The Human Rights Blog

Colombian Students Threatened

Three students from the Colombian National Federation of Universities (FUN) have received death threats. The threats are directed to Adriana Lozano, the FUN's National Spokesperson, Miguel Angel Barriga, student representative to the Superior Council of the District University and José Luis Blanco, student representative to the Academic Council of the UPTC. FUN members in Nariño are also threatened.

The threats against these students come in the context of increased threats against student groups at many Colombian universities. Student activists have been the objects of kidnaping and killings in the past. Death squads often call social activists of any kind "terrorists" and accuse them of supporting the "subversion."

Please write to the Colombian authorities, as well as to your representatives in your own country, requesting that Colombian authorities ensure the protection of the threatened students.

President Uribe's address is:

S.E. Álvaro Uribe Vélez, Presidente de la República, Cra. 8 # 7-26, Palacio de Nariño, Santa Fe de Bogotá.Fax:+57.1.566.20.71 : auribe@presidencia.gov.co

---

Here is a translation of the threats. Note, the name and address "Alberto Palomino" have been used before to send threats to human rights groups.


From:Alberto Palomino
Date: Tuesday, July 4th 2006 06:22:55 p.m.
To:
funcomisiones@hotmail.com, FUNcionando@gruposyahoo.com, funcomisionesuptc@yahoo.com, funcpasto@yahoo.com, modep@tutopia.com
Subject:
No more terrorists disguised as students

Messrs.. FUN.. Terrorists disguised as students.

In our struggle for a free and peaceful Colombia, and in accordance to the security policy of President Dr. Alvaro Urie (sic) Velez, we inform you that in the upcoming years there will be a cleaning of the enemies of a true democracy.

For that reason, we present the following names, which will be expanded in the future, of those that must not remain in their universities and regions, as punishment for their vandalistic actions, otherwise they will suffer the whole force of our presence.

For that reason we present the following names, which will be expanded, of:

1 Miguel Barriga and Adriana Lozano – Bogota- Terrorists disguised as students. Friends and protectors of terrorists in the city. Supporters of illicit and unstable acts in the universities. Supporters of unique organizations of disorder. No more strikes and senseless opposition.

2. Jose Blanco – Tunja- Terrorist disguised as representative. Insurgent support in Boyaca. Creator of terrorist nuclei in Tunja and surroundings. Supporter of illicit and unstable acts in the universities.. No more unnecessary recesses

3. Fun udenar. Terrorists disguised as students. Their leaders fool begining students. They hide their support of subversion. Recruiters of the ignorant. Long live a Pasto free of terrorists.

Not one month more, nor a semester more, nor a year more in your universities. No more disguised terrorists.

First warning.

From:
Andres Duran
Sent:
Monday, 17 July 2006 10:47:25 a.m.
To:
funcomisiones@hotmail.com, funcomisionesuptc@yahoo.com, funcpasto@yahoo.com, miguel_quimica@yahoo.es, modep@tutopia.com
Subject:
No more time for terrorists disguised as students.

(No message)

To the Mothers of Mayo

The following is my free translation of Ismael Serrano's song "A las Madres de Mayo", "To the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo." Of all the songs written about the disappeared, and/or to the Mothers of them, this is one of my favorites. Though the wording reflects the particular situations of disappearances in Argentina (throwing people alive to the sea, the wearing of scarves) I think the lyrics will speak to the Mothers of the disappeared all over the world.

He looks for you, mother, while the sea,
in which he is sinking, rocks him asleep.
He dreams of your embrace, searches for memories
to which to hold on so he won't fall asleep.

The sea roars, it's a tempest, a cry.
Who could have sent a thousand angels to heaven?
And he hears your screams, white scarves
cover its waters; the wind brought them.
Send a wave to take away
the traitors who planted so much death.

Boats and castaways hear their voices.
They say "Never, never, forget our names".
Tell the mothers that someplace,
where it's needed, we continue fighting.

Mother, your son hasn't disappared.
Mother, I found him walking with you.
I see him in your eyes, I hear him in your mouth,
and he calls me in everyone of your gestures.
I see him in my struggle and he is with me
among the flames of every new battle.

His strong hands guide mine,
towards a future, always towards victory.
His strong hands guide mine,
towards a future, always towards victory.

A las madres de mayo

Te busca madre mientras su cuerpo es mecido
por el mar en el que se sumerge dormido.
Sueña tu abrazo, busca recuerdos,
a los que aferrarse para no conciliar el sueño.

El mar se inquieta, es tempestad, lamento.
¿Quién pudo lanzar mil ángeles desde el cielo?
Y oye tus gritos, blancos pañuelos,
cubren sus aguas, los trajo el viento.
Manda una ola para que se lleve
a los traidores que sembraron tanta muerte.

Barcos y naúfragos oyen sus voces.
Les dicen "Nunca, nunca, olviden nuestros nombres".
Díle a las madres que en algún lado,
donde hace falta, seguimos luchando.

Madre, tu hijo no ha desaparecido.
Madre, que yo lo encontré andando contigo.
Lo veo en tus ojos, lo oígo en tu boca,
y en cada gesto tuyo me nombra.
Lo veo en mis luchas y me acompaña
entre las llamas de cada nueva batalla.

Guían mis manos sus manos fuertes,
hacia el futuro, hasta la victoria siempre.
Guían mis manos sus manos fuertes,

The UN should grant consultative status to LGBT NGOs

The Observatory calls upon the ECOSOC to grant consultative status to several LGBT NGOs

Geneva-Paris, July 20, 2006. As the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) will consider tomorrow the applications for consultative status of NGOs addressing human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender, the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH), in the framework of their joint programme, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, call upon ECOSOC to consider the application of these NGOs on their merits.

On January 23, 2006, the ECOSOC Committee on NGOs rejected the applications for consultative status of the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) and the Danish National Association for Gays and Lesbians (Landsforeningen for Bøsser og Lesbiske - LBL), without providing the organisations with reasons for the refusal (See Observatory Open Letter to the ECOSOC President, dated May 26, 2006).

Moreover, on May 16 and 17, 2006, the NGO Committee also dismissed the application for consultative status of two other organisations advancing human rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people, namely the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (Lesben- und Schwulenverband in Deutschland - LSVD) and ILGA-Europe.

On May 12, 2006, the Committee left pending the application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec (Coalition Gaie et Lesbienne du Québec). On May 18, 2006, a final deferral concerned the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec, and was a result of the NGO’s having provided answers only in French.

As no ground was given for the rejection of the first four applications, the Observatory fears that these rejections, as well as the deferral of the application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec, might have been motivated by the work of those NGOs in favour of homosexual rights.

Yet, these issues are of legitimate concern for the United Nations. Indeed, numerous Special Procedures have documented violations of the human rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. Treaty bodies, including the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women have all addressed sexual orientation and gender identity issues within their mandates. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has also highlighted rights violations on these grounds in her country reports and public statements.

At the September 2006 session of the UN Human Rights Council, all Special Procedures will be presenting their reports, many of which document human rights violations based upon sexual orientation and gender identity. The UN therefore needs to hear from NGOs addressing these issues.

Questions of NGO access and participation are of particular concern during this time of UN transition and reform. ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 on the consultative relationship between the United Nations and NGOs explicitly confirms the need to take into account the full diversity of NGOs. It sets out that NGOs shall be granted consultative status if they (a) are concerned with matters falling within the competence of ECOSOC and its subsidiary bodies, (b) have aims and purposes that are in conformity with the spirit, purposes and principles of the UN Charter, and (c) undertake to support the work of the United Nations and to promote knowledge of its principles and activities. The applicant NGOs fulfil these criteria, and are active in fields such as health, gender, development and human rights.

The Observatory recalls the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the General Assembly of United Nations on December, 9, 1998, in particular its article 1 that states that “Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels”, and its preamble, in which the General Assembly stressed “that all members of the international community shall fulfil, jointly and separately, their solemn obligation to promote and encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction of any kind, including distinctions based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”, reaffirmed “the particular importance of achieving international cooperation to fulfil this obligation according to the Charter”, and reiterated “that all human rights and fundamental freedoms are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated and should be promoted and implemented in a fair and equitable manner […]”.

As a consequence, the Observatory calls upon ECOSOC to consider the applications of ILGA, LBL, ILGA-Europe and LSVD on their merits, in accordance with usual practice, as well as to give full and fair consideration to the pending application of the Gay and Lesbian Coalition of Quebec.

For more information, please contact:
OMCT: 00 41 22 809 49 39
FIDH: 00 33 1 43 55 25 18

Derechos Human Rights is a member of the OMCT

AI finally getting into the internet business?

I just saw this job announcement for an Internet Program Director at the General Secretariat of Amnesty International in London. Judging by what the brief job description says, it sounds like AI wants to copy part of the work that Derechos and our sister organization Equipo Nizkor have been doing for the last decade. It's ironic, because one of the main reasons why I left Amnesty International - where I began my human rights activism - was its reluctance to embrace the internet and associated technologies. But it's better late (even a decade) than never.

I wonder wether AI can be succesful at creating online communities. The other reason why I left AI - which as associated with the first - was AI's absolute need to control information, and therefore action. It was very difficult to do anything of notice within AI without going through many hoops to get approval. I would like to believe that the new changes that have been instituted will work by empowering AI members. I guess only time will tell.

Declaration on Indigenous People's Rights Signed

On June 29th the new UN Human Rights Council approved the "Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Thirty of the states members of the council voted for it, albeit some with understandings or reservations. A number of countries abstained, while Canada and Russia voted against it. Canada said it had problems with provisions on land, territories and resources which were unclear and open to interpretation, and provisions on land claims, the concept of "free, prior and informed consent" and issues relating to self-government provisions. Philippino media speculated that Canada's surprising position may be related to the Canadian company TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc. which has been accused of numerous human rights violations (see below). Inuit activists, meanwhile, think the Canadian government is reluctant to give Indigenous Communities more power.

You can read the Declaration here

http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl104354.htm

MANILA, JULY 3, 2006 (STAR) By Artemio Dumlao - After more than 20 years in the pipeline, the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was finally approved on June 29.

With 30 states voting in favor and only Canada and Russia against it, the declaration marks a milestone in the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples around the world and brings to an end indigenous peoples’ long struggle for self-determination.

Under the declaration indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.

It also says that indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.

The declaration recognizes and protects the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and, by virtue of that right, they may freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The declaration also states that indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the state.

Those who voted for the resolution’s adoption were Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia.

Those who voted against were Canada and the Russian Federation.

Twelve nations, namely the Philippines, Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine, abstained from voting.

The nations of Djibouti, Gabon and Mali were absent when the resolution was voted upon.

Quoting some of the explanations of their vote for the declaration, Guatemalan Carla Rodriguez Mancia said, "enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples."

"Adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all states to adopt the draft by consensus," Mancia said.

