One month after being physically assaulted, human rights defender and journalist António Capalandanda continues to be subjected to threats and acts of surveillance and intimidation. António Capalandanda is a journalist at on-line news and radio site Voz da América (Voice of America) in Angola. His work has focused on human rights and political violence in the country, as well as investigation of corruption cases involving public officials.
On various occasions in early January 2013, António Capalandanda was reportedly followed by unidentified men in a vehicle, who parked close to his residence and followed him as soon as he left for work. During the same period the email of António Capalandanda was hacked by unknown individuals according to his email service provider, which registers the time and Internet Protocol (IP) address when his account is accessed.
On 7 December, 2012, two unidentified men on a motorbike assaulted the journalist and stole his camera, a voice recorder and two notepads. One of the men also attempted to take his backpack, unsuccessfully. On the same day, António Capalandanda filed a complaint at Huambo Provincial Police Directorate for Criminal Investigation. The officer who registered the case stated that this type of assault was unusual in the region and added that it seemed the human rights defender was being subjected to surveillance.
António Capalandanda has previously received a number of death threats from individuals identified as state security agents and has been offered to work for the Government in return for the ceasing of his journalism work. The human rights defender’s family members and friends have also been reportedly subjected to acts of harassment.
On 5 December 2012, two days prior to the abovementioned assault, António Capalandanda was approached by a man who identified himself as an agent of the state security services, and issued death threats against the journalist.
Front Line Defenders expresses serious concern at the continued acts of threats, surveillance and intimidation directed at António Capalandanda, as well as his family members and persons close to him, and believes that these acts are motivated by the legitimate and peaceful activities of António Capalandanda as an investigative journalist and human rights defender in Angola.
A short documentary about the five winners of the Human Rights Tulip Award, the award of the Dutch government for human rights defenders. The winners are from Honduras, Congo, Iran, China and India. The films were done by the True Heroes Foundation (THF).
Dutch newspapers and human rights groups concerned with the Dalits (untouchables) report that the winner of the Dutch Human Rights Tulip of 2012 has been barred from traveling to the Netherlands to receive his award in person on Wednesday 9 January. Marimuthu Bharathan, a Dalit human rights defender from Tamil Nadu, was refused a passport by the Indian authorities, according to a press release by International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN).This is the second year in a row that the recipient of the Dutch Human Rights award will not be present at the ceremony in The Hague [Last year, Chinese activist Ni Yulan was in custody awaiting trial during the award ceremony.]The jury of the Tulip has recognised Marimuthu Bharathan as a “tireless champion of better living and working conditions for his country’s Dalits”. Himself a Dalit, he works against caste discrimination by supporting Dalits who as manual scavengers are condemned to clean dry latrines with their bare hands. He also sets up Dalit organisations, campaigns for reforms of the corrupt police system, and fights for compensation and rehabilitation of Dalits who suffer human rights violations. Mr Bharathan’s work as director of the Human Rights Education and Protection Council in Tamil Nadu has put him on a collision course with the state’s authorities who consistently prohibit demonstrations for Dalit rights organised by him and disrupt his work.
According to Indian human rights organisations, this refusal appears to be connected with a false murder charge. “The passport refusal is yet another example of the disenfranchised position of the 200 million Dalits and the defenders of their rights in India. The Indian authorities clearly fail in combating discrimination and exclusion of Dalits and are themselves often the perpetrator of crimes against them. The systemic abuse and torture in police stations is an example of that,” said Gerard Oonk, director of the India Committee of the Netherlands and co-ordinator of the Dalit Network Netherlands.
ARTICLE 19 AND VIET TAN ON 9 JANUARY REPORT ON THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF 14 ACTIVISTS IN VIETNAM
Ho Duc Hoa (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Dang Xuan Dieu (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Paulus Le Son (13 years in prison, 5 years house arrest)
Nguyen Van Duyet (6 years in prison, 4 years house arrest)
Nguyen Van Oai (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
Ho Van Oanh (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
Nguyen Dinh Cuong (4 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nguyen Xuan Anh (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Thai Van Dung (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Tran Minh Nhat (4 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nong Hung Anh (5 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Nguyen Dang Vinh Phuc (probation)
Nguyen Dang Minh Man (9 years in prison, 3 years house arrest)
Dang Ngoc Minh (3 years in prison, 2 years house arrest)
The men and women were convicted of “carrying out activities aimed at overthrowing the people’s administration” under Article 79 of the penal code. The criminal activities the group are said to have engaged in include writing commentary that is critical of the Government and distributing this on the internet, and both participating in and encouraging peaceful protest. ARTICLE 19 believes that these activities should not be considered to be criminal. The Vietnamese authorities have failed to recognise basic human rights and these convictions fail to meet international standards freedom of expression. “Thirteen people [one was given probation – ed] are now behind bars for doing nothing more than expressing legitimate political concerns. They have been locked away for sharing views about matters of public importance on the internet and for taking part in peaceful demonstrations. These are not things which should be considered criminal. It seems that the real crime here is the appalling abuse of fundamental rights, including the right to freedom of expression, by the state” said Agnes Callamard, Executive Director of ARTICLE 19.
The group, many of them bloggers and citizen journalists, were arrestedbetween August and December 2011 and held for more than a year before standing trial.
Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies and of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam, wrote in her blog through Al-Jazeera, on 9 January 2013, a very informative piece under the title: “Human Rights Watch: Time to stand with human rights defenders” with the provocative byline: It is disappointing to see HRW’s unwillingness to stand with those who are working to promote and defend human rights.
In short, the pro-Israeli, UN-bashing UN Watch discovered that the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, US lawyer Richard Falk, was still ‘on the Board’ of HRW. HRW quickly replied that he was only a member of HRW’s local support committee in Santa Barbara, California, where he lives and that it was an oversight that he still held this honorary position and that it was rectified (“longstanding policy, applied many times, that no official from any government or UN agency can serve on any Human Rights Watch committee or its Board. It was an oversight on our part that we did not apply that policy in Richard Falk’s case several years ago when he assumed his UN position”). UN Watch of course cried victory implying that Falk was expelled an enemy of human rights or because he is anti-Semitic.
The author of the blog finds fault with HRW’s meek response that did indeed not amount to a strong defense of Richard Falk’s credentials, impartiality and expertise. Should HRW not have made clear that substantively it stands with Richard Falk, that he was removed for technical reasons only and would be welcomed back as soon as he ceases to be UN Rapporteur? These are policy question that each NGO should answer for itself but in the context of UN Watch’s obsession to undermine the work of the UN in general and Richard Falk in particular a more robust stance would have been useful. I think that the similarity – even confusion – in name should also have led HRW to take a tougher public stand.
Phyllis Bennis concludes with: “Given his Middle East staff’s consistent work, there is no question that Ken Roth and the HRW board understand that human rights criticism of Israeli occupation is well-grounded in fact, and that such criticism remains a crucial element in changing the public, media and policymaking discourse in the United States. If we are ever to have any hope of changing US government policy in Palestine-Israel towards one grounded in human rights and international law, consistent human rights criticism and a willingness to stand with human rights defenders like Richard Falk when they face attack, remain crucial tools – for all human rights activists, including the leadership of Human Rights Watch.”
Geneva-based NGO “Media and human rights” reports that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has proclaimed the 13th of February “World Radio Day”. It is a moment to pay homage to one of the most important and resilient media. A time also to remember that local radio journalists are often in the firing line, especially in regