From Amnesty.org (pt)
News & Updates View
Updated: 44 min 39 sec ago
Amnesty International welcomes decision to not transfer Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste compensation
Amnesty International has welcomed the decision of a Côte d’Ivoire court not to transfer $45 million in compensation owed to victims of the toxic waste dumping in Abidjan in 2006 to the account of an organization which was falsely claiming to represent all 30,000 of them.
"To have fought for three years for some measure of compensation but then for it to disappear at the eleventh hour would have been heartbreaking for the victims," said Benedetta Lacey, a special advisor at Amnesty International who has visited Côte d’Ivoire and met victims of the dumping.
Amnesty International had written to Mamadou Kone, the Ivorian minister of justice, urging him to take action to ensure the money was not misappropriated.
The move comes as a huge relief for those affected who have waited a long time for some measure of compensation.
Turkey: No to safe haven for fugitive from international justice
Amnesty International condemned an invitation extended by Turkey on Friday to Sudanese President Omar al Bashir to attend a meeting in Turkey, even though he is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
“President Omar al Bashir is a fugitive from international justice, charged with responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes against men, women and children, including murder, rape, torture and forced displacement. It would be a disgrace for Turkey to offer him safe haven,” said Christopher Keith Hall, Senior Legal Advisor, at Amnesty International.
President Omar al Bashir has been invited to attend a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is taking place in Istanbul Turkey from 5 to 9 November 2009.
An arrest warrant for President Omar al Bashir was issued by the ICC on 4 March 2009 on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
“If the Turkish authorities fail to arrest President Omar al Bashir and hand him over to the ICC, this would be inconsistent with Turkey’s international obligations,” Christopher Keith Hall said.
“It would not only amount to obstruction of justice, but just as offering shelter to a fleeing bank robber constitutes a crime under national law, so, too, would sheltering a fugitive from international justice be complicity in crime.”
According to press reports, Turkish officials have stated that they would not arrest and surrender President Omar al Bashir.
“Turkey must act as a responsible member of the international community for the sake of thousands of victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur,” Christopher Keith Hall said.
Background
Turkey is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which obliges it to open an investigation when persons suspected of torture - without any limitation as to rank - are present and to take them into custody or take other legal measures to ensure their presence pending institution of criminal or extradition proceedings.
Although Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, it is a party to the Convention against Torture and has made commitments to ratify the Rome Statute.
Under Article 13 of its Penal Code, Turkey can arrest foreigners suspected of responsibility for crimes against humanity committed abroad against other foreigners.
As a member of the Security Council, Turkey’s offer of a safe haven to a fugitive from international justice is inconsistent with the Security Council's resolution 1593 which " urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully " with the International Criminal Court regarding Darfur.
“President Omar al Bashir is a fugitive from international justice, charged with responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes against men, women and children, including murder, rape, torture and forced displacement. It would be a disgrace for Turkey to offer him safe haven,” said Christopher Keith Hall, Senior Legal Advisor, at Amnesty International.
President Omar al Bashir has been invited to attend a meeting of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which is taking place in Istanbul Turkey from 5 to 9 November 2009.
An arrest warrant for President Omar al Bashir was issued by the ICC on 4 March 2009 on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes.
“If the Turkish authorities fail to arrest President Omar al Bashir and hand him over to the ICC, this would be inconsistent with Turkey’s international obligations,” Christopher Keith Hall said.
“It would not only amount to obstruction of justice, but just as offering shelter to a fleeing bank robber constitutes a crime under national law, so, too, would sheltering a fugitive from international justice be complicity in crime.”
According to press reports, Turkish officials have stated that they would not arrest and surrender President Omar al Bashir.
“Turkey must act as a responsible member of the international community for the sake of thousands of victims of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur,” Christopher Keith Hall said.
Background
Turkey is a party to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which obliges it to open an investigation when persons suspected of torture - without any limitation as to rank - are present and to take them into custody or take other legal measures to ensure their presence pending institution of criminal or extradition proceedings.
Although Turkey is not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC, it is a party to the Convention against Torture and has made commitments to ratify the Rome Statute.
Under Article 13 of its Penal Code, Turkey can arrest foreigners suspected of responsibility for crimes against humanity committed abroad against other foreigners.
As a member of the Security Council, Turkey’s offer of a safe haven to a fugitive from international justice is inconsistent with the Security Council's resolution 1593 which " urges all States and concerned regional and other international organizations to cooperate fully " with the International Criminal Court regarding Darfur.
Scores made homeless by house demolitions in Nigeria
Scores of Nigerians lost their homes on Friday morning when Rivers State authorities began bulldozing buildings in Port Harcourt, Amnesty International has learned.
A crew of three diggers, accompanied by 30 armed policemen, closed the Njemanze Road at both ends and began demolishing homes to make way for a commercial development. A large proportion of the street had been flattened by Friday evening.
"Many of the tenants have nowhere else to go and most are unable to afford the large deposit necessary to rent a new home," said Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty International's Africa director.
"The Governor of Rivers State must immediately halt the forced evictions and demolition, respect the rights of the residents to adequate and reasonable notice of any eviction and ensure that all those affected receive adequate alternative housing to ensure that no one is rendered homeless."
Many residents had already left the street to seek refuge with family or in churches, but around 100 people with no alternative housing remained in the buildings prior to the demolition.
A woman who had been living on Njemanze road with her three children told Amnesty International on Wednesday: "We have not been paid and they asked us to quit. We erected the building ourselves. We are sleeping in the room [with no roof or windows]. We have nowhere to go."
Houses along the Njemanze Road were made uninhabitable when doors, roofs and windows were removed by police last Friday.
Tenants - including many women and children - were given just seven days' notice to vacate their homes and businesses, while most were not offered compensation or alternative housing.
On Wednesday, the Commissioner of Urban Development, Barrister Osima Ginah, went to Njemanze road accompanied by police officers and told people they had 24 hours to evacuate their homes.
For some residents, this is the second time they have been forcibly evicted from their home. Njemanze waterfront community, home to thousands of people, was demolished on 28 August.
Several of the displaced residents sought shelter in the neighbouring buildings along Njemanze Road - buildings that are now also being demolished.
The waterfront is one of the most densely populated areas of Port Harcourt. The state governor has repeatedly stated that demolitions along the waterfront are “to sanitize and check criminal activities”.
"Rivers State government is only permitted to carry out evictions as a last resort," said Erwin van der Borght. "They are obliged, in every case, to explore all feasible alternatives to evictions and avoid or minimise the use of force."
Tunisia releases prisoners held over Gafsa protests
The release of 68 prisoners, held for over a year in connection with popular protests last year against unemployment and high living costs in the resource-rich Gafsa region, has been welcomed by Amnesty International.
The organization also called on the Tunisian authorities to put an end to the mounting repression against independent journalists, human rights and student activists which has taken place in the wake of last month’s presidential and legislative elections.
All 68 prisoners were conditionally released under a presidential pardon issued by President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali on Wednesday, to mark the 22nd anniversary of his accession to power on 7 November 1987.
Many of those released were prisoners of conscience, held solely for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
Those who breach the conditions attached to their release are likely to be re-detained and required to serve out the remainder of their prison terms or placed under house arrest for the same period.
Those released include trade union leaders Adnan Hajji, Bechir Laabidi, Adel Jayar and Tayeb Ben Othman, who were among 38 people sentenced to prison terms of up to eight years on appeal in February 2009 after grossly unfair trials.
They were accused of leading protests in Gafsa in the first half of 2008 and which involved demonstrations against unemployment, the cost of living, nepotism and the unfair recruitment practices of the major employer in the region, the Gafsa Phosphate Company.
They were also accused of "forming a criminal group with the aim of destroying public and private property" and "armed rebellion and assault on officials during the exercise of their duties".