Mexican Xochiti Galvez said they had finally closed the circle. They were at a historic point in time where the UN member-states acknowledged the fundamental rights of the world’s indigenous peoples.

"Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," Galvez said. "Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed."

Mexico, he said, asked those countries that still had misgivings to vote favorably on this resolution: "It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights."

Indian representative Ajai Malhotra explained India’s vote: "India had consistently favored the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of (the term) ‘indigenous.’"

The entire population of India was considered indigenous, Malhotra added. "With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft declaration, and would vote in its favor."

The United Kingdom’s Nicholas Thorne said his country welcomed the declaration as "an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples."

The UK, Thorne said, felt its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.

The UK, however, did not accept the concept of indigenous peoples’ collective rights in international law, Thorne said.

According to him, the UK understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a state and "which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of states."

The UK position on the matter is that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the UK and its territories overseas do not fall within the scope of the declaration, he added.

Paul Meyer of Canada explained his regret over their negative vote, though he acknowledged the important role that Canada played in the process of the drafting of the declaration.

Meyer said the draft declaration did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous peoples’ representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues.

He added that Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world.

Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues, he added.

--------------

Comments by signatory nations (from http://www.unog.ch/unog/website/news_media.nsf/(httpNewsByYear_en)/BE82C77003776B9EC125719C005D5994?OpenDocument)

Action on Resolution on Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.3), entitled Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994, adopted after a roll-call vote by thirty in favour, two against, and twelve abstentions, the Human Rights Council adopts the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as proposed by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights to elaborate a draft declaration in accordance with paragraph 5 of the General Assembly resolution 49/214 of 23 December 1994 in annex I to the report of the Working Group on its eleventh session (E/CN.4/2006/79); recommends to the General Assembly that it adopt the following draft resolution:

The General Assembly, expresses its appreciation to the Council for the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; and adopts the Declaration as contained in the annex to Council resolution 2006/….

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law. Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity. Indigenous peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining their rights to participate fully, if they so choose, in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (30):
Azerbaijan, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Switerzland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay, Zambia.

Against (2):
Canada, Russian Federation.

Abstentions (12):
Algeria, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Tunisia, Ukraine.

Absent (3):
Djibouti, Gabon, Mali.

CARLA RODRIGUEZ MANCIA (Guatemala), in a general comment, said enough time had gone during the last 20 years in drafting the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration would be a historical achievement in the efforts of the international community towards the rights of the indigenous peoples. The adopting the draft declaration would help the indigenous peoples. Guatemala called on all States to adopt the draft by consensus.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland), in a general comment, said the text was a compromise one which met with agreement with most of the delegations and most of the representatives of indigenous groups. Switzerland would have wished for the text to be adopted by consensus, but if this was not the case, it would vote in favour of the text.

XOCHITI GALVEZ (Mexico), in a general comment, said that they had finally closed the circle. They were at an historic point in time, finally acknowledging the fundamental rights of the world’s indigenous peoples. Mexico was prepared to support the adoption of the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Where there was a collective political will, they could achieve a great deal. That had been seen in the Working Group, where the spirit of cooperation and dialogue had prevailed.

Mexico exhorted those countries that still had misgivings to vote favourably on this resolution. It was important for the Human Rights Council to give a clear signal to indigenous peoples throughout the world that it was working to promote and protect their human rights.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, acknowledged the important role that Canada, as well as other indigenous organizations, had played in the process of the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The proposal did not receive the necessary support, even though Canada, some other countries and a few indigenous representatives noted in their statements difficulties with a process where all parties had not discussed proposed language on several key issues. Canada had worked for a declaration that would promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of every indigenous person without discrimination and recognized the collective rights of indigenous peoples around the world. Canada had a long and proud tradition of not only supporting but also actively advocating Aboriginal and treaty rights at home and was fully committed to working internationally on indigenous issues. Regrettably, however, Canada would vote against the resolution.

AJAI MALHOTRA (India), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said India had consistently favoured the rights of indigenous peoples, and had worked for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The text before the Council was the result of 11 years of hard work. The text did not contain a definition of “indigenous”. The entire population of India was considered to be indigenous. With regards to the right to self-determination, this was understood to apply only to peoples under foreign domination, and not to a nation of indigenous persons. With this understanding, India was ready to support the proposal for the adoption of the draft Declaration, and would vote in its favour.

GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that Indonesia had been following closely over 11 years the negotiations on this draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Human Rights Council, as a new body, had to address such important issues as this draft declaration. Therefore Indonesia supported the adoption of the draft declaration to protect and support the rights of indigenous peoples worldwide. Indonesia was a multicultural nation that did not discriminate against its population on any grounds. All of Indonesia’s citizens enjoyed the right to equal treatment before the law.

TOUFIQ ALI (Bangladesh), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that the text did not follow the usual procedure before it was put as a final text for adoption. Bangladesh was a party to the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Civil and Political Rights and was making all efforts to implement them. Until some of the articles in the text were not amended, Bangladesh would abstain from the voting.

ALEXEY AKZHIGITOV (Russian Federation), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said great importance was given to defending the rights of indigenous peoples. The adoption by consensus of the draft would constitute a major step forward in ensuring the powers of indigenous peoples. Many provisions of the draft were acceptable. The draft should be effective and an authoritative international document. To date, the proposed text which had been submitted to the Council did not represent all of these characteristics, as the text did not enjoy genuine consensus, and had not been agreed on by all sides. Its adoption would set a negative precedent, and in this context Russia could not support the draft declaration in this form and in the procedure that had been used, and would vote against it. However, this did not mean that Russia was against a continuation of a discussion of the issue, and would work for international cooperation in the protection of the rights of indigenous persons.

