http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=4208
Victims’ Rights Before the International Criminal Court : A Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs
On the occasion of its 36th Congress, taking place in Lisbon from 19 to 25 April 2007, FIDH is launching its "Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs on Victims’ Rights before the International Criminal Court".
The International Criminal Court was created in 1998 so that perpetrators are finally held accountable; to try the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; so that victims are recognised and rehabilitated; to prevent recurrence of the atrocious crimes they have suffered; and to hold back the hands of criminals.
A fundamental condition must be fulfilled for these objectives to be attained: the appropriation by victims and, beyond them, by civil society at large, of the system of the ICC.
This guide will help victims, their legal representatives and NGOs to use the International Criminal Court and to support victims, at last, to obtain truth, justice and reparations.
In accordance with the mandate of FIDH and based on its extensive experience in supporting and assisting victims in their legal actions before national tribunals, FIDH decided to extend the activities of its Legal Action Group to facilitating victims’ participation and legal representation before the ICC.
Over the last three years, FIDH, in collaboration with its members and partners, has transmitted communications and information to the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC, concerning crimes which fall within the ICC’s jurisdiction. By assisting and supporting victims in their applications to participate in proceedings before the ICC, FIDH aims to contribute to the effective recognition of victims’ rights before the ICC. In particular, FIDH has been working extensively with victims in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and has contributed to the clarification of the regime for victims’ participation.
FIDH has indeed been at the origin of a historic decision of the International Criminal Court on 17 January 2006, concerning the first applications of victims for participation submitted by members of the FIDH Legal Action Group. Pre-Trial Chamber I emphasided that: “The Statute [of the ICC] grants victims an independent voice and role in proceedings before the Court. It should be possible to exercise this independence, in particular, vis-à-vis the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court so that victims can present their interests ... The Chamber considers that article 68 (3) of the Statute also gives victims the right to participate in the fight against impunity... The Chamber considers that the personal interests of victims are affected in general at the investigation stage, since the participation of victims at this stage can serve to clarify the facts, to punish the perpetrators of crimes and to request reparations for the harm suffered”.
FIDH has produced a guide on victims’ rights. It explains in details proceedings and mechanisms for victims to participate, be represented, seek protection and reparation before the ICC.
Table of contents:
- Preface
- Foreword
- Abbreviations and Symbols
- Chapter I: The Evolution of Victims’ Access to Justice
- Chapter II: Introduction to the ICC: Structure and Basic Principles
- Chapter III: Outreach
- Chapter IV: Participation
- Chapter V: Legal Representation
- Chapter VI: Protection, Support and Assistance
- Chapter VII: Reparations and the Trust Fund for Victims
- Select Bibliography
PRESENTAN EN CUSCO INFORME ANUAL 2006 DE LA COORDINADORA NACIONAL DE DERECHOS HUMANOS
Con motivo de la celebración de aniversario de la Asociación por la Vida y la Dignidad Humana (APORVIDHA)
La Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDDHH), organismo que agrupa a 67 organizaciones a nivel nacional que se ocupan de vigilar el respeto de los derechos fundamentales, presenta mañana en la ciudad de Cusco, su Informe Anual 2006, denominado "Bajo el signo de un gobierno con pasado".
El informe arroja un balance negativo en relación a los últimos años, en los que por lo menos había voluntad de diálogo con las organizaciones de derechos humanos y respeto de las competencias internacionales. "El balance de los primeros meses del nuevo gobierno aprista en materia de derechos humanos es desalentador. Además de no tener una política clara sobre cómo alcanzar su plena vigencia, las principales autoridades gubernamentales han propuesto e incluso adoptado una serie de medidas que abiertamente vulneran -o vulnerarían de ser finalmente aprobadas- el goce efectivo de esta clase de derechos" señala el escrito.
El documento hace mención a un cambio de rumbo frente a este tema por parte del actual gobierno evidenciada por ejemplo con su intención de implementar la pena de Muerte, en la "controversia" en torno a las reparaciones a las víctimas de la masacre en el penal Castro Castro, en la campaña de satanización contra la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, en la aprobación de la Ley APCI, en el rechazo del Plan Nacional de Derechos Humanos por parte del Ministerio de Justicia, en su actitud débil frente al tema de la extradición del ex presidente Fujimori, el desacato de las sentencias del Tribunal constitucional en materia de justicia militar, y en hacer caso omiso a las recomendaciones de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación Nacional (salvo en el caso de las reparaciones).
Como recomendaciones, la CNDDHH señala las siguientes:
1.Implementar el Plan Nacional de Derechos Humanos.
2. Abolir constitucionalmente la pena de muerte.
3. Implementar el conjunto de recomendaciones de la Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación.
4. Desarrollar medidas contra todo tipo de discriminación.
5. Implementar las recomendaciones o sentencias de los órganos del sistema universal y regional de derechos humanos y fortalecer los mismos.
6. Adoptar medidas de protección para los defensores y defensoras de los derechos humanos.
7. Acatar las sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional en materia de justicia militar.
8. Adecuar la legislación penal al Estatuto de Roma y otros instrumentos internacionales.
9. Derogar las Leyes 28875 y 28925 que someten a las organizaciones no gubernamentales a un inconstitucional control por parte de la Agencia Peruana de Cooperación Internacional (APCI).
10. Adoptar medidas para adecuar nuestra legislación a los estándares internacionales en materia medioambiental y para garantizar el derecho de la población a decidir sobre el manejo de sus recursos.
Cada año la CNDDHH elabora este informe en el que se realiza un recuento de los principales hechos ocurridos y que han afectado el goce efectivo de los derechos humanos.