Another 50 of those suspected of being involved in the protests remain in hiding and were tried in their absence.
They include France-based human rights activist Mohieddine Cherbib. Fahem Boukadous, a journalist working for al-Hiwar Ettounsi, a Tunisian private television channel, also faces trial if he should be arrested; he was sentenced in his absence to six years in prison after he was convicted on appeal in February 2009 of charges relating to his coverage of the protests.
While welcoming the presidential pardon and release of prisoners, Amnesty International urged the Tunisian authorities to extend its application to cover all those who face charges on account of their peaceful involvement in the Gafsa protests, to quash the six-year prison sentence imposed on Fahem Boukadous and to lift the restrictions on released prisoners.
The organization also called on the Tunisian authorities to make public the findings of any investigations into the killing by the security forces of two Gafsa protestors last year.
Kenya's post-election violence suspects must be brought to justice
The Kenyan government has failed to implement a fair and credible judicial process to try those accused of carrying out human rights violations, including possible crimes against humanity, during last year’s post-election violence, said Amnesty International.
Amnesty International voiced its dismay at the process following a statement issued yesterday by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that he will seek to open an investigation into post-election violence in Kenya.
“The Kenyan government has left the ICC no option but to open an investigation by its failure to do so itself,” said Godfrey Odongo, Amnesty International’s East Africa researcher.
“Kenya has failed to define the crimes against humanity committed by members of all parties during the elections last year as crimes under national law. By doing so, it has opened the door to an ICC investigation and prosecution.”
Kenya enacted the International Criminal Court Act, 2008, defining crimes against humanity and other crimes under international law as crimes under Kenyan law, but only if committed after January 2009.
That law also provides for cooperation with the ICC, but permits the Attorney General, a political official, broad discretion to refuse to cooperate with the Court.
“Kenya seems unwilling and unable to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the violence, particularly those at the highest level in political parties and in the government,” said Godfrey Odongo.
The country has failed to amend the Constitution to permit the establishment of a special court that could try some of those suspected of responsibility for possible crimes against humanity during the elections last year.
The ICC has only a limited capacity to investigate and try persons suspected of crimes against humanity, and Kenya has a duty to ensure effective prosecution at the national level to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes.
Following the enactment of the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Act, 2008, there is now a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) in place and the TJRC has indicated it will start hearings by mid next year.
However to date there is no clear government policy on how any local judicial processes to try persons suspected of crimes committed during the violence would be complementary to the ICC process and the ongoing truth, justice and reconciliation process.
“A Justice, Truth and Reconciliation Commission can begin to establish the truth about what happened during the terrible weeks following the election – but it cannot determine guilt or innocence of those accused, which remains an obligation of the Kenyan judiciary,” said Godfrey Odongo.
Amnesty International voiced its dismay at the process following a statement issued yesterday by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) that he will seek to open an investigation into post-election violence in Kenya.
“The Kenyan government has left the ICC no option but to open an investigation by its failure to do so itself,” said Godfrey Odongo, Amnesty International’s East Africa researcher.
“Kenya has failed to define the crimes against humanity committed by members of all parties during the elections last year as crimes under national law. By doing so, it has opened the door to an ICC investigation and prosecution.”
Kenya enacted the International Criminal Court Act, 2008, defining crimes against humanity and other crimes under international law as crimes under Kenyan law, but only if committed after January 2009.
That law also provides for cooperation with the ICC, but permits the Attorney General, a political official, broad discretion to refuse to cooperate with the Court.
“Kenya seems unwilling and unable to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the violence, particularly those at the highest level in political parties and in the government,” said Godfrey Odongo.
The country has failed to amend the Constitution to permit the establishment of a special court that could try some of those suspected of responsibility for possible crimes against humanity during the elections last year.
The ICC has only a limited capacity to investigate and try persons suspected of crimes against humanity, and Kenya has a duty to ensure effective prosecution at the national level to put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes.
Following the enactment of the Truth Justice and Reconciliation Act, 2008, there is now a Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission (TJRC) in place and the TJRC has indicated it will start hearings by mid next year.
However to date there is no clear government policy on how any local judicial processes to try persons suspected of crimes committed during the violence would be complementary to the ICC process and the ongoing truth, justice and reconciliation process.
“A Justice, Truth and Reconciliation Commission can begin to establish the truth about what happened during the terrible weeks following the election – but it cannot determine guilt or innocence of those accused, which remains an obligation of the Kenyan judiciary,” said Godfrey Odongo.
Nicaragua's Constitutional Court must decide on legality of new abortion law
Amnesty International has expressed concern that the Nicaraguan Supreme Court continues to delay its judgment on the legality of new criminal laws on abortion which entered into force in 2008.
The Court was due to issue a judgment in May 2009 on the constitutionality of a complete ban on abortion, even when the life of the woman or girl is at risk and when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest.
“As long as this total ban is in place, victims of rape and incest – some of them still children themselves – are compelled to bear children,” said Kerrie Howard
“Pregnant women and girls are being denied life saving medical treatment and medical professionals are criminalized for doing their jobs."
“The lives of many women and girls depend on the Court’s decision,” said Kerrie Howard
“We are very concerned at the lack of certainty and that the Court continues to delay its ruling.” Justice delayed is justice denied. Women are dying in Nicaragua because the Court has failed to uphold the human rights of women.
Since the ban was first put in place four United Nations treaty expert committees have informed the Nicaraguan government that such a ban places it in breach of its obligations to protect women and girl’s human rights.
According to official figures, 33 girls and women have died in pregnancy so far in 2009 as compared to 20 in the same period last year. Amnesty International believes these figures do not reflect the actual numbers as the government itself has acknowledged that the number of maternal deaths is under-recorded.
On 27July 2009, Amnesty International published the study “The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women's lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized", examining the human rights implications of the denial of abortion when the life or health of a woman or girl is at risk, including when she is a victim of rape or incest.
One of the calls Amnesty International made was to the Constitutional section of the Nicaraguan Supreme Court, urging it to issue a decision on the legality and constitutionality of the law as a matter of urgency and in accordance with the Court’s rules and procedures.
Background Information
Nicaragua’s revised Penal Code stipulates prison sentences of between one and two years for girls and women who seek an abortion and between one and three years imprisonment for health professionals who provide health services associated with abortion. Only 3% of the world’s countries have introduced such absolute bans.
Under the law even girls and women who have suffered a miscarriage may be prosecuted, as in many cases it is impossible to distinguish spontaneous from induced abortions. Over zealous prosecutors use the law to press charges against women who have suffered the physical and mental pain of having a miscarriage.
This new law is in conflict with the Nicaraguan Obstetric Rules and Protocols issued by the Ministry of Health which mandate therapeutic abortions as clinical responses to specific cases. There are no exceptional circumstances provided for by the penal code.
During the mission to launch the report "The total abortion ban in Nicaragua: Women's lives and health endangered, medical professionals criminalized" (27 July 2009 Index number 43/004/2009) Amnesty International delegates met with girls as young as 12 who, having been subjected to sexual violence at the hands of close family members or friends, were compelled to carry the resulting pregnancies to term –giving birth in many instances to their own brothers or sisters –because they were denied access to alternatives.
Obstetricians, gynaecologists and family doctors in Nicaragua told Amnesty International that under the new Penal Code they can no longer provide effective medical treatment for life threatening conditions in pregnant women and girls because of the potential risk to the foetus. The Penal Code introduces criminal sanctions for doctors and nurses who treat a pregnant woman or girl for illnesses such as cancer or cardiac emergencies where such treatment is contraindicated in pregnancy and may cause injury to or death of the embryo or foetus.