SHA ZUKANG (China), speaking in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that China was in favour of the draft resolution under review on a draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of this United Nations instrument would be done after extensive consideration, China noted. China regretted that this instrument would have to be adopted by voting, at this very early stage of the work of the Human Rights Council. China hoped that in the future work of the Council members would conduct their work in a constructive spirit of cooperation.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Government of the Philippines was fully committed to safeguarding and promoting the rights of its indigenous peoples. Because of that commitment, the Government had enacted a national indigenous people’s rights act and had two autonomous regions in the country. If the draft resolution on the declaration were to be put for a vote, the delegation of the Philippines would abstain.

CLODOALDO HUGUENEY (Brazil), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Brazil had voted for the resolution, and believed that the decision was a major achievement which augured well for the Council’s work, and commended States and indigenous peoples who had made great efforts to ensure this memorable result. The Declaration asserted the importance of the indigenous peoples in societies, acknowledged diversity as a richness of countries, and aligned the past and present contribution of indigenous peoples to States. Brazil recognised the invaluable contribution of indigenous peoples to the political, economic, social, cultural and spiritual development of its society. The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would be of utmost importance to fight discrimination against indigenous peoples and distortion created by centuries of discrimination. It would help to create societal harmony. Brazil had no doubt that the declaration was a reaffirmation of the commitment of the international community to ensure the enjoyment of indigenous peoples of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to respect the value of their indigenous cultures and identity.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that he wanted it to be noted that he had joined in the standing ovation that had marked the adoption of this declaration by the Council. Unfortunately, Algeria had had to abstain. He would like to plead for this declaration to have the maximum number of positive votes. In fact, Algeria had numerous indigenous peoples and had hoped the declaration would have been adopted unanimously, in which case it would have been able to join the consensus. Unfortunately the declaration was in conflict with the Constitution of Algeria, which contained a provision on political parties that stipulated they could not be on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. For that reason Algeria could not vote in favour.

HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Japan had been participating in the Working Group for the drafting of the Declaration on the Rights Indigenous People for the last 12 years and it had voted in favour of the draft resolution. The Government would interpret the declaration that the meaning of autonomy that it might not affect the territorial integration of State sovereignty. Further, the Government did not recognize collective rights.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Argentina had abstained, and regretted it had not been able to join the favourable vote. Despite Argentina’s clear adhesion to the rights of indigenous peoples, Argentina regretted the lack of time to deal with certain provisions of the declaration, which were of particular importance, namely the process of self-determination and territorial integrity. Argentina hoped that the situation would be rectified in the General Assembly, and Argentina would be able to vote in favour there, especially as this was one of the most important and legitimate topics to be dealt with by the international community.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that Ukraine had always supported the elaboration of an international instrument for the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples. The protection of indigenous peoples was one of the core rules of Ukrainian law. For that reason, Ukraine had been striving to elaborate an instrument that would provide the proper balance between the rights of indigenous peoples and those of sovereign States.

Ukraine said that the document just adopted by the Council contained important protections for the rights of indigenous peoples, but it also contained important flaws. It purported to define a right of self-determination for indigenous peoples. For that reason, and because it failed to fulfil the need to preserve the territorial and political integrity of sovereign States, Ukraine could not support it. Ukraine regretted that the text had been adopted without allowing Member States to improve the document so that it could reach consensus.

NARSINGHEN HAMTYRAGEN (Mauritius), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the declaration would consolidate the existing universal human rights. It was expected that all States would contribute in resolving the difficulties of indigenous peoples. There was a fear that some self-designated indigenous groups might threaten the sovereignty of a State by following a wrong interpretation of the declaration. The concept of autonomy should not be interpreted to jeopardize the sovereignty of a State.

ANDREAS PFAFFERNOSCHKE (Germany), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said along with other efforts undertaken during the past decade to improve the situation of indigenous peoples throughout the world, Germany had closely monitored the development of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The adoption of the document proved that the new Council was able to produce concrete results for the benefit of indigenous peoples, who were entitled to the same human rights and fundamental freedoms as everybody else. The respect and application of existing binding international human rights law remained essential. The primary importance of individual human rights protection was asserted in the Declaration. Germany understood the right to self-determination set out in the Declaration to be a new right, specific to indigenous peoples, and it could not influence the territorial integrity of a State. The Declaration, being an important instrument to enhance the rights of indigenous peoples was non-legally binding. Germany’s own national minorities and ethnic groups, which enjoyed protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, did not fall under the scope of the Declaration.

NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom), speaking in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said that the United Kingdom welcomed the declaration as an important tool to enhance the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples, and regretted that the declaration had had to come to a vote. The United Kingdom felt that its concerns had been addressed in negotiations, as reflected in the declaration, and it fully supported the provisions of the declaration that recognized the rights of indigenous peoples under international law, on an equal footing with all.
The United Kingdom observed that it did not accept the concept of collective rights in international law. The United Kingdom clarified that it understood the right of self-determination as set out in the declaration as one which was to be exercised within the territory of a State and which was not designed to impact in any way on the territorial integrity of States. The United Kingdom emphasized that the declaration was not legally binding and that the citizens of the United Kingdom and its territories overseas did not fall within the scope of the declaration.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said the delegation of Morocco had abstained during the vote. The delegation of Morocco would have preferred that the resolution be adopted by consensus so that Morocco could have joined. Morocco was making progress in building its democratic system and in strengthening the human rights of its people.