En el evento se dará a conocer con más detalle los principales aspectos del informe, como el Balance de las recomendaciones del Informe Final de la Comisión de la Verdad, el respeto de los Derechos Civiles y Políticos, el estado de la Institucionalidad Democrática, sobre el Sistema Internacional de Protección a los Derechos Humanos y respecto de la Extradición del ex Presidente Alberto Fujimori, entre otros puntos.
En la presentación de este informe estarán presentes Efraín Caviedes Catalán, Decano del Colegio de Abogados del Cusco, Sofia Macher, presidenta del Consejo de Reparaciones, Iscra Chávez Loaiza, directora ejecutiva de APORVIDHA. El informe será expuesto por Pablo Rojas, secretario ejecutivo de la CNDDHH.
LUGAR: Colegio de Abogados del Cusco
DÍA Y HORA: Miércoles 25 de Abril, 3.30 p.m.
OHCHR-Nepal releases report on Gaur investigation
20 April 2007
OHCHR-Nepal is today releasing findings of its investigation into the killings in Gaur and surrounding VDCs on 21 March. This report is the culmination of more than 170 interviews by OHCHR teams in and around Gaur and in Kathmandu with eye witnesses, human rights defenders, journalists, medical personnel, government officials, security forces personnel, CPN-M cadres, political party members, representatives of the MPRF (Madheshi Janadhikar Forum), the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM) (Jwala Singh faction), detainees in police custody, and others.
The 27 individuals, most of them linked to the CPN-M, who died on 21 March were killed in a brutal manner. OHCHR's investigations show that MPRF representatives were preparing themselves and their supporters for a possible confrontation with CPN-M cadres, following several previous incidents in Gaur and elsewhere in which CPN-M had attacked MPRF gatherings. Many individuals associated with the MPRF rally in Gaur, including young children, were armed with bhaatas (spliced lengths of broad diameter bamboo) which, if used, could – and did – have lethal consequences.
The incident on the Rice Mill field was sparked when about a dozen young men destroyed the CPN-M stage. In response, supporters of the CPN-M charged the MPRF stage. After initially fleeing, MPRF supporters turned on the largely outnumbered CPN-M cadres. In the ensuing attacks, 27 individuals– including four women and a 17-year-old girl – were killed, all but one with blows from bhaatas and lathis.
There can be no doubt that most, if not all, of the killings in Gaur could have been prevented. First and foremost, the incidents highlighted once more the weaknesses of law enforcement agencies who, aware of the potential for clashes and other violence, were grossly ill-prepared to ensure effective crowd control. The NP and the APF failed to prevent the violence from happening by persuading the organizers to move or postpone the rallies. They failed to stop the violence when it broke out. They failed to protect those who came under attack, and they failed to carry out any arrests. The mechanism to coordinate security and law and order, the district security committee chaired by the Chief District Officer, broke down and failed to function on the day of the rallies.
A prime obligation of the State is to carry out immediate and thorough investigations into killings. To date, no First Information Report has been filed for these killings and to OHCHR's knowledge criminal investigations into the killings have yet to be launched. The high-level commission of inquiry set up by the Government had not, as of 19 April traveled to Gaur to begin its investigations. While this commission is important, its work cannot in any way substitute for criminal investigations and prosecutions to bring those responsible to justice. Any investigations must look not only into individual perpetrators, but whether the violence and killings were pre-planned and by whom, as well as any omission by the State authorities.
The incidents in Gaur emphasized once more the need to fundamentally strengthen and reform law enforcement. OHCHR has noted that on 2 April, the Home Minister announced that local authorities and security forces had received instructions to use all means available within the law to deal with armed groups and acts of violence which disturb peace and security, particularly in the context of the elections. However, OHCHR believes that additional immediate measures need to be taken in the short term to enable the State to guarantee security, protect life, freedom of assembly and expression in the context of the peace and electoral process. These should include a review of the current role and use of the APF, including its role in crowd control and riot situations, the role and functioning of the CDO and district security committees, and the coordination at the local and national level of law enforcement activities. It is also essential that the make-up of the police be reviewed to ensure the adequate representation of Madheshis and other marginalized groups in the forces. This would facilitate police operations and dialogue with communities in the Terai.
In September, OHCHR-Nepal made a series of recommendations for strengthening law enforcement in its report on excessive use of force during the April 2006 protest movement, which have yet to be implemented. At the same time, it is deeply regrettable that the report, findings and recommendations of the Rayamajhi Commission – set up in July 2006 to investigate, inter-alia, violations committed during the April protest movement – have never been made public.
International human rights instruments require that individuals and groups, in exercising their own rights, also have duties and responsibilities to respect the rights of others. On 21 March the MPRF itself allowed hundreds of its supporters to file into Gaur armed with prepared bhaatas, knowing that if used they could be lethal. It also cannot be excluded that MPRF supporters were carrying firearms. OHCHR was not able to substantiate allegations that the killings themselves were pre-planned but this cannot be ruled out. At minimum, the MPRF supporters were prepared to use lethal weapons. Forum leaders must unequivocally renounce any use of violence and take all steps in their power to prevent supporters, however loosely associated with the Forum, from carrying weapons and using violence. They must prevent the carrying of bhaatas and bamboo sticks during rallies. They must also cooperate with the authorities investigating the incidents in Gaur to help in determining who was responsible for the killings.
Nothing can justify the killings which occurred. However, the CPN-M action in organizing a rally at the same time and place as the MPRF, as it has done in other locations, was provocative. Its cadres also brought at least one weapon and at least one socket bomb to the rally. Such actions are incompatible with declarations of respect for the right to life, freedom of expression and assembly. The CPN-M leadership must give clear directives to its cadres not to disrupt rallies and political activities by organizations with different political opinions. It too must ensure that CPN-M cadres do not carry weapons or explosives, and do not engage in violent or intimidating actions prior to or during demonstrations.