Background: Foreign nationals on death row in Saudi Arabia
At least 158 people, including 76 foreign nationals, were executed by the Saudi Arabian authorities in 2007, and at least 102 people, including almost 40 foreign nationals, were executed in 2008. Since the beginning of 2009, a further 61 people are known to have been executed, including 18 foreign nationals.
Amnesty International is aware of at least 137 people currently on death row in Saudi Arabia, of which 106 are foreign nationals. The true figures are believed to be much higher.
Those foreign nationals include the following individuals:
- Siti Zainab Binti Duhri Rupa, a 41-year-old Indonesian domestic worker and mother of two, was arrested in September 1999 in connection with the murder of her female employer. She was convicted and sentenced to death despite lack of legal representation at her trial and reports that she suffers from a mental disorder. She is reported to have been convicted after she “confessed” to murdering her employer during police interrogation. Siti Rupa has not yet been executed as the employer's child has not yet reached the age of majority to request her sentence of death or pardon her. In qesas (retribution) cases, the heirs of the murder victims have the right to pardon the offender either freely or in exchange for compensation. The age of the child is unknown in this case. However, the president of the National Human Rights Commission in Saudi Arabia informed Amnesty International that her case had been referred for review to the relevant authorities but no other information has been received since.
- Nigerian national Suliamon Olyfemi was sentenced to death in May 2005 for the murder of a policeman in 2002. He was one of 13 Nigerian nationals arrested in September 2002 in connection with the murder. He was forced to fingerprint a confession that he could not read as it was in Arabic, a language he does not understand, during the interrogation and this was used as evidence against him in the trial. During his trial, which was conducted in Arabic, Suliamon Olyfemi had no access to legal representation or consular assistance, and reportedly was not provided with adequate translation. He has exhausted all appeals and could be executed at any time.
- Rizana Nafeek, a Sri Lankan domestic worker, was sentenced to death in 2007 for the alleged murder of her employer's baby. She was 17 at the time of the alleged crime. She had no access to lawyers either during interrogation or at trial, and it is believed that she confessed to the murder during police questioning but has since retracted her confession. Her case is still at appeal.
- Indian nationals Sheikh Mastan and Hamza Abu Bakir were arrested in January 2004 on charges of drug possession and sentenced to death by a court in al-Dammam in June 2006. However, they had no legal representation throughout the judicial process. Very little is known about their trial except that their convictions and sentences are said to have been upheld on appeal. The sentences are awaiting the approval of the Supreme Judicial Council, which is headed by the King. If the sentences are approved, the two men could be executed within days.
UN vote on Goldstone report a defining step for accountability
Thursday's UN vote adopting key recommendations of the Goldstone report on the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel earlier this year is vitally important for ensuring that those, on both sides, who committed war crimes and other violations of international law will now be held to account, said Amnesty International.
"Both Israel and Hamas in Gaza have been served due notice, in this defining General Assembly resolution, that they must immediately conduct credible, independent investigations into the alleged grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law committed during the conflict," said Yvonne Terlingen, Head of Amnesty International's Office at the UN on Thursday.
"The clock is now running and we urge both parties to act without further delay. The UN has spoken up today for accountability and for an end to the cycle of impunity that has for so long obstructed the search for peace and justice between Israelis and Palestinians."
The UN General Assembly resolution, based on the findings of the UN Fact Finding Mission led by Justice Goldstone, which concluded that both Israeli and Palestinian forces committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity, was adopted by a large majority: 114 states voted in favour, 18 voted against and 44 abstained. The USA and 7 European Union (EU) states voted against the resolution while Russia abstained.
"We deeply regret that the USA and the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia voted against the resolution and failed to support the need for accountability, justice and human rights that are so vital for victims of abuses in this conflict," said Terlingen.
The resolution calls on the UN Secretary-General to transmit Judge Goldstone's report to the Security Council, which has powers to refer the situation in Gaza to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court if Israel and Hamas prove unable or unwilling to conduct independent investigations that meet international standards. It also calls on the UN Secretary-General to present a progress report to the General Assembly in three months' time.
"We urge the UN Secretary-General to now appoint independent experts in human rights and international humanitarian law to assess whether any investigations that are conducted by Israel and Hamas meet the required international standard", said Terlingen.
The findings of the Goldstone report echo those of an Amnesty International team that investigated alleged violations in Gaza and southern Israel during and in the immediate aftermath of the conflict, in which hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including some 300 children, and three Israeli civilians were killed.
"Almost one year on, those who suffered war crimes and other gross violations of their rights, are still waiting for justice", said Amnesty International. "It is our fervent hope that today's UN General Assembly resolution will act as a catalyst to make justice and reparation a reality for the victims on both sides."
Amnesty International has asked the Israeli authorities for the third time if they are investigating any of the alleged human rights violations committed by the IDF during the conflict and brought to their attention by the organization.
In a letter to Israel's Judge Advocate General, Brigadier General Avihai Mandelblit, on Friday, Amnesty International said:
"We note that the Israeli NGO B’Tselem made public a report on 4 November 2009 which details 13 cases raised by B’Tselem and other human rights NGOs that are said to be under investigation by the Military Police Investigation Unit. The list does not include Amnesty International as a source of cases of alleged violations brought to the attention of the Israeli authorities."
Amnesty International is waiting for a response from the Israeli authorities with regard to 36 cases – some of which were mentioned in B'Tselem's report – that the organization raised with them on 25 March and 28 September 2009.
Côte d'Ivoire authorities must ensure toxic waste compensation reaches victims
Amnesty International on Thursday urged the authorities in Côte d'Ivoire to ensure that $45 million compensation paid by an oil trading company to victims of one of the worst toxic dumping scandals in recent years reaches the people to whom it is owed.
The compensation was agreed in the context of a court action brought by some 30,000 people against the firm in the High Court of England and Wales.
The organization has also written to UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw, urgently asking him to contact his counterpart in the Côte d’Ivoire and press for swift action to prevent a potentially massive fraud being perpetrated.
The call came as thousands of the victims of the illegal dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan, the capital of Côte d’Ivoire, wait anxiously to receive their money.
“There is a real risk that the victims of this waste dumping will never see the compensation they have been waiting so long to receive,” said Widney Brown, Senior Director at Amnesty International.
“The governments of Côte d’Ivoire and the UK must do everything in their power to ensure that this money is paid to the claimants listed in the court order – and prevent its misappropriation by corrupt figures.”
The $45 million compensation has been frozen in the bank account of the law firm representing the victims in the court case against the company accused of dumping the waste.
The freezing order was made after a man claiming his organization – the National Coordination of Toxic Waste Victims of Côte d’Ivoire (CNVDT-CI) – represents the “real victims” said the money should be transferred into that organization’s bank account instead. This claim appears entirely false and has been refuted by the victim’s UK lawyers, as well as in a petition that is before the Ivorian courts by the other representatives of claimants in the UK court case.
The CNVDT-CI appears nowhere in any court documents related to the case or the settlement.
On 23 September, the High Court of England and Wales approved a settlement agreement between the victims of the toxic waste dumping, UK law firm Leigh Day & Co, and the firm. The agreement was that $45 million would be distributed by Leigh Day to the nearly 30,000 victims who had agreed to the deal, with each receiving about $1,600. The funds were transferred to an account in Côte d’Ivoire set up by Leigh Day for distribution to the victims.
On 22 October, Claude Gohourou, who claims his organization represents the victims, applied to a court in Abidjan to have the funds in the Leigh Day account frozen, which the court agreed to. Soon after, on 27 October, he applied for the money to be transferred to an account held by his own association.
On Friday, the Abidjan court is due to rule on his application.
“If the court in Côte d’Ivoire transfers the money into Mr Gohourou’s account, there is a very good chance that it will never be seen again,” said Widney Brown.