ADELE WILDSCHUT of the Indigenous Peoples Caucus, said on the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that the League of Nations had not acted on the demands of the envoys of the Maoris and others, and the roots of the discrimination went back to the 1970s, a time when the international community had been prompted to pay attention to the indigenous peoples in the Americas. The repeated demands for the distinction of the distinct status of the indigenous peoples had at last been addressed, after substantive debate with positions that had been consistent with international law. The international community had been educated as to the status, rights, and lives of indigenous peoples in every corner of the world. The true legacy of the declaration would be the way in which the lives of the indigenous peoples would be affected on a daily basis. It was the implementation of the declaration at the community level which would have the greatest impact. The States that had worked with the indigenous peoples would not be forgotten. It was hoped that each State would stand with the indigenous peoples at the General Assembly. Indigenous peoples wished for harmony in accordance with the natural world and hoped that all would be brought together to embrace the positive contribution that indigenous peoples made to mankind.

Action on Resolution on Working Group on Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

In a resolution (A/HRC/1/L.4/Rev.1) entitled Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted by consensus, the Human Rights Council welcomes the report of the Open-ended Working Group with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/CN.4/2006/47); decides to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in order to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, in this regard, requests the Chairperson of the Working Group to prepare, taking into account all views expressed during the sessions of the Working Group, on, inter alia, the scope and application of an Optional Protocol, a first draft Optional Protocol which includes draft provisions corresponding the various main approaches outlined in her analytical paper, to be used as a basis for the forthcoming negotiations; requests the Working Group to meet for ten working days each year and to report to the Human Rights Council; decides to invite a representative of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to attend these meetings as a resource person; and decides that the Human Rights Council shall remain seized of this matter.

ANGELA CHAVEZ (Guatemala), in a general comment, said that the provisions for the possible Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been exhausted by the Working Group. Guatemala thought that the Chair of the Working Group should now move to the drafting stage, which would be the most rapid way to promote the adoption. Guatemala hoped that the resolution presented by Portugal would be adopted by consensus.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), in a general comment, said the delegation of Saudi Arabia would stand by its previous stand. The delegation was of the view that the resolution should contain clauses on international cooperation so that developing countries would enjoy economic, social and cultural rights. Saudi Arabia had certain reservations on the Optional Protocol.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Canada) in an explanation of the vote after the vote, said Canada was happy to join consensus on this resolution, and was happy for the efforts that had been made to reconcile different positions. It was important for the Working Group to continue its work. It was important that the draft did not prejudge a range of issues. Canada continued to question the merits of a communications procedure for economic, social and cultural rights, and was concerned for the potential of undue interference by an international body, and the absence of a clear definition for many economic, social and cultural rights, as well as for clear criteria for judging compliance. Canada’s decision to join consensus was without prejudice to future decisions.

--------------
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/press1146.htm

26th June 2006

100 TVI Armed SCAAs Harass Helpless Farmers, Demolish House and injure four 26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines – It is difficult to imagine how terrified helpless farmers were, when they were harassed two nights ago by around 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) of the Canadian mining firm TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.

According to Nonong Purigay of the Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) four farmers were seriously injured, one of whom is a local catholic chapel lay minister called Jimmy Acope. The other three farmers injured were John-john Romano, Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy Galves.

The heartless SCAAs, who were led by Retired Lt. Cortes, mercilessly demolished the house of the Galves family and looted valuables such as the television, VCD and DVD player, other personal belongings and an undetermined amount of cash.At around 10pm on June 24 this year, Nonong Purigay telephoned the DCMI office and reported an unusual troop movement of the company’s SCAA. He warned at the time that TVI’s SCAA forces were gradually moving towards the Galves residence.

When they were a few meters from the house, the SCAAs stalled for a short while, but then finally overran the property, demolishing it and looting all the things found inside, according to Nonong Purigay’s account.

Purigay noted that around 50 SCAAs directly assisted on the demolition of Galves residence while the other 50 secured the surrounding area and prevented other farmers from assisting the Galves family in stopping the demolition. As a result of the incident, Mrs. Galves collapsed, and the SCAAs forcibly dragged her away from the house, while they were continuously demolishing the house. The SCAAs pointed their guns at the people who wanted to help Mrs. Galves.

According to Purigay the commotion ensued for an hour until the SCAAs gradually retreated from the Galves residence, after putting the materials from the house on TVI dump trucks and moving them to places unknown.

DCMI personnel telephoned the mobile phone of Eugene Mateo, the President of TVI Resource Development Philippines on the night of June 24 to inform him about the action taken by his SCAA in Canatuan, but despite ringing several times it was not answered. It was also not possible to get through to the mobile of Ed Coronel, the company’s Director for Social Commitment.

Manolita Galves and her husband Loloy suffered serious physical injuries as a result of the incident. It is hard for them to walk around without assistance, due to the punches and bat strokes employed by the SCAAs. The four who were injured are in need of medical treatment in the town of Siocon, or elsewhere in the province. However, the four victims feel anxious about reporting to the proper authorities for documentation and medical attention because the company bans them from passing through the company’s numerous checkpoints.

On June 13, fifty families near the open cut mining pit of TVI staged a vigil to guard their respective residences from any act of demolition by the company’s SCAA. Because of the vigil the company’s bulldozer operator failed to move the equipment towards the residences.

