good’s vehicle or for the lethal actions taken against Pretti. Other options to prosecute an obstructing justice charge were readily available. There were numerous actions available to the ICE agents that were protective of the rights of the Minneapolis victims and the officers.
According to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 31, committing a summary execution simply cannot be in the scope of duty of any any official of a State Party to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes the U.S. Acting as police, prosecutor, judge, and executioner is outside the scope of the ICE agents’ duty, which means that Minnesota can assert jurisdiction over the killings, and applying human rights law in state courts can help them do this.
U.S. lawyers and politicians often underutilize international human rights law, even where the United States has ratified the underlying instruments. But it remains a vital social and legal construct. Violations by the government do not diminish its significance; just look to the experiences of Argentina and Colombia, or the recent movement in Minneapolis to protect and reclaim rights. The Minnesota Protocol frames these killings for what they are under the framework: as violations of the right to life due to the excessive use of force by law enforcement officials in the context of protest.
The U.S. Constitution recognizes treaties as the “supreme Law of the Land.” Since the U.S. has ratified various human rights treaties, actions at all levels of government (federal, state, and local) must align with these laws. The Trump administration’s antipathy for human rights law does not absolve federal, state and local governments from acting in accord. Human rights law offers a means to regain leverage, foster international solidarity, and incorporate methodologies like the Minnesota Protocol that have been developed from global experiences.
Labelling the killing of Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti as summary executions and applying the Minnesota Protocol will help advance criminal and civil accountability. It will also clarify what structural changes are legally mandated by human rights treaties that should be applied to be part of U.S. law and practice to prevent these tragedies from repeating.