“We need an urgent intervention to prevent the victims of this tragic case from a double disaster. To have fought for three years for some measure of compensation for the terrible events of 2006, and then to see it stolen would be a travesty.”
The compensation was agreed in the context of a court action brought by some 30,000 people against the firm in the High Court of England and Wales.
The organization has also written to UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw, urgently asking him to contact his counterpart in the Côte d’Ivoire and press for swift action to prevent a potentially massive fraud being perpetrated.
The call came as thousands of the victims of the illegal dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan, the capital of Côte d’Ivoire, wait anxiously to receive their money.
“There is a real risk that the victims of this waste dumping will never see the compensation they have been waiting so long to receive,” said Widney Brown, Senior Director at Amnesty International.
“The governments of Côte d’Ivoire and the UK must do everything in their power to ensure that this money is paid to the claimants listed in the court order – and prevent its misappropriation by corrupt figures.”
The $45 million compensation has been frozen in the bank account of the law firm representing the victims in the court case against the company accused of dumping the waste.
The freezing order was made after a man claiming his organization – the National Coordination of Toxic Waste Victims of Côte d’Ivoire (CNVDT-CI) – represents the “real victims” said the money should be transferred into that organization’s bank account instead. This claim appears entirely false and has been refuted by the victim’s UK lawyers, as well as in a petition that is before the Ivorian courts by the other representatives of claimants in the UK court case.
The CNVDT-CI appears nowhere in any court documents related to the case or the settlement.
On 23 September, the High Court of England and Wales approved a settlement agreement between the victims of the toxic waste dumping, UK law firm Leigh Day & Co, and the firm. The agreement was that $45 million would be distributed by Leigh Day to the nearly 30,000 victims who had agreed to the deal, with each receiving about $1,600. The funds were transferred to an account in Côte d’Ivoire set up by Leigh Day for distribution to the victims.
On 22 October, Claude Gohourou, who claims his organization represents the victims, applied to a court in Abidjan to have the funds in the Leigh Day account frozen, which the court agreed to. Soon after, on 27 October, he applied for the money to be transferred to an account held by his own association.
On Friday, the Abidjan court is due to rule on his application.
“If the court in Côte d’Ivoire transfers the money into Mr Gohourou’s account, there is a very good chance that it will never be seen again,” said Widney Brown.
“We need an urgent intervention to prevent the victims of this tragic case from a double disaster. To have fought for three years for some measure of compensation for the terrible events of 2006, and then to see it stolen would be a travesty.”
Saudi Arabia executes three more foreign nationals
The executions of three foreign nationals in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday have been strongly condemned by Amnesty International.
Two Sri Lankans and one Indian were beheaded in the city of Jeddah. They had been sentenced to death in June 2007 for their alleged killing of a woman at her home during an armed burglary in November 2005.
Sri Lankan national Haleema Nissa Cader, who was the mother of a young child, her Indian national husband Muhammad Naushad Barmil and Sri Lankan national K M S Bandaranaike are believed to have been convicted on the basis of “confessions” which were obtained during police interrogation under duress.
They had no legal representation whilst in detention or at any stage of the proceedings.
The Court of Cassation in Makkah upheld their sentence in 2009 and it was ratified by the Supreme Judicial Council.
Amnesty International had repeatedly campaigned on their behalf.
The last foreign national to be executed in Saudi Arabia was Munir Ahmed Hussein Shah, a Bangladeshi national, who was beheaded on 7 August for rape and murder.
Before him, Nigerian national Qorbi bin Musa Adam was executed on 2 August in Jeddah for the charge of murder.
According to Amnesty International statistics, almost half of the recorded total of executions consisted of foreign nationals, mostly migrant workers from developing countries.
At least 158 people, including 76 foreign nationals, were executed by the Saudi Arabian authorities in 2007, and at least 102 people, including almost 40 foreign nationals, were executed in 2008. Since the beginning of 2009, a further 61 people are known to have been executed, including 18 foreign nationals.
Amnesty International said that it is aware of at least 137 people currently on death row, of which 106 are foreign nationals. The true figures are believed to be much higher.
Defendants, particularly poor foreign migrant workers from developing countries in Africa and Asia, often have no defence lawyer and are unable to follow court proceedings in Arabic.
They, and many of the Saudi Arabians who are executed, also have no access to influential figures such as government authorities or heads of tribes, nor to money, both crucial factors in securing a pardon in murder cases.
Saudi Arabia applies the death penalty for a wide range of offences. Court proceedings fall far short of international standards for fair trial.
Defendants are rarely allowed formal representation by a lawyer, and in many cases are not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them.
They may be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress or deception.
Two Sri Lankans and one Indian were beheaded in the city of Jeddah. They had been sentenced to death in June 2007 for their alleged killing of a woman at her home during an armed burglary in November 2005.
Sri Lankan national Haleema Nissa Cader, who was the mother of a young child, her Indian national husband Muhammad Naushad Barmil and Sri Lankan national K M S Bandaranaike are believed to have been convicted on the basis of “confessions” which were obtained during police interrogation under duress.
They had no legal representation whilst in detention or at any stage of the proceedings.
The Court of Cassation in Makkah upheld their sentence in 2009 and it was ratified by the Supreme Judicial Council.
Amnesty International had repeatedly campaigned on their behalf.
The last foreign national to be executed in Saudi Arabia was Munir Ahmed Hussein Shah, a Bangladeshi national, who was beheaded on 7 August for rape and murder.
Before him, Nigerian national Qorbi bin Musa Adam was executed on 2 August in Jeddah for the charge of murder.
According to Amnesty International statistics, almost half of the recorded total of executions consisted of foreign nationals, mostly migrant workers from developing countries.
At least 158 people, including 76 foreign nationals, were executed by the Saudi Arabian authorities in 2007, and at least 102 people, including almost 40 foreign nationals, were executed in 2008. Since the beginning of 2009, a further 61 people are known to have been executed, including 18 foreign nationals.
Amnesty International said that it is aware of at least 137 people currently on death row, of which 106 are foreign nationals. The true figures are believed to be much higher.
Defendants, particularly poor foreign migrant workers from developing countries in Africa and Asia, often have no defence lawyer and are unable to follow court proceedings in Arabic.
They, and many of the Saudi Arabians who are executed, also have no access to influential figures such as government authorities or heads of tribes, nor to money, both crucial factors in securing a pardon in murder cases.
Saudi Arabia applies the death penalty for a wide range of offences. Court proceedings fall far short of international standards for fair trial.
Defendants are rarely allowed formal representation by a lawyer, and in many cases are not informed of the progress of legal proceedings against them.
They may be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress or deception.
EU and India must work together at UN to protect human rights
The European Union (EU) and India should work together at the United Nations (UN) to protect human rights in places of crisis, Amnesty International has said.
The call came in a letter sent on Tuesday to the Swedish Presidency of the EU, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, ahead of the EU India summit in New Delhi on Friday.
Amnesty International addressed the EU's handling of the displacement crisis in the wake of the internal armed conflict in Sri Lanka, human rights violations in Myanmar, corporate accountability over the Bhopal gas leak disaster and India's use of the death penalty.
As global actors, both the EU and India have a responsibility to play an active role in the protection of human rights internationally, regionally, and at home, Amnesty International said.
"On the world stage the voice of the UN is particularly important in the promotion and protection of international human rights; both the EU and the Indian government should ensure that they support the UN in this role as effectively as possible."
The UN's poor handling of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka during the internal armed conflict, particularly at its end, was cited by Amnesty International as a recent example of the need for principled co-operation between global actors on crisis situations.
The organization said that while the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka had "long been foreseeable" earlier this year there were "few signs of co-operation between the European Union and India to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka at the UN."
