Wide scale jubilation was witnessed in Tripoli, Libya’s capital, after the confirmation that Col Gaddafi, their ex-dictator, was dead. This was reminiscent of the scenes outside of the White House and throughout Washington in May, when Barack Obama announced that Osama Bin Laden had died after a raid on his compound in Pakistan. Both suffered violent deaths, and many will comment that this is only suitable for such men. However, surely it would have been better if both had have been captured and made to stand trial for their crimes?

Firstly, the celebrations that marked both deaths caused mix-reactions. To many, they were fully justified; their deaths marked the end of a reign of terror and allowed the celebrants to put this dark era behind them. However, others will have been disgusted.  True, both were guilty of heinous crimes, but is it truly right to celebrate anyone’s death? Such celebrations may even show a lack of humanity, though perhaps this is due to Gaddafi/Bin Laden being separated from humanity rather than the celebrants.

Underlying these deaths though is the feeling that neither had to die in such circumstances. Both died from gunshot wounds, Gaddafi caught in the crossfire between loyalist and rebel forces, and Bin Laden during a raid by US Navy Seals. Certainly, Gaddafi’s death was circumstantial. However, I cannot help but think that UN forces, who have helped the rebels throughout this campaign, could have played a larger role in capturing Sirte, Gaddafi’s hometown. Sirte seemed to be one of the few places that Gaddafi may have been hiding, and with the UN stating that they were seeking to trial Gaddafi for his numerous crimes against humanity, it is amazing that they did not try and control the end of Gaddafi more. For Bin Laden, the case that he could have been captured is even more obvious. President Obama issued an order before the raid that Bin Laden had to be captured, dead or alive. The result of the raid seems to make it apparent that the emphasis on the latter option was perhaps not so strong, as it has become clear that he was unarmed and could easily have been captured. Instead he was shot twice and then unceremoniously dumped into the sea.

The reason I am placing so much emphasis on the fact that both could have been captured is the value of enforcing democratic, International law. Both were known to have been behind acts of terrorism or acts against humanity, and so should have been made accountable in The Hague for these crimes. By standing trial, the International community would have been able to judge their accountability for any crimes they committed and furthermore will have been able to enforce a suitable punishment on them. Gaddafi will never be able to stand up and admit his role in any crimes, and as such it is hard to believe that full closure can truly be made on many cases that he may have been accountable for now that he is dead.  Instead, for many victims of his reign, their suffering at the hand of this dictator may be forgotten. The form of closure which will have been brought about by Gaddafi’s death may well be short-lived, as it is hard to say if they will every truly recover from the suffering that was brought about by Gaddafi.

It can only be assumed that the jubilation seen due to Gaddafi’s death, and indeed Bin Laden’s death, was a sign that those who suffered at the hands of these men feel that some form of justice has been served. Perhaps a trial, which could have taken many years and involved victims to retell their harrowing tales, may have been the last thing those who suffered at their hands would have wanted. This way, it can be known that Gaddafi can cause no more harm and Libya can move into a new era, one that will hopefully begin with the rise of a democratic nation.