Both the CPN-M and the MPRF exposed children under 18 to the possibility of harm by including them in their rallies, in contravention of international child rights standards; one girl died. Both organizations must fully respect those principles and ensure that young people are not used in political rallies where violence is possible.
Many reports have claimed that some or all of the five female victims were raped and/or sexually mutilated before being killed. In the course of its many interviews with witnesses and others, OHCHR found no evidence of rape or sexual mutilation. According to medical experts, there were no external signs of rape on any of the female victims. OHCHR is concerned that the public diffusion of such allegations without proper verification only served to augment the anguish of the victims' relatives.
The Government and State have the obligation to ensure a secure environment for its citizens, and to ensure respect for life, freedom of expression and assembly. The Gaur incidents have demonstrated the fragility of respect for those rights and the capacity of the State to protect them, It is essential that all parties and organizations involved in campaigning for the fulfillment of certain rights and interests during that process respect the opinions of others and allow political activities of others without interference, threat or intimidation.
It is the duty and responsibility of all actors in the peace and electoral process – and especially the State - to ensure that the events of 21 March are not repeated. Tolerance of peacefully expressed political views and demands must be a core principle adhered to by all actors. The electoral and peace process can only be successful it there is a sincere recognition on all sides that dialogue and respect for others must prevail over violence and intimidation.
THE OBSERVATORY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS (OMCT-FIDH)
PRESS RELEASE
VIETNAM: Twelve human rights defenders have the floor
Publication of an international mission report
Paris-Geneva, April 23, 2007. The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), in the framework of their joint programme, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, publish today their report following its international mission carried out in Vietnam.
The mission, organised in close co-operation with the Vietnam Committee on Human Rights, met with several prominent dissidents and religious leaders engaged in the struggle for the respect of human rights. The objective of the mission was to shed light on human rights defenders, whose situation has been dealt with since many years by the Observatory, by collecting their first-hand testimonies. The report aims at sensitizing the international community and public opinion on the state of freedom of expression and freedom of association in Vietnam, and the Observatory will use it as an advocacy tool in the framework of bilateral and multilateral relations between Vietnam and third countries.
Many of those met by the mission are members or supporters of the independent Buddhist church, the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam (UBCV), which was outlawed in 1981 and has been a constant target of the regime. The mission also met with writers, academics, dissidents Communist Party veterans and others involved in defending human rights and the struggle for democratic reform.
Several of those met by the mission have spent many years in prison, in connection with their human rights activities. Many have suffered the most extreme physical and mental privations, and even on release have been kept under surveillance and denied the fundamental rights to freedom of movement, expression and association. They have nevertheless maintained their determination and continued their struggle.
Decisive steps are necessary in order to foster an environment conducive to human rights and the rule of law. In particular, the Vietnamese authorities should notably:
- Immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders, political prisoners and prisoners of conscience detained for having legitimately and peacefully exercised their rights to freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of information and freedom of religion and belief;
- Cease all forms of repression, including judicial and administrative harassment, against those who exercise their rights to freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and belief and freedom of association and assembly in accordance with international human rights standards;
- Guarantee freedom of association in accordance with the ICCPR, abolish Decree 38/2005/ND-CP, and allow the creation of independent NGOs, independent trade unions, opposition political parties, and civil society movements in Vietnam;
- Allow the creation of free and independent media, including by abolishing Decree 56/2006 and Decision 71, reforming the Press Law, in particular articles 1, 2 and 15 and Chapter 5, and authorizing private newspapers and media;
- Legally recognize the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and all other non-recognized religious bodies in Vietnam;
- Remove all obstacles to visits by international media and human rights groups to Vietnam to allow independent monitoring of the human rights situation;
- More generally, fully respect the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1998, especially its Article 1 and its Articles 12.1 and 12.2
- Ratify the UN Convention on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and its Optional Protocol.
Moreover, the Observatory urges the European Union to implement Article 1 of the 1995 EU-Vietnam Co-operation Agreement, which founds cooperation on the respect of democratic principles and human rights and establish, on this basis, specific benchmarks for human rights improvements in the EU human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The EU should grant particular attention to the protection of human rights defenders in accordance with the EU Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders.
The report is available in English on the websites
of the FIDH (http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/Vietnam.HRDs.Report.200407.pdf)
and the OMCT (http://www.omct.org/pdf/Observatory/2007/mission_report_vietnam_04_2007_eng.pdf)
For more information, please contact:
FIDH: 00 33 1 43 55 25 18
OMCT: 00 41 22 809 49 39
http://www.inredh.org/defensores/defensores.php?modulo=julio_garcia_1#I
El presente informe analiza el caso del periodista chileno Julio García, quien fuera asesinado la noche del 19 de Abril de 2005, durante las manifestaciones que concluyeron con la caída del gobierno de Lucio Gutiérrez; surge como una necesidad para visibilizar un hecho que ha sido olvidado por la opinión pública de nuestro país y por el cual ninguna persona ha sido sancionada, detenida, ni siquiera acusada en los últimos dos años, permaneciendo en la impunidad mientras sus familiares esperan una justicia que parece nunca llegar.
El documento está estructurado en tres partes: una primera de análisis de contexto, titulada “antecedentes”, en la cual se analizan las circunstancias que llevaron a la destitución del Coronel Gutiérrez, principalmente las coyunturas y acuerdos políticos que finalmente terminaría por permitir el regreso del ex-presidente prófugo Abdalá Bucaram, tras la disolución de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y del Tribunal Constitucional; lo que a la postre se convertiría en el detonante de la efervescencia ciudadana que terminaría exigiendo “que se vayan todos”, como la expresión más verdadera del descontento popular con las clases políticas y con la forma de hacer política en el país.