But on June 17, TVI - using large numbers of SCAA - bulldozed the farm-plants of the farmers, such as root crops, bananas and other farm durable plants. On this date, two staff of Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) Cagayan de Oro office, the team leader, Carl Ceasar Rebutta, and Zherwinah Mosqueda, a paralegal officer, were to visit Canatuan.

When they arrived the company’s SCAA officer was initially instructed not to allow them to enter area of the Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA), but then relented. But this was after people distinctly heard the instructing voice talking to the relevant office over the handheld radio say that "if they are from the LRC, do not let them enter the MPSA area, and ask them where they are going and for what purpose".

The SCAA forces of TVI have monitored the movement of the two LRC staff by keeping members of its forces close to the residence of Timuay Tii, which is close to Canatuan, but outside of the MPSA.

The two LRC personnel felt highly restricted in their work with the community, and decided to go back to R.T. Lim, Zamboanga Sibugay. The family of Timuay Lino Tii accompanied them to R.T. Lim, but when they returned home, the company’s SCAA held them for an hour at the checkpoint before allowing them to pass, because "they had received guests".

TVI takes Hostage Four Injured Residents

26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues Canatuan, Tabayo, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines – The Canatuan Farmers Association (CFA) today accused TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc of taking hostage the four injured farmers who were maltreated by the company’s 100 Special (Citizen Armed Forces Geographical Unit or CAFGU) Armed Auxiliary (SCAA) two nights ago during its sudden harassment against the helpless farmers for force negotiation.

Manolita Galves, a resident of Canatuan, who suffered serious physical injuries during the incident, in a phone interview today accuses TVI of banning them from passing through the company’s checkpoints. It is doing this to force her, and her family, to enter into a negotiation with the company against their wishes. The company’s emissary has continuously been looking for her inside the ancestral domain because it wants to talk to her. But she has advised her companions to tell TVI’s negotiator that she does not want to even look at the shadow of any TVI negotiators.

The company has placed all its checkpoints in a red alert status to ensure that the injured residents cannot get away from Canatuan and seek police assistance for official documentation or proper medical attention, in case people discover the extent of the SCAAs maltreatment while their injuries are still current. At company checkpoints, SCAA have asked travelling passengers whether they know the exact whereabouts of the four injured people. But no one has yet provided information to the SCAA.

On June 24 in the morning, the victims called Mayor Ceasar Soriano of Siocon by mobile phone to help them escape from this ‘hostage situation’ and seek proper medication. The victims said that the Mayor promised them to go to Canatuan and rescue them, but until now, he has not arrived.

The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI) yesterday instructed DCMI staff to coordinate with the Very Rev. Edgar Agora, Parish Priest of Siocon, to assist in rescuing the alleged TVI hostages.

In March 17, 2004, TVI SCAAs indiscriminately fired at legitimate protesters in Barangay Pisawak, Siocon, wounding four including the 70 year old Subanon chieftain Timuay Macario Salacao.

The said shooting generated moral support from neighbouring barangays that caused Alnor Construction from Surigao, a subcontractor of TVI Resource Development Philippines, to withdraw.

Affected Communities Launch Anti-TVI Resource Development Philippines Campaign

26th June 2006

Press Release Tito Natividad Fiel, DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues

Jose Dalman, Zamboanga Del Norte, Mindanao, Philippines - Around fifty community leaders from thirteen towns of the provinces of Zamboanga Del Norte, Sibugay and Del Sur are expected to gather at Millennium Formation Center, St. Augustine Parish during 27-29 June 2006 for a Zamboanga Peninsula Conference on the ‘Impact of TVI Resource Development Philippines Inc.’

The event aims to sum up the community experience in dealing TVI and the company’s attitudes towards affected communities, forge a common position and a people’s movement against TVI, and formulate a concrete steps against this aggressive mining firm.

The thirteen areas are composed of Mt. Canatuan Siocon, Baliguian, Labason, Liloy, Bacungan, Sindangan, Barangay Tamarok Jose Dalman, Katipunan, and Sergio Osmeña, which all belong to the province of Zamboanga del Norte. Others are coming from Bayog, Dumingag, Mahayag and Midsalip which all belong to Zamboanga Del Sur.

The delegates are expected to arrive at the venue in the morning of June 27. At 1:30-2:30, the Parish Priest of Jose Dalman, Rev. Fr. Nemesio Sayon, will celebrate a mass.

The Most Rev. Jose R. Manguiran, the Bishop In-charge of the DIOPIM Committee on Mining Issues (DCMI), is expected to give his inspirational message to all the delegates. He is expected to share why he strongly stood up against large-scale, foreign-owned and open cut mining.

The community leaders from Canatuan, downstream of Siocon, from Barangay Tamarok Jose and from Bayog are expected to share their experiences and positions on TVI issue.

On the second day of the conference Jun Urot, Secretary General of Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC) Western Mindanao will tackle the issue of debt and mining. The Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) National Office will talk on confronting the mining industry and why the Mining Act of 1995 should be scrapped. It is likely that a declaration will be signed, and an action plan formulated as the final output.

It is also expected that the conference will culminate in a parade that the delegates and the youth of St, Augustine Parish will participate in.At this moment, TVI is the most aggressive mining firm operations in the Zamboanga Peninsula, expanding beyond its current operation in Siocon, Zamboanga Del Norte. TVI’s modus operandi there has included armed harassment against the affected communities, especially the legal and legitimate holder of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT).

Death Penalty Links Updated

Our Death Penalty Links page has undergone a much needed update. If you know of web pages related to the death penalty that we are not linking to, please let me know.

thanks!