Amnesty International expressed its disappointment with the resolution on Sri Lanka adopted at the end of the UN Human Rights Council's special session on 27 May, which "praised the Sri Lankan government, entirely ignored the human rights violations committed by the government, and disregarded the need to establish accountability."
Pointing out that the UN Human Rights council had failed to create an international fact-finding mission for Sri Lanka, similar to the one in Gaza, Amnesty International went on to say that the "UN handling of the situation in Sri Lanka and the outcome of the special session was very damaging to the credibility of the UN human rights political bodies."
The EU was urged to use its discussions with India to strongly engage with Myanmar to end "serious and systematic human rights violations, including detention of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, often in appalling and sometimes isolated conditions."
On the subject of corporate accountability, Amnesty International said that the EU needs to demonstrate its leadership to ensure that multinational companies (headquartered in the home states like the EU) respect human rights in their operations in the host states (where the human rights impact of these companies’ operations is felt, like India). The EU and India have a particular responsibility in ensuring protection of human rights in those affected communities. Both preventive mechanisms and remedies are needed in order to close the gap.
With that in mind, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, Amnesty International urged the Swedish Presidency to use the EU India summit to "call on the Government of India to take urgent and decisive action to address to the long-term impacts of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, including proper clean-up and remediation of the factory site, adequate medical care, regular supply of safe water for the affected communities and economic rehabilitation.
In line with the EU's commitment to the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, Amnesty International also said that EU should use its discussions with India, "to call for India to take a positive approach in the lead up to the debate and resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the General Assembly in November 2010." India had no executions since 2004, but voted against the UNGA moratorium on death penalty in December 2008.
The call came in a letter sent on Tuesday to the Swedish Presidency of the EU, Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, ahead of the EU India summit in New Delhi on Friday.
Amnesty International addressed the EU's handling of the displacement crisis in the wake of the internal armed conflict in Sri Lanka, human rights violations in Myanmar, corporate accountability over the Bhopal gas leak disaster and India's use of the death penalty.
As global actors, both the EU and India have a responsibility to play an active role in the protection of human rights internationally, regionally, and at home, Amnesty International said.
"On the world stage the voice of the UN is particularly important in the promotion and protection of international human rights; both the EU and the Indian government should ensure that they support the UN in this role as effectively as possible."
The UN's poor handling of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka during the internal armed conflict, particularly at its end, was cited by Amnesty International as a recent example of the need for principled co-operation between global actors on crisis situations.
The organization said that while the human rights and humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka had "long been foreseeable" earlier this year there were "few signs of co-operation between the European Union and India to address the human rights situation in Sri Lanka at the UN."
Amnesty International expressed its disappointment with the resolution on Sri Lanka adopted at the end of the UN Human Rights Council's special session on 27 May, which "praised the Sri Lankan government, entirely ignored the human rights violations committed by the government, and disregarded the need to establish accountability."
Pointing out that the UN Human Rights council had failed to create an international fact-finding mission for Sri Lanka, similar to the one in Gaza, Amnesty International went on to say that the "UN handling of the situation in Sri Lanka and the outcome of the special session was very damaging to the credibility of the UN human rights political bodies."
The EU was urged to use its discussions with India to strongly engage with Myanmar to end "serious and systematic human rights violations, including detention of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, often in appalling and sometimes isolated conditions."
On the subject of corporate accountability, Amnesty International said that the EU needs to demonstrate its leadership to ensure that multinational companies (headquartered in the home states like the EU) respect human rights in their operations in the host states (where the human rights impact of these companies’ operations is felt, like India). The EU and India have a particular responsibility in ensuring protection of human rights in those affected communities. Both preventive mechanisms and remedies are needed in order to close the gap.
With that in mind, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, Amnesty International urged the Swedish Presidency to use the EU India summit to "call on the Government of India to take urgent and decisive action to address to the long-term impacts of the Bhopal gas leak disaster, including proper clean-up and remediation of the factory site, adequate medical care, regular supply of safe water for the affected communities and economic rehabilitation.
In line with the EU's commitment to the worldwide abolition of the death penalty, Amnesty International also said that EU should use its discussions with India, "to call for India to take a positive approach in the lead up to the debate and resolution on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty at the General Assembly in November 2010." India had no executions since 2004, but voted against the UNGA moratorium on death penalty in December 2008.
Activist on trial for denouncing pollution in Tunisia must be released
Amnesty International has called for the release of a human rights activist who went on trial this week for making a video about pollution in Tunisia and posting it on Facebook.
Zouheir Makhlouf was denied bail when he appeared in court on Tuesday. He appeared weak and unable to speak or stand; his lawyer said his client had been on hunger strike for over 10 days in protest at his arrest and detention.
Makhlouf was charged with “harming or disturbing others via the public telecommunications networks” and could face up to two years in prison if convicted. He was remanded in custody until the next court session on 24 November.
The court hearing took place amid a heavy security presence, with journalists and human rights defenders physically barred from entering the court.
One woman journalist, Sihem Ben Sedrine, was pushed, beaten and insulted by state security officials.
Zouheir Makhlouf was arrested in 20 October after he published a video about pollution, lack of infrastructure and basic services in the industrial zone of the city of Nabeul, 60km southeast of the capital Tunis.
Following the video’s publication, one of the Nabuel industrial workers – who was shown in the film criticizing pollution and unsatisfactory working conditions - filed an official complaint.
He alleged that Zouheir Makhlouf had not obtained permission to show him in the film. It appears he made this claim after Tunisian security officials pressured him to do so.
Another individual, who was reportedly willing to confirm that Zouheir Makhlouf did obtain the worker’s permission, is said to have changed his mind and agreed to become a prosecution witness after he was threatened by security officials.
"Zouheir Makhlouf is a prisoner of conscience who is being prosecuted for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression," says Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East and North Africa Director. "He must be immediately and unconditionally released and the charge against him must be dropped."
Iranian security forces condemned after clampdown on protesters
Amnesty International has condemned the excessive use of force by Iranian security forces that saw scores of peaceful protesters beaten and detained on Wednesday.
Security forces - including the paramilitary Basij militia - used batons and tear gas to disperse opposition supporters, some of whom threw stones.
Thousands had gathered in cities across the country, using official rallies marking the 30th anniversary of the storming of the US embassy in Tehran as a platform to protest against the disputed outcome of the presidential election in June.
"Based on the experience of the summer unrest and our long-standing concerns about torture in Iran, those detained are now at risk of torture or other ill-treatment," said Malcolm Smart, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
"Their families should be informed immediately of their whereabouts and the detainees should have all necessary medical treatment and access to lawyers of their choice."
Among those beaten was 74-year-old protester Habibollah Peyman, a member of the National Peace Committee, a group which has called for an end to the use of violence in Iran.
AFP journalist Farhad Pouladi was arrested while trying to report on the demonstrations and is detained in an unknown location.
Defeated presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, who has been vocal in his criticism of the authorities, also participated in the protests and had tear gas fired at him, leaving one of his bodyguards hospitalised.
He had received death threats before the demonstrations, warning him against participating.
An eye-witness told Amnesty International that she saw no violence by demonstrators, yet they were subjected to baton charges by Basij and other security personnel.
The witness saw one female protester flee into an office in Ayatollah Taleghani Street, near the former US embassy in Tehran, where anti-riot police struck other passers-by and smashed windows.
Amnesty International has also received information that women's rights activist and journalist Vahideh Molavi was among those detained on Wednesday. Also arrested were Nafiseh Zareh-Kohan, Hojjat Sharifi and Ali Mashmouli. All four are being held in an undisclosed place of detention, prompting fears for their safety.