La segunda parte del documento, titulada “hechos”, relata la historia de lo sucedido en las calles del Quito durante el mes de Abril de 2005, cuando miles de ciudadanos de forma espontánea salieron a las calles a protestar y fueron duramente reprimidos por un aparato estatal capacitado y perfeccionado en el ejercicio de acciones de control, persecución y disuasión. Existe un especial énfasis en la noche del 19 de abril, previa al derrocamiento del Coronel, donde se detalla los sucesos que, en el marco de una manifestación pacífica y democrática de miles de personas, terminarían con la muerte del periodista chileno. Además, existe una pequeña síntesis que hace referencia a los presuntos autores intelectuales de la represión, encabezados por Lucio Gutiérrez y sus colaboradores más cercanos, a más de los autores materiales, cuya identificación se establece entre los entonces más altos mandos de la Policía Nacional que, lamentablemente, se prestaron para realizar las acciones tristemente recordadas en el presente documento.
Finalmente, y como la parte más preocupante de lo sucedido, se presenta un relato del proceso de investigación y sus avances durante estos dos años, que lamentablemente no ha sabido responder al clamor de justicia de los/as familiares de Julio García y más bien se ha convertido en un espacio más para la impunidad y el olvido.
No podemos dejar de mencionar que el presente informe se enmarca en el contexto de la defensa de los defensores y defensoras de derechos humanos, pues Julio García, antes de ser un gran fotógrafo o camarógrafo chileno que se refugió en el país, fue un defensor de las causas justas, un luchador por los derechos de los más desposeídos, que utilizó su cámara como instrumento de denuncia, su filmadora como archivo de la dramática situación de quienes más sufren y menos tienen en nuestro país. Julio García fue un defensor de derechos humanos cuya labor es ejemplo de sacrificio y su muerte constituye un recuerdo de la importancia que tiene el tomar una opción de lucha frente a las injusticias del sistema.
Este informe, dirigido a las autoridades máximas del presente gobierno pretende no solo denunciar la impunidad, en espera de alguna acción que permita sancionar a los culpables de este trágico suceso, sino además pretende concienciar a todo/a aquel que lo lea, para que comprenda que la labor de defensa de derechos humanos es una tarea no solo reservada a las ONG´s que reciben asistencia internacional, a los abogados y abogadas que luchan por las causas justas, a las autoridades que tienen en sus manos la obligación de garantizar estos derechos, sino además, y sobre todo, a la ciudadanía común y corriente que, desde cualquier espacio en el que desarrollen su trabajo, puedan coadyuvar para el respeto de los derechos y el imperio de la justicia para todos y todas.
En este sentido, resulta particularmente importante la labor de los periodistas que, al igual que Julio García, deben comandar la labor de denuncia de las arbitrariedades, de la corrupción y de las acciones que atentan contra los derechos humanos; esta labor de formación y orientación objetiva de la opinión pública es trascendental en una sociedad caracterizada no solo por la cultura de la impunidad, sino además del conformismo, de la pasividad e individualismo que nos impide reaccionar frente a las injusticias que día a días se nos presentan y que, lamentablemente, se han trasformado en algo casi cotidiano y tolerado. Los medios de comunicación, en este y otros casos, tiene también la responsabilidad de no dejarlos en el olvido, de superar el sensacionalismo momentáneo, y hacer un seguimiento permanente de estos hechos, más allá de la efímera noticia.
Sudan's children at a crossroads: An urgent need for protection
SUMMARY
The protection and well-being of children and youth in Sudan are at a crucial juncture. While children in the South are enjoying increased protection and access to services, those in Darfur and other areas of Sudan are enduring unspeakable acts of violence and abuse.
Humanitarian agencies in Darfur operate in an extremely volatile environment that poses significant operational challenges and threatens the security of civilians and humanitarian personnel. Government policies that restrict the movement of humanitarian workers and attacks and threats by armed forces and groups have stymied aid operations throughout Sudan, particularly in Darfur, in the East and around Khartoum.
Watchlist is concerned about apparent deliberate efforts by the Government to suppress information and prevent agencies from collecting and disseminating details on attacks against children and their protection needs, particularly in Darfur and the East. These efforts prevented many reliable experts working in Sudan from contributing information to this report, as they expressed concern about the safety of staff and beneficiaries of programs and potential retributive attacks or threats. As a result, some pertinent information related to the well-being of children in Sudan was not included.
Access to information on violations against children is also limited by chronic insecurity. As a result, some sections of this report may detail attacks perpetrated by only a few armed groups. This does not imply greater culpability but reflects instead the limited access to information. Many actors in Sudan have acknowledged that all parties to the conflict have violated children?s rights.
In this report, Watchlist has included information on violations against children in Sudan in each of the major categories identified by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1612 (2005) on Children and Armed Conflict. These violations include killing and maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, abduction, denial of humanitarian assistance, attacks on schools, and recruitment and use of children by armed forces and groups. In addition, various other violations, such as forced displacement and torture, also continue to be committed against children and their families.?
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/apr/06humanrights.htm
Human rights and the EU's "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice"
Statewatch press release: 18 April 2007
Statewatch has today published a damning critique of crucial EU proposals on suspects' rights in cross-border criminal proceedings, data protection in the area of police and judicial cooperation, and the expulsion of migrants from the EU.
Four detailed Statewatch analyses of the draft EU measures show the extent to which powerful member states are driving down standards of human rights protection in the creation of the so-called EU "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice".
