> Non-utilitarian deontological systems typically have rules about which means are appropriate to which ends, so, no, ends properly justifying means isn’t exclusive to utilitarian systems.
In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends.
> In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends.
No, in a deontological system where the appropriate means are tied to the ends, the means are justified by the ends. The rules are the decision principals, but the ends are (in that case) the inputs.
Sure, justification in any system is a product of the the rules as applied to the facts.
But, just as in reasoning from facts with rules of logic and inference to conclusions of facts, you don't say knowledge of the fact conclusion is justified by the rules of logic and inference, but by the source facts, so when ethical rules consider means in determining ends, it is said that those ends are justified by the means. In either the fact or ethics case you will, when it is not otherwise clear from context, cite the particular rule framework within which you are working, but even then you wouldn't say the conclusion or action is justified by the rule framework, though you might say it is justified within the rule framework by the applicable premises.
In the example you mention, the means are justified by the rules, not the ends.