Hassan Asadi Zeidabadi, head of the Human Rights Committee of the Graduates’ Association of Iran, was arrested on Tuesday evening in what his spokesperson described as a "pre-emptive strike" by the authorities the day before the planned protests.
Two other members of the Association, Mohammad Sadeghi and Ali Malihi, were also arrested on the same night.
"The Iranian authorities must allow peaceful protest – including against the outcome of the election - and remove the paramilitary Basij from the streets," said Malcolm Smart.
“Demonstrations should be policed by law enforcement personnel who are properly trained and required to respect human rights, not strong-arm irregulars, and all reports of beatings, torture and other violations must be independently investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice."
Convictions in Abu Omar rendition case a step toward accountability
The convictions of US and Italian intelligence agents for their involvement in the abduction of Usama Mostafa Hassan Nasr (better known as Abu Omar) mark a step toward accountability for crimes committed in the course of the USA’s “rendition” programme, said Amnesty International on Thursday.
“The simple truth of this case is that a man was kidnapped in broad daylight, and then illegally transferred to Egypt where he reported being tortured,” said Julia Hall, Amnesty International’s expert on counter-terrorism in Europe.
“Such acts can not and should not go unpunished and the agents responsible must be held accountable for the fact that they were complicit in a number of other serious crimes, including enforced disappearance and torture committed against Abu Omar.”
The Milan prosecutors had issued arrest warrants for the US defendants in 2005 and 2006, but successive Italian Justice Ministers refused to transmit them to the US government.
“The prosecutors did everything in their power to ensure that the US agents appeared in court,” said Julia Hall.
“By refusing to forward the extradition requests to the USA, the Italian government dealt a serious blow to the fairness of the proceedings.”
None of the US citizens who were convicted appeared in court. Although Italian law allows for trials in absentia, international law requires that a person be present at his trial to hear the full prosecution case, put forward a defence, challenge the evidence and examine witnesses. If they are apprehended in future, the US nationals convicted in absentia, are entitled to a new trial before a different court and to the presumption of innocence in that new trial.
“The Bush administration erected a wall of silence, refusing to acknowledge the Abu Omar case or the role its own intelligence agents played in it,” said Julia Hall.
“It is time for the Obama administration to right that wrong. The US government should not offer safe haven to any person suspected of involvement in enforced disappearance or torture.”
Amnesty International has called on the USA to initiate an independent and impartial criminal investigation into Abu Omar’s abduction, enforced disappearance and torture and to prosecute those CIA agents and military officials suspected of involvement in those crimes. The Italian government should cooperate in full with any state seeking to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have been involved in Abu Omar’s abduction and rendition.
The Egyptian authorities must also thoroughly investigate and bring to justice those responsible for the enforced disappearance and torture of Abu Omar in Egypt.
The Milan court provisionally awarded Abu Omar one million euros and his wife, Nabila Ghali, 500,000 euros for the abuse and injustice they suffered. The Court referred the compensation issue to a civil court for further consideration.
“Victims of enforced disappearance and torture have a right to justice, truth and full reparations,” said Julia Hall.
“The Italian court awarded monetary compensation to Abu Omar and his family for Italy’s role in their abuse and suffering, and now the US and Egyptian governments should follow suit.”
Background
Those convicted included 22 US agents or officials of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and one US military officer. Three other US nationals, including the then CIA station chief in Rome, were granted diplomatic immunity and the cases against them were dismissed.
Two Italian military intelligence agents (of the then-called Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare or SISMI) were also convicted, and sentenced to three years. The cases against the former head of SISMI, Nicolò Pollari and his deputy, Marco Mancini, were dismissed based on “state secrets” privilege, as were the cases of three other Italians.
The accused were prosecuted for their involvement in the February 2003 abduction of Abu Omar, who was forcibly disappeared from a Milan street and flown via Germany to Egypt, where he was secretly detained for 14 months and allegedly tortured. Those convicted were charged only with involvement in Abu Omar’s abduction, not for his enforced disappearance or torture.
Acts of torture by Guyanese police must be punished
Amnesty International has urged the Guyanese authorities to charge police officers involved in the torture and ill-treatment of three individuals, including a 15-year-old boy, who were detained in relation to a murder investigation.
Police officers tortured the teenager by setting light to his genitals after he refused to sign a confession. He was subsequently released with all charges dropped and is now in hospital.
He was one of three men arrested for the murder of local government official Ramenauth Bisram, who died of multiple stab wounds on 26 October.
Another suspect, Deonarine Rafick, remains in prison after police beat him with a piece of wood and allegedly burnt his mouth with cigarettes to force him to sign a confession.
Amnesty International has urged the Guyanese authorities to provide him with medical attention and investigate the circumstances leading to his confession.
The third suspect, 20-year-old Nouravie Wilfred, had charges against him dropped on Tuesday after being held incommunicado for seven days. Under Guyanese law a suspect can be held by police for up to 72 hours before being brought before a court.
The three suspects were denied visits by family members and legal representatives and were also refused medical attention while in custody.
“These appalling acts of brutality by members of the Guyana Police Force must not go unpunished,” said Kerrie Howard, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Americas Programme.
Media in the Caribbean country report that two police officers were detained in connection with the torture of the 15-year-old boy.
The teenager was arrested on 27 October and taken the next day to Leonora police station, 12 miles west of the capital Georgetown, where he was beaten.
When he refused to sign a confession, police officers held him down and doused his genital area with a flammable liquid, which they set alight.
He was not given proper medical treatment or access to legal representation until 31 October, despite repeated attempts by his lawyers and family to see him.
Deonarine Rafick was struck by a piece of wood on his back, legs, buttocks, face and scalp, while being held in Leonora on 27 October. According to his testimony, the inside of his mouth was also burnt with cigarettes.
He was forced to sign a confession stating that he was involved in the murder. His lawyers were only granted access to him on 29 October despite repeated previous attempts.
He was brought before a court and charged with murder on 30 October. His face was visibly bruised and the wound on his scalp had not been stitched.
He is currently in prison pending a preliminary investigation. According to his lawyer and family, he has not yet received medical attention.
“There must be a full investigation into how officers were allowed to blatantly flout Guyanese and international laws by refusing access to family, lawyers and medical treatment for several days,” said Kerrie Howard.
Police officers tortured the teenager by setting light to his genitals after he refused to sign a confession. He was subsequently released with all charges dropped and is now in hospital.
He was one of three men arrested for the murder of local government official Ramenauth Bisram, who died of multiple stab wounds on 26 October.
Another suspect, Deonarine Rafick, remains in prison after police beat him with a piece of wood and allegedly burnt his mouth with cigarettes to force him to sign a confession.
Amnesty International has urged the Guyanese authorities to provide him with medical attention and investigate the circumstances leading to his confession.
The third suspect, 20-year-old Nouravie Wilfred, had charges against him dropped on Tuesday after being held incommunicado for seven days. Under Guyanese law a suspect can be held by police for up to 72 hours before being brought before a court.
The three suspects were denied visits by family members and legal representatives and were also refused medical attention while in custody.
“These appalling acts of brutality by members of the Guyana Police Force must not go unpunished,” said Kerrie Howard, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Americas Programme.
Media in the Caribbean country report that two police officers were detained in connection with the torture of the 15-year-old boy.
The teenager was arrested on 27 October and taken the next day to Leonora police station, 12 miles west of the capital Georgetown, where he was beaten.
When he refused to sign a confession, police officers held him down and doused his genital area with a flammable liquid, which they set alight.
He was not given proper medical treatment or access to legal representation until 31 October, despite repeated attempts by his lawyers and family to see him.
Deonarine Rafick was struck by a piece of wood on his back, legs, buttocks, face and scalp, while being held in Leonora on 27 October. According to his testimony, the inside of his mouth was also burnt with cigarettes.