Two of these measures - suspects' rights and data protection - will be discussed by the Member States at this week's Justice and Home Affairs Council (19-20 April 2007).
The analyses were prepared for Statewatch by Professor Steve Peers (Human Rights Centre, University of Essex) and Frances Webber (Barrister, Garden Court Chambers).
Professor Peers comments:
"On March 1, 2007, the EU's new Fundamental Rights Agency officially began operations. Due to the insistence of the UK and several allies, the Agency has no competence to deal with the issues of policing and criminal law.
But even if the Agency had such competence, would it make a difference? The powers of the agency are limited anyway. More importantly, the EU's human rights record as regards legislation on the issues of policing, criminal law, immigration and asylum is so poor, and becoming rapidly so much worse, that is hard to imagine that political gestures such as the creation of this Agency could have a significant impact".
The four Statewatch analyses demonstrate this problem:
a) Suspects' rights: key ECHR protections undermined
The proposed EU Framework Decision on suspects' rights is still opposed by a group of Member States, led by the UK. The German Presidency has attempted to improve the text so as to meet the concerns of the Council of Europe about compatibility with the standards of the European Convention on Human Rights. But following changes to the text insisted upon by Member States, the Council of Europe no longer feels that it can be certain that the text will be compatible with the ECHR. See: analysis and documentation
b) Data protection: key principles disregarded
The proposed EU Framework Decision on data protection has been amended by the German Presidency, in order to reach an agreement, so that many important principles of data protection law have been dropped and the Framework Decision has been limited in scope so as to in effect exclude the issue of data transfer outside the EU. But a group of Member States, again led by the UK, is seeking to limit the scope of the proposal still further. See: analysis and documentation
c) Expulsion: basic safeguards for migrants and refugees weakened...
A proposed Directive on expulsion was weakened at Member States' insistence to reduce most of the procedural safeguards for individuals. See: analysis and documentation
d) ... and then removed altogether
Finally, the same proposed Directive on expulsion will now be more radically weakened at the behest of the German Presidency, so that the remaining procedural safeguards for individuals will effectively be removed altogether. See: analysis and documentation
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2007/afghanistan0407/
Rising Civilian Death Toll Points to Taliban, Hezb-e Islami War Crimes
(Kabul, April 16, 2007) – Civilian deaths from insurgent attacks in Afghanistan increased dramatically over the past 15 months, and many were the result of insurgents’ failure to respect the laws of war, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 116-page report, “The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan,”
describes how Afghan insurgent groups, primarily Taliban and Hezb-e Islami forces, sharply escalated bombing and other attacks in 2006 and early 2007. The report is based on dozens of interviews with civilian victims of attacks and their families and a lengthy review of available documents and records.
“Suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks have risen dramatically since 2005, with almost 700 civilians dying last year at the hands of the Taliban and other such groups,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. “The insurgents are increasingly committing war crimes, often by directly targeting civilians. Even when they’re aiming at military targets, insurgent attacks are often so indiscriminate that Afghan civilians end up as the main victims.”
The report documents how, in violation of the laws of war, insurgent forces have repeatedly, directly targeted civilians for attack, and how even attacks directed at Afghan and international military forces have often been launched without due regard for civilian life.
Human Rights Watch has previously reported on numerous cases in which Afghan government and international forces in Afghanistan appear to have conducted indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war.
This report explains that 2006 was the deadliest year for civilians in Afghanistan since 2001. Overall, at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at civilians or civilian objects. An additional 52 civilians were killed in insurgent attacks in the first two months of 2007.
Increasingly, the Taliban has been targeting certain groups of civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, journalists, doctors, religious leaders, and civilian government employees, condemning them as spies or collaborators. In 2006, at least 177 civilians were killed in assassinations, and similar ambushes and attacks have continued in 2007. A recent and horrific example was the Taliban’s summary execution of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and his driver, Sayed Agha, in violation of the laws of war.
“The Taliban’s murders of Afghan journalist Ajmal Naqshbandi and driver Sayed Agha were war crimes,” Mariner said.
The report contains numerous accounts from Afghan civilian victims and their relatives, speaking about insurgent attacks and their consequences. For instance, 9-year-old Sherzad (not her real name), severely injured in a suicide attack in the capital, Kabul, in March 2006, told Human Rights Watch about how shrapnel tore open her stomach, spilling her intestines. “Sometimes I dream about that day – I have nightmares,” Sherzad said. “I thought that I would not survive. I started saying the Kalimah [the martyrs’ prayer] when I was hurt that day, because I thought I was going to die.”
The report describes how insurgents have regularly carried out bombings and suicide attacks on military targets in crowded, highly populated areas, killing combatants and civilians without distinction or causing excessive civilian harm that was disproportionate to expected military advantages. Many Afghans told Human Rights Watch they could not understand why insurgent forces would choose to carry out attacks in civilian areas.
One man, burned in a July 2006 bombing near the Ministry of Justice in Kabul, told Human Rights Watch: “I didn’t see any ISAF people [international forces] that day near the ministry, I just saw my people, Afghan people. What was the target, the people?”
The report documents how insurgent attacks are increasingly affecting the civilian population outside southern and southeastern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s traditional stronghold. In 2006, nearly a third of recorded lethal bomb attacks, many of which caused significant civilian casualties, took place in other areas, including Kabul, the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif, and the western city of Herat.
Bombings in 2006 more than doubled compared to 2005. Human Rights Watch counted almost 200 bomb attacks in 2006, killing nearly 500 civilians. Many were illegal under international humanitarian law. Insurgents intentionally targeted civilian objects that served no military purpose, including schools, buses, or bazaars; carried out numerous bombings that killed combatants and civilians without distinction or caused excessive civilian casualties in relation to expected military advantages; and used attacks that appear to have been primarily intended to cause terror among the civilian population. All these methods are illegal under the laws of war.