Salvadoran Defense Minister pays torture victims

The judgment against ormer Salvadoran Minister of Defense Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova for the torture of three civilians in El Salvador during the 1980s is now final, and he has been forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds to the victims. What follows is the press release of the Center for Justice and Accountability which represented the plaintiffs.

For Immediate Release
July 10, 2006
Contact: Matt Eisenbrandt
Phone: (415) 544-0444 x 304
meisenbrandt@cja.org

JUDGMENT FINAL AGAINST GENERALS RESPONSIBLE FOR TORTURE IN EL SALVADOR

OVER $300,000 SUCCESSFULLY RECOVERED FROM FORMER MINISTER OF DEFENSE FOUND LIABLE FOR TORTURE OF THREE SALVADORANS

San Francisco, CA: With the judgment against him now final, former Salvadoran Minister of Defense Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova has been forced to relinquish over $300,000 of his own funds for his responsibility in the torture of three civilians in El Salvador during the 1980s. While the amount actually collected is only a small fraction of the damages to which the plaintiffs are entitled, this represents one of the first human rights cases in U.S. history in which victims have recovered money from those found responsible for abuses.

In May 1999, the San Francisco-based Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA) filed a lawsuit against Vides Casanova and another former Minister of Defense, General Jose Guillermo Garcia, under two federal laws, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA). In 2002, after a four week trial, a West Palm Beach jury found the generals responsible for the torture of Juan Romagoza, Neris Gonzalez and Carlos Mauricio, and ordered them to pay significant damages.

The generals filed lengthy appeals. On January 6, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta upheld the verdict against them. The deadline to file an appeal of that decision to the United States Supreme Court has now passed.

Following the verdict in 2002, CJA froze over $300,000 in accounts held by General Vides Casanova. CJA has also presented the court with allegations that Vides Casanova committed fraud by transferring other funds to his relatives after the filing of the case to keep them out of the reach of the victims.

The plaintiffs have stated that, after some of the case expenses are covered, they generously plan to donate most of the money collected from the defendants to support human rights, health, environmental and education projects. They plan to set aside the remainder for treatment related to their torture and to assist family members in need.

Plaintiff Neris Gonzalez said, “Although we are happy that the generals have been punished and made to pay for their crimes, this case was never about money. It was about justice. We had the unique opportunity to show the world, on behalf of all the people of El Salvador, that Generals Garcia and Vides Casanova were responsible for the brutality that we endured. Now the courts of the United States have confirmed that they cannot escape accountability.”

The suit, known as Romagoza v. Garcia, is one of the only cases in which a jury in a fully contested trial has found perpetrators liable for human rights abuses under the law of command responsibility. This principle holds military commanders responsible for abuses committed by subordinates under their control when the commanders knew or should have known that abuses were taking place and failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent the abuses or punish the perpetrators.

CJA’s Litigation Director, Matt Eisenbrandt, stated, “This victory is a landmark for human rights litigation and for El Salvador. The jury’s verdict in 2002 gave confidence to the Salvadoran community, and sent a signal that they do not have to accept the impunity that exists in their country. Without the Romagoza case, we could have never filed other cases – including one involving the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero – that have forced officials to confront the lack of accountability in El Salvador.”

CJA, a non-profit human rights organization that works to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice, was joined as co-counsel by Peter Stern of the Morrison & Foerster law firm, James K. Green, Professor Carolyn Patty Blum, Professor Beth van Schaack and Susan Shawn Roberts. Florida attorneys Dave Gorman and John Thornton have provided assistance in the collection phase of the case.

For more information, please visit CJA’s website at www.cja.org. A copy of the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling is available at http://www.cja.org/ca ses/Romagoza_Docs/Romagoza11thCirFinalOpinion.pdf

Environmental Pollution in Ethiopia

During the 1960's and 70's, Dutch company HVA International established and ran sugar factories in Ethiopia. Apparently, their activities resulted in toxic levels of fluoride appearing in the drinking water. Excessive fluoride causes dental and skeletal fluorosis. In the former, teeth are stained and the tooth emanel are pittled, while the latter leads to changes in bone structure and making them extremely weak and brittle. In its most severe cases it results in calcification of ligaments, immobility, muscle wasting, and neurological problems related to spinal cord compression. These are not reversible diseases.

According to its successor company (operating under the same name), when HVA International learned of the use of fluoride, it installed fluorination filters and later paid compensation to the Ethiopian government. The people from the affected areas, however, did not benefit from such measures.

A lone Wonji activist, Almaz Mequanint, has taken on their cause, appealing to the company and the United Nations. While I'm unable to ascertain what responsibility HVA may have, it is clear that the Ethiopian government has the obligation under international law to provide the affected population with reparations, including access to medical care. I have written to the authorities reminding them of such obligations and I urge you to do the same:

* Prime Minister, His Excellency Meles Zenawi, Office of the Prime Minister, P O Box 1031, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Fax:+ 251 1 552020 / 552030

* Ambassador Fisseha Yimer, Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the United Nations in Geneva, 56 rue de Moillebeau, Case postale 338, 1211 Geneva 19, Switzerland, Email: mission.ethiopia@ties.itu.int / info@ethiopiamission.ch, Fax: +41 22 919 70 29

The horror in this story is about Wonji, Wonji/Shoa and Metehara victims, which are still suffering for four generations by the environmental pollution in Ethiopia. I strongly believe that HVA International, which is a Dutch-run giant company-which are still operating in many countries including in Africa had committed this horrible environmental crime.