He was forced to sign a confession stating that he was involved in the murder. His lawyers were only granted access to him on 29 October despite repeated previous attempts.
He was brought before a court and charged with murder on 30 October. His face was visibly bruised and the wound on his scalp had not been stitched.
He is currently in prison pending a preliminary investigation. According to his lawyer and family, he has not yet received medical attention.
“There must be a full investigation into how officers were allowed to blatantly flout Guyanese and international laws by refusing access to family, lawyers and medical treatment for several days,” said Kerrie Howard.
African governments must reaffirm commitment to International Criminal Court
Amnesty International on Wednesday urged African government representatives meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to reaffirm their support for the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In a memorandum published this week, The International Criminal Court: The Contribution Africa Can Make to the Review Conference, the organization called on African governments to clearly state they would prevent any officials accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes from seeking safe haven in their countries.
"Only justice can lay a firm foundation for lasting peace," said Kolawole Olaniyan, Africa Legal Adviser at Amnesty International.
"More than a decade ago, African states were amongst the strongest supporters of the proposal to establish a permanent international criminal court that would be able to investigate and prosecute those responsible for some of the worst crimes in the world – they must renew this commitment, as the survival of the ICC as an effective international body depends on this," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
"African victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are some of the chief beneficiaries of the ICC – the ICC must be fully supported so that it can continue its important work on their behalf."
The call came after Sudanese President Omar al Bashir cancelled scheduled visits to South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria and Venezuela, when it became clear that he could face arrest and surrender to the ICC, particularly in light of African civil society protests to the visits.
In its memorandum, Amnesty International urged African states to strongly defend the provisions of the ICC that exclude any claimed immunity for state officials – regardless of rank, including heads of state – from prosecution for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
"Every single legal instrument adopted since the Second World War by the international community has rejected immunity from prosecution for any government official charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
"In fact, every international court to consider the question of immunity since the establishment of the ICC has concluded that heads of state cannot successfully assert any purported immunity from prosecution for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes."
Amnesty International said that to ensure the ICC is an effective complement to national courts, it must be able to exercise its jurisdiction without political interference.
"With the exception of Darfur, all situations under investigation by the ICC were referred to the Prosecutor by African states themselves – the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
The organization also urged African governments to evaluate carefully the positive and negative aspects of establishing a regional criminal court, as suggested by the African Union in an Assembly meeting in July 2009, especially its costs.
In a memorandum published this week, The International Criminal Court: The Contribution Africa Can Make to the Review Conference, the organization called on African governments to clearly state they would prevent any officials accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes from seeking safe haven in their countries.
"Only justice can lay a firm foundation for lasting peace," said Kolawole Olaniyan, Africa Legal Adviser at Amnesty International.
"More than a decade ago, African states were amongst the strongest supporters of the proposal to establish a permanent international criminal court that would be able to investigate and prosecute those responsible for some of the worst crimes in the world – they must renew this commitment, as the survival of the ICC as an effective international body depends on this," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
"African victims of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are some of the chief beneficiaries of the ICC – the ICC must be fully supported so that it can continue its important work on their behalf."
The call came after Sudanese President Omar al Bashir cancelled scheduled visits to South Africa, Uganda, Nigeria and Venezuela, when it became clear that he could face arrest and surrender to the ICC, particularly in light of African civil society protests to the visits.
In its memorandum, Amnesty International urged African states to strongly defend the provisions of the ICC that exclude any claimed immunity for state officials – regardless of rank, including heads of state – from prosecution for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
"Every single legal instrument adopted since the Second World War by the international community has rejected immunity from prosecution for any government official charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
"In fact, every international court to consider the question of immunity since the establishment of the ICC has concluded that heads of state cannot successfully assert any purported immunity from prosecution for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes."
Amnesty International said that to ensure the ICC is an effective complement to national courts, it must be able to exercise its jurisdiction without political interference.
"With the exception of Darfur, all situations under investigation by the ICC were referred to the Prosecutor by African states themselves – the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda," said Kolawole Olaniyan.
The organization also urged African governments to evaluate carefully the positive and negative aspects of establishing a regional criminal court, as suggested by the African Union in an Assembly meeting in July 2009, especially its costs.
Veteran human rights lawyer faces up to 15 years in Syrian prison
The Syrian authorities must immediately release veteran human rights lawyer Haytham al-Maleh, and drop all charges against him, Amnesty International said, as he appeared before a military judge in Damascus on Tuesday.
He was charged with "conveying false news within Syria that could debilitate the morale of the nation", "weakening national sentiment" and "slandering" a governmental body.
Amnesty International said that it believes these charges have been brought against him simply because he exercised his right to freedom of expression.
The 78-year-old lawyer, one of Syria’s most respected human rights activists, was arrested at his office on 14 October but it was only four days later that the authorities acknowledged holding him. After his arrest, he was held incommunicado in a State Security detention centre in Kafr Sousa, Damascus.
He was arrested the day after he told a Political Security, official who telephoned to tell him to report to the Political Security branch in Damascus, that he would not do so.
"The action now being taken against Haytham al-Maleh is part of a longstanding pattern and reflects the Syrian authorities’ almost total intolerance of even peaceful dissent”," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Director for the Middle East and North Africa.
"Unfortunately, rather than listening to what human rights defenders such as Haytham al-Maleh have to say, the Syrian authorities seek to stifle their criticism by arresting them and levelling charges that appear little short of ludicrous and intended to intimidate them into silence.”
The charges laid against Haytham al-Maleh on Tuesday relate to his public criticism of human rights violations and official corruption in Syria including during a phone interview in September with Baradda TV, a Europe-based satellite channel opposed to the Syrian government.
In the interview, he said that the Syrian authorities "have at their disposal huge resources in the form of the army, intelligence, police and arms and all means of oppression” yet “they hide behind laws which have no logical or legal or just basis", and said that Syrian security forces "commit crimes with impunity."
At the time of his arrest Haytham al-Maleh was defending Muhannad al-Hassani, another human rights lawyer facing trial on charges that relate in part to his work defending the rights of political prisoners. Accusations against him include weakening national sentiment, conveying false news within Syria that could debilitate the morale of the nation and broadcasting abroad false news that could harm the reputation of the state.
Like Haytham al-Maleh, Muhannad al-Hassani is a prisoner of conscience. In his case too, Amnesty International has called for his immediate and unconditional release and for the charges against him to be dropped.
Haytham al-Maleh has been repeatedly harassed by the Syrian security authorities because of his human rights work. He was imprisoned from 1980 until 1986 for his work for the Freedom and Human Rights Committee of the Syrian Lawyers' Union.
He was formerly head of the Human Rights Association in Syria (HRAS), which was established in 2001 by some 40 human rights defenders and lawyers but which has been denied legal registration, without any reasons being given, by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour.
The HRAS’s appeal against the Ministry's decision has been pending before the Administrative Tribunal (Majlis al-Dawla) since 28 July 2002.
Meanwhile, HRAS members continue to operate in a legal limbo and to face regular harassment and intimidation by the Syrian authorities.
Student activist held in Tunisia at risk of torture
A Tunisian student activist, detained incommunicado since his arrest on 22 October, is at risk of torture and ill-treatment, Amnesty International said.
Mohammed Soudani was arrested on the same day that he met with two French radio journalists who were covering the presidential and legislative elections that took place on 25 October.
Amnesty International said that it believes that they were interviewing Mohammed Soudani because he is an active member within the student movement, the General Union of Tunisian Students (UGET).
His family and lawyer have been unable to obtain any information about him since he disappeared. He is believed to be held at the State Security Department of the Ministry of Interior in Tunis, where torture is common.
On the evening that he was arrested, Mohammed Soudani phoned his lawyers and friends and told them that there were a number of security officers outside the Africa Hotel in Tunis where he had met the journalists.