Suicide attacks by insurgents have been especially deadly for civilians. In 2006 there were at least 136 suicide attacks in Afghanistan, a six-fold increase over 2005. At least 112 of the attacks – a majority – were on military targets, yet most killed more civilians than combatants: approximately 20 other attacks were intentionally aimed at civilians. Suicide attacks by insurgents in 2006 killed at least 272 Afghan civilians and 37 government or international forces: suicide attacks killed eight times as many civilians as combatants.
While suicide attacks are not inherently illegal under the laws of war, those carried out in Afghanistan often were. Human Rights Watch found that suicide attackers frequently failed to pinpoint their attacks on military targets, and often set off explosives in a manner likely to cause indiscriminate or excessive civilian casualties. Moreover, suicide attackers almost always disguised themselves as civilians, violating legal prohibitions against “perfidy” that are meant to uphold the distinction between civilians and combatants during war. Perfidious attacks further endanger civilians: numerous Afghan civilians have been mistakenly shot by international and Afghan government forces who erroneously believed them to be suicide attackers.
The new report also details how attacks on Afghan teachers and schools, especially girls’schools, doubled from their already high levels in 2005. The continuing attacks have forced hundreds of thousands of students out of classrooms. Taliban and other insurgent forces target schools on ideological grounds, claiming they are un-Islamic, or because in rural areas they often are the only symbols of government.
Human Rights Watch noted that military operations by Afghan government and international forces have also caused numerous civilian casualties. At least 230 civilians were killed during coalition or NATO operations in 2006, some of which appear to have violated the laws of war. There is no evidence that coalition forces intentionally target civilians, but in a number of cases international forces have conducted indiscriminate attacks or failed to take adequate precautions to prevent harm to civilians. Human Rights Watch has reported on several of these cases.
Human Rights Watch said today that continuing insecurity and armed conflict in Afghanistan are contributing to already low levels of government and development assistance, and to high levels of continuing displacement. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans are displaced in southern and southeastern provinces, and millions remain as refugees in Iran and Pakistan, reluctant to return to Afghanistan, especially to rural areas, because of poor security and developmental assistance.
“Many Afghans are already struggling to survive,” Mariner said. “The increased insurgent attacks on civilians, especially government and humanitarian workers, are making matters worse.”
Human Rights Watch called on the Taliban, Hezb-e Islami, and associated groups to cease all intentional attacks on civilians and civilian targets, and avoid all attacks which do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or which cause disproportionate harm to civilians. Human Rights Watch also called on insurgents to refrain from using perfidious attacks and stop all acts intended to instill terror among the civilian population.
Human Rights Watch also called on the government of Pakistan to take more effective action against insurgent forces located over the border, which use Pakistani territory to prepare or plan attacks that violate the laws of war.
Finally, Human Rights Watch called on Afghan and international forces to develop better rules of engagement to minimize civilian casualties during hostilities, for instance by locating military installations at greater distances from civilian areas, avoiding sending convoys through crowded areas whenever feasible, and improving how forces respond to real or perceived insurgent attacks to avoid mistakenly targeting civilians.
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/juicioral/doc/yaleamicus2.html
La Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Yale presenta un escrito apoyando la calificación de crímenes contra la humanidad en el Caso Scilingo.
El pasado 14 de diciembre de 2006, la Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Yale, presentó un Amicus Curiae ante el Tribunal Supremo, apoyando la sentencia condenatoria recaída el 19 de abril de 2005 en el caso del Oficial Naval Adolfo Scilingo.
El trabajo fue realizado a solicitud del Equipo Nizkor y presentado como Anexo al escrito de alegaciones que ese mismo día, la Asociación Argentina Pro Derechos Humanos de Madrid, presentó en defensa de la sentencia ante la Sala Segunda de lo Penal del Tribunal Supremo que deberá conocer de los recursos de casación interpuestos por la defensa del condenado Adolfo Scilingo y por varias acusaciones populares y particulares que han recurrido la sentencia por crímenes contra la humanidad que le condenó. Este escrito cierra las actuaciones procesales del trámite de casación de la sentencia condenatoria del oficial naval Adolfo Scilingo.
Igualmente, el Profesor de Derecho de la Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Yale y Director Ejecutivo del Schell Center for International Human Rights de la misma facultad, Profesor James Silk, dirigió una carta al magistrado ponente de este caso en el Tribunal Supremo, Sr. D. Enrique Bacigalupo Zapater, presentándole el Amicus Curiae y el interés de la Clínica en dicha presentación.
Recordamos que entre el 26 de abril y el 12 de mayo de 2005 varias acusaciones populares y particulares anunciaron que recurrirían en casación al Tribunal Supremo la sentencia por crímenes contra la humanidad recaída el 19 de abril de 2005 en el caso Adolfo Scilingo Manzorro. Estas acusaciones interpusieron formalmente un recurso conjunto ante el Tribunal Supremo el 12 de enero de 2006.
Se da la circunstancia de que el oficial naval Adolfo Scilingo es el único militar argentino que se encuentra cumpliendo una condena por sentencia judicial en todo el mundo.
En este recurso conjunto, las acusaciones básicamente afirman que “En el marco de los hechos probados de la sentencia que recurrimos analizaremos la errónea calificación jurídica que, a nuestro criterio, el tribunal sentenciador ha aplicado a los mismos”, manteniendo que los hechos probados se incardinan en las figuras del genocidio y terrorismo, y no en la de crímenes contra la humanidad.