HVA International was established in 1879 and started business activities in Indonesia. HVA had sugar factories in Java and rubber, fibers, tea and coffee estates in Sumatra. After the proclamation of Indonesian sovereignty in 1945 HVA suffered revolutionary turmoil in 1945 and 1946 and all Dutch assets was nationalized in 1958. So, HVA's next move was in Africa and in 1954 HVA established it's first sugar factory in Ethiopia in Wonji. Then in Wonji/Shoa and Metehara sugar factories were established in 1960 and 1968.

I grew up in Wonji and I got married and also my two children were born and raised there. What I found disturbing all those years was finding solutions and whom to blame. Most residents were suffering from teeth decay and severe skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis, noise pollution, asbestos pollution, respiration problems, arthritic pain and decaying teeth caused by drinking water with excessive levels of fluoride. I am suffering from asthma caused by air pollution and had an operation on my left knee due to fluoride. My children's teeth most are decayed with a lot of cavities. My whole family and I are lifelong victims. Our conditions are irreversible. Many beautiful young boys and girls in Wonji when they smile reveal a good set of teeth discolored and decayed.

The Dutch knew in 1957 the existence of excess fluoride in the drinking water so in 1962 they installed two defluoridation plants in two villages where the Dutch family lived protecting themselves and exposing us. Then after the revolution in 1974 the Dutch knowing that they will be nationalized planted 10 deflouridated water to all villages. The huge damages to those communities were overwhelming because they were holding information for 17 years and warning us at the time of their departure about the poisonous water we were consuming. This is deliberate violation of trust and responsibility. Is this environmental crime or not?

The Dutch held a referendum and amended their constitution to prevent their water from being fluoridated in the Netherlands but when it comes to blacks, the poor and unfortunate they care less to protect. Employees in Wonji were used as disposable tools literally.

The irrigation system was designed to penetrate through our villages to the plantation and had caused mosquitos to produce and many children drowned but no questions were asked for those lost lives. Two workers were murdered in Metehara by a Dutch worker and the cause of death was claimed that they drowned in the Dutch swimming pool while trying to swim. But it was believed that they were killed outside and their bodies damped in the swimming pool such as a cover up.

All houses roofs are built by asbestos while asbestos was banned for may years in the Netherlands-and many are affected by this pollution. The sugar factories produce harmful waste and gases in the air. Instead of paving asphalt molasses was poured on to the streets, making them sticky to walk, foul smell, which attracted many flies in our villages.

The Dutch were living in a secluded area called "Shebo Gibi" means wired village. They built our village far from they lived. The Dutch also had their own school and club in their village. There was a cinema hall attached to their club and movies was seen by the Dutch on Tuesday and Saturday and we blacks are allowed to see movie on Wednesday and Sunday that means after the Dutch had seen the movies.

Another inhumane treatment of the Dutch was poor medical treatment. The Dutch were treated direct by a doctor while we have to go through nurse, health officer, then after 2-3 month we will be able to see a doctor. The hospital was divided in floors where the upper floors were for the white and the lower floors are for the blacks. The food and medicine given by the hospital varies as well. Very few educated black employees were allowed to use some facilities as the Dutch-such as housing and medical treatment. In the factories black employees were suffering countless physical and verbal abuses including losing their jobs with little or no reasons by their Dutch bosses. The living conditions in the camps where the sugarcane cutters live are horrendous. They were extremely filthy and riddled with mosquitoes, flies and other insects. All workers in those three sugar factories were given below minimum wage.

Moreover, when HVA and the Netherlands government were asked about my allegation by UN rapport 2004 they gave a very ugly statement mix of misinformation, propaganda, posturing, hypocrisy and denial. And the worst thing is that they stated that they paid undisclosed amount of money for the Ethiopian regime at the time for the fluoride victims. Why do they have to wait until they got nationalized to help the victims and secondly, why don't they gave it directly to the victims? Plus, how do they asses the number of the victims to pay reasonable amount of compensation. Their statement was rubbish and ridiculous-nobody with right mind will buy it.

The Ethiopian communist regime at that time who were given the money are not in power to testify and I guess this is a statement done by the Dutch as a fabrication to veil the truth and the guilt. It is at best stupid alibi, at worse very deceitful. Any way, we've been dehumanized and violated in unspeakable way. To prove all these I have a compelling evidence to prove their guilt. Here below is the website of the UN Rapport regarding Wonji.

E/CN.4/2004/46/Add.1 Page 11

http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/e06a5300f90fa0238025668700518ca4/537cc11206078a27c1256e27003798aa/$FILE/G0317267.pdf and also please view this website,http://www.newint.org/issue363/dirty.htm, thank you.

I cannot stop thinking about the victims of Wonji until they get the justice they deserve as equal as any other human beings in this divisive planet. To combat evil and survive, between commitment and courage I urge you to investigate this matter further and to appeal and to confront this corporate polluter HVA International and attempt to instill accountability and remedy. These neglected victims especially by major western media I am wondering-what's going to be their fate? The answer is triple death sentence. The Dutch which their city is the Hague ironically the City of Peace and Justice, international criminal court, international convention, Unicef City in 2005/2006 and the home to over 150 international legal organizations are the human right violators of these poor and helpless victims. In my opinion, all those offices should be moved from the Hague to another country. What is luminously clear the response for their acts is for HVA and The Netherlands is: "Guilty!"

Sincerely,

Almaz Mequanint