He said that if they didn't hear from him after 10pm then he had very likely been arrested. His mobile phone has since remained switched off.
On 23 October, unable to find out any information on the whereabouts of his client, Mohammed Soudani's lawyer filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor in Tunis about the enforced disappearance of Mohammed Soudani.
Mohammed Soudani’s family has not been informed of his arrest or whereabouts as required under Tunisian law and his father was unable to obtain any information on him from police in the city of Mehdia, 200km south of Tunis, where Mohammed Soudani lives.
Mohammed Soudani was expelled from university in 2007 because of his activities within the UGET.
He told Amnesty International during a meeting in October 2009 that he was previously arrested on 29 June 2007 and detained for 12 days, during which he said he was tortured, and then sentenced to a six month suspended prison sentence. He also said he was again detained for another six days in October 2008, stripped of his clothes and beaten.
Mohammed Soudani has been prosecuted several times, and has also served a two-month prison term. He believes that the charges brought against him are related to his activism for the UGET.
On 11 February 2009 he and four other students went on hunger strike for 58 days, to demand their right to education and reintegration into university. They also demanded that judicial proceedings against them be dropped.
Amnesty International has urged the Tunisian authorities to disclose Mohammed Soudani's whereabouts immediately, give him access to a lawyer of his choice, his family and any medical attention he may require and to ensure that he is not tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
The organization has also called for his immediate and unconditional release, unless he is promptly charged with a recognizably criminal offence.
Mohammed Soudani was arrested on the same day that he met with two French radio journalists who were covering the presidential and legislative elections that took place on 25 October.
Amnesty International said that it believes that they were interviewing Mohammed Soudani because he is an active member within the student movement, the General Union of Tunisian Students (UGET).
His family and lawyer have been unable to obtain any information about him since he disappeared. He is believed to be held at the State Security Department of the Ministry of Interior in Tunis, where torture is common.
On the evening that he was arrested, Mohammed Soudani phoned his lawyers and friends and told them that there were a number of security officers outside the Africa Hotel in Tunis where he had met the journalists.
He said that if they didn't hear from him after 10pm then he had very likely been arrested. His mobile phone has since remained switched off.
On 23 October, unable to find out any information on the whereabouts of his client, Mohammed Soudani's lawyer filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor in Tunis about the enforced disappearance of Mohammed Soudani.
Mohammed Soudani’s family has not been informed of his arrest or whereabouts as required under Tunisian law and his father was unable to obtain any information on him from police in the city of Mehdia, 200km south of Tunis, where Mohammed Soudani lives.
Mohammed Soudani was expelled from university in 2007 because of his activities within the UGET.
He told Amnesty International during a meeting in October 2009 that he was previously arrested on 29 June 2007 and detained for 12 days, during which he said he was tortured, and then sentenced to a six month suspended prison sentence. He also said he was again detained for another six days in October 2008, stripped of his clothes and beaten.
Mohammed Soudani has been prosecuted several times, and has also served a two-month prison term. He believes that the charges brought against him are related to his activism for the UGET.
On 11 February 2009 he and four other students went on hunger strike for 58 days, to demand their right to education and reintegration into university. They also demanded that judicial proceedings against them be dropped.
Amnesty International has urged the Tunisian authorities to disclose Mohammed Soudani's whereabouts immediately, give him access to a lawyer of his choice, his family and any medical attention he may require and to ensure that he is not tortured or otherwise ill-treated.
The organization has also called for his immediate and unconditional release, unless he is promptly charged with a recognizably criminal offence.
Demolition set to leave hundreds homeless in Nigeria
Hundreds of people have been forced from their homes to make way for a commercial development in Rivers State, Nigeria, Amnesty International has learned.
Residents of Njemanze Road, Port Harcourt will lose their homes permanently if a planned demolition by local authorities goes ahead this week.
The demolition was originally scheduled for Tuesday morning, prompting panicked residents to salvage what they could from their homes throughout the night.
Many are seeking shelter in nearby churches or with relatives, while others have nowhere to go and are sleeping on the streets.
The demolition did not go ahead on Tuesday and Amnesty International has called for plans to bulldoze the community to be halted.
“Many of the tenants have nowhere else to go and most are unable to afford the large deposit necessary to rent a new home,” said Erwin van der Borght, Director of Amnesty International’s Africa Programme.
Houses along the Njemanze Road were made uninhabitable when doors, roofs and windows were removed by police on Friday.
Tenants - including many women and children - were given just seven days' notice to vacate their homes and businesses, while most were not offered compensation or
alternative housing.
“Even our elderly fathers and children are on the street. We need help from the government,” one local resident told Amnesty International.
For some residents, this is the second time they have been forcibly evicted from their home. Njemanze waterfront community, home to thousands of people, was demolished on 28 August.
Several of the displaced residents sought shelter in the neighbouring buildings along Njemanze Road - buildings that are now also set to be demolished.
The houses under threat stretch along approximately 2km of road. They will be demolished to give access to the site of the already demolished Njemanze waterfront community.
The waterfront is one of the most densely populated areas of Port Harcourt. The state governor has repeatedly stated that demolitions along the waterfront are “to sanitize and check criminal activities”.
“Rivers State government is only permitted to carry out evictions as a last resort,” said Erwin van der Borght. “They are obliged, in every case, to explore all feasible alternatives to evictions and avoid or minimise the use of force.”
Amnesty International has said that the Rivers State government is not following its own Physical Planning and Development Law (2003).
Under this law, they should have established an “Urban Renewal Board”, which would have declared the waterfront communities an “improvement area”, for which it would have prepared an improvement plan.
This law also requires the government to provide alternative housing for all the occupants affected, which they have not done.
“The Governor of Rivers State should call an immediate halt to the planned demolitions, respect the rights of the residents to adequate and reasonable notice of any eviction and ensure that all those affected receive adequate alternative housing and that no one is rendered homeless,” said Erwin van der Borght.
Four Tanzanians sentenced to death for killing an albino man
Amnesty international has welcomed the efforts by the Tanzanian government to bring to justice those responsible for the killing of an albino man.
But the organization said that it deplored the fact that four people were sentenced to death by hanging on Monday for the killing. Amnesty International opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases.
The organization also called on the authorities to do more to protect albinos from such killings.
More than 20 albino people are reported to have been killed in 2009. This brings the total number of albino people killed during the last two years to over 50.
Very few perpetrators of albino killings and mutilations have ever been brought to justice.
"While we welcome the prosecution of those suspected to be involved in the killing and mutilation of albino people, the death penalty is not the solution to these terrible practices and crimes," said Godfrey Odongo, Amnesty International researcher based in Kampala, Uganda.
The discriminatory killing and mutilation of albino people is driven by cultural beliefs held by some in Tanzania and other countries that albino body parts can make people rich.
"The Tanzanian government has to do more to protect albino people from these killings, but that should not include imposing the death penalty," said Godfrey Odongo.
"Police investigations are painfully slow and the overall government effort to prevent the killings is inadequate. The perpetrators must be brought to justice, but in a way that respects the rights of all the people of Tanzania. Applying the death penalty to perpetrators of the killings only compounds the problem – with the government sending a message that human life is expendable."
Although dozens of people suspected of being involved in the murder and mutilation of albino people have been arrested, thus far only two cases have ended up in court judgements - the case decided on Monday and another in September, in which three men were convicted and sentenced to death.
"The authorities have a clear duty of care towards albino people and to protect the general population from violence," said Godfrey Odongo.
"This duty is best served by ensuring that those who commit violent acts are held to account by the judicial system. However, punishments that amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment must not be imposed. This includes the death penalty, which amounts to a violation of the most fundamental human rights: the right to life."