Los recurrentes no ofrecen ningún tipo de prueba que permita analizar el “means rea” o requisito de intencionalidad específica genocida, que en el caso concreto de Adolfo Scilingo permita calificar estos hechos como genocidio, pero tampoco lo hicieron durante en el momento procesal oportuno, esto es, durante la fase de juicio oral.
Tal y como se afirma en el escrito de impugnación presentado el 10nov06 en defensa de la sentencia condenatoria de Adolfo Scilingo: “En último extremo, la falta de prueba del delito de genocidio coincide con los intereses de la defensa del Oficial Adolfo Scilingo, toda vez que en caso de calificarse como Genocidio, el imputado debería ser dejado en libertad por falta de pruebas. La intencionalidad de modificar las categorías jurídicas para analizar unos hechos contextuales que reúnen las características claras de crímenes contra la humanidad no puede tener otra intención que la defensa de los intereses del imputado y de los oficiales que organizaron, dirigieron y planificaron el grupo de exterminio de la Marina Argentina que funcionó en la ESMA, en todo el territorio argentino e incluso en países extranjeros.”
El Amicus Curiae presentado por la Clínica de Derechos Humanos de la Facultad e Derecho de la Universidad de Yale, en sus conclusiones afirma lo siguiente:
“España tiene la obligación bajo el derecho internacional de enjuiciar a los perpetradores de crímenes contra la humanidad, genocidio y crímenes de guerra. Scilingo es responsable de crímenes que, de manera exacta y apropiada, se califican como crímenes contra la humanidad. Estos crímenes no pueden caracterizarse dentro de la definición de genocidio. La sentencia de la Audiencia Nacional ha establecido la responsabilidad por los actos en cuestión. De este modo, la cuestión relevante en apelación es si tales actos están prohibidos a la luz del derecho y, si es así, qué crímenes constituyen. Bajo el derecho internacional, la conducta de Scilingo constituye claramente crímenes contra la humanidad. Los crímenes de la campaña del régimen militar no responden a los elementos del crimen de genocidio, y los actos de Scilingo (actus reus) y su intencionalidad (mens rea) no reúnen los requisitos de genocidio.
Para que se haga justicia, Adolfo Scilingo debe ser hallado penalmente responsable de las atrocidades que cometió como parte de la dictadura militar que rigió Argentina entre 1976 y 1983. Este Tribunal no debe permitir, en consonancia con la conclusión de la Audiencia Nacional, que esos actos, sean calificados erróneamente como genocidio. Esta calificación desacertada impediría que el Tribunal cumpla con su deber de hacer que Scilingo responda ante la justicia por su responsabilidad en los actos criminales que la Audiencia Nacional encuentra que ha cometido.
Por los motivos expuestos, la Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Yale, en cuanto amicus curiae, respetuosamente somete a consideración del Tribunal que el enjuiciamiento y condena de Scilingo por crímenes contra la humanidad son concordantes con, y tienen base jurídica en, el derecho internacional y que los actos por él cometidos no son acordes al tipo de genocidio tal cual se define éste en derecho internacional”.
El Equipo Nizkor pondrá a disposición en su sitio web documental una copia del texto original de este Amicus Curiae y su versión en idioma español.
La colaboración del Equipo Nizkor con la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Yale comenzó hace unos años y se ha concretado fundamentalmente en el proyecto conjunto entre Radio Nizkor y el Schell Center for International Human Rights conocido bajo el nombre de International Human Rights Law Internet Radio.
[Fuente: Radio Nizkor, 27dic06]
http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/espana/juicioral/doc/yaleamicus1.html
On 14th December 2006, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic of the University of Yale Law Faculty submitted an amicus curiae before the Supreme Court, supporting the judgment handed down on 19th April 2005 in the case of the Navy Officer Adolfo Scilingo.
This work was done at the request of Equipo Nizkor and was submitted as an Annex to the documents filed on the same day in defence of the judgement by the Argentinian Association for Human Rights (Asociación Argentina Pro Derechos Humanos - 'AAPDH') of Madrid, to the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court. It is this Court which will consider the appeals for annulment filed by the defence team of the convicted Adolfo Scilingo and by various of the public and private prosecutions who have appealed against the judgement which found the accused guilty of commission of crimes against humanity. The Supreme Court must still decide on the admissibility of said appeals.
Similarly, the Professor of Law of the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic of Yale University's Law Faculty and Executive Director of the Schell Center for International Human Rights of the said Faculty, Professor James Silk, sent a letter to the judge rapporteur responsible for this case in the Supreme Court, Sr. D. Enrique Bacigalupo Zapater, submitting the amicus curiae and explaining the interest of the Clinic in making the submission.
We should recall that between 26 April and 12 May 2005 various public and private prosecutions announced that they would appeal to the Supreme Court for the annulment of the judgement dated 19th April 2005 which found the commission of crimes against humanity in the case of Adolfo Scilingo Manzorro. These parties filed a formal joint appeal with the Supreme Court on 12th January 2006.
Coincidentally, the Navy Officer Adolfo Scilingo is the only Argentinian military officer who is serving a judicial sentence for serious crimes against human rights anywhere in the world.
In the joint appeal, the appellants claim that "In the context of the proven facts of the judgement we are appealing, we shall analyse the erroneous characterisation in law which, in our opinion, the trial court has applied to the same", arguing that the proven facts establish the crimes of genocide and terrorism and not crimes against humanity.
The appellants do not offer any kind of evidence which would permit an analysis of the "mens rea" or the specific intent required in genocide that leads to the characterisation of the facts in the particular case of Adolfo Scilingo as constituting genocide; but neither did they do so during the relevant procedural stage, that is to say during the trial itself.
The documents submitted on 10 November 2006 by the AAPDH in defence of the judgement against Adolfo Scilingo state: "Ultimately, the lack of evidence of the crime of genocide happens to coincide with the interests of the defence team of Officer Adolfo Scilingo, given that if the charge were to be so characterised the accused would have to be released for lack of evidence. The intention behind seeking to modify the legal definitions in analysing a series of contextual facts which have the clear characteristics of crimes against humanity cannot be for any other reason than to defend the interests of the accused and the officers who organized, directed and planned the extermination group of the Argentinian Navy which operated in the ESMA, throughout Argentina and even in foreign countries".
The amicus curiae submitted by the Human Rights Clinic states the following in its conclusions:
"Spain has an obligation under international law to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. Scilingo was responsible for crimes that are accurately and appropriately categorized as crimes against humanity. These crimes cannot be characterized to fit the definition of genocide. Responsibility for the acts at issue has been established by the judgment of the Audiencia Nacional. Thus, the relevant question on appeal is whether those acts are proscribed by law and, if so, what crimes they constitute. Under international law, appellant Scilingo's conduct clearly constitutes crimes against humanity. The crimes of the military regime's campaign do not satisfy the elements of the crime of genocide, and Scilingo's conduct (actus reus) and his intent (mens rea) do not fulfill the requirements of genocide.
If justice is to be served, Adolfo Scilingo must be held criminally responsible for the atrocities that he committed as part of the military dictatorship that ruled Argentina from 1976 to 1983. This Court must not allow those acts, as found by the Audiencia Nacional, to be mischaracterized as genocide. This mischaracterization would prevent the Court from fulfilling its duty to bring appellant Scilingo to justice for his responsibility for the criminal acts that the Audiencia Nacional found he has committed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School as amicus curiae respectfully submits that the prosecution and conviction of appellant Scilingo for crimes against humanity are consistent with and justified under international law and that the acts he committed are not consistent with a finding of genocide as defined in international law."
Equipo Nizkor will be putting a copy of the original text of the amicus curiae on its documentary website together with a Spanish language version.
The collaboration between Equipo Nizkor and the Law Faculty of Yale University began some years ago and has become firmly established with the joint project between Radio Nizkor and the Schell Center for International Human Rights known as the International Human Rights Law Internet Radio.
http://www.cidh.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=691&lID=1
Press Release 164/07
The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Presents its 2006 Annual Report
Washington, D.C., April 9, 2007 – In its evaluation of the situation of freedom of expression in the Americas in 2006, the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) of the OAS drew attention to the increase in murders of communicators in the region in the course of the year and the persisting impunity in which such murders, as well as attacks and threats directed at journalists, remain. On March 29 last, the IACHR presented its annual report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Volume III of which contains the Report of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression.
The report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur records 19 murders in 2006 for reasons that could be connected with the exercise of freedom of expression and mentions that this figure reverts the downward trend for killings of this type registered in the hemisphere over the previous three years. The report notes that the majority of these crimes go unpunished, which propitiates further murders and leads to self-censorship by communicators. In addition, the report registers more than 200 cases of assault and threats against communicators and adds that these incidents are frequently not investigated. The annual report also highlights other restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression that arose in 2006, such as criminal actions brought by government officials against journalists for desacato (contempt), defamation, slander and libel, discriminatory allocation of government advertising, and refusal by public officials to release information in the possession of the state on request.
“Historically speaking, the right to freedom of expression has gained ground in the Americas, especially as a result of the transitions to democracy. However, the obstructions of freedom of expression seen in 2006 are genuinely a cause for concern,” said Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Ignacio J. Álvarez. “We urge the states to do everything in their power as soon as possible to investigate and ensure justice in all cases of murder, attacks and threats, and to design public policies for protection and strengthening of the right to freedom of expression.”
In addition to a detailed evaluation of the situation of the right to freedom of expression in the hemisphere, the report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur includes comparative studies of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and the UN Human Rights Committee with regard to freedom of expression. It also contains a description of the main activities pursued by the Office of the Special Rapporteur in 2006, including the creation and implementation of a daily monitoring system and of its quarterly reports on the situation of freedom of expression in the region, the presentation of six draft reports on merits to the IACHR, visits to promote the right to freedom of expression, training workshops for journalists and communicators, and participation in forums and seminars.
The annual report includes general conclusions on the situation of freedom of expression in the region, on the basis whereof it offers a number of recommendations to the member states of the Organization with a view to improving the conditions necessary for the full exercise of freedom of expression in the region. These conclusions and recommendations are attached as an annex to this press release. The complete annual report is available in English at http://www.cidh.org/relatoria/showarticle.asp?artID=691&lID=1.
Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism: The Impact on Human Rights Protection
The International Human Rights Obligations Network (IntHRON) was launched on 18th January 2007 with a workshop on 'Terrorism and counter-terrorism: the impact on human rights protection'. Despite the worst storms for over a decade, the launch was well attended, with participants from across the north-west.
Introductions were given by Prof. Bob McKinlay, Pro-Vice Chancellor of Lancaster University, and Professor Sigrun Skogly, Lancaster University Law School. The keynote speech was presented by Professor Martin Scheinin, UN Special Rapportuer on the promotion and protection of human rights whilst countering terrorism. This was followed by presentations from Michael Windfuhr, Brot fur die Welt, on Economic and Social Rights in times of counter terrorism and Professor Peter Rowe, Lancaster University Law School on International Security and human rights - the relevance of human rights to armed forces engaged in military operations outside their own territory.
Unfortunately, despite valiant efforts, two of the presenters were unable to attend due to the storms. However, they have kindly provided written versions of their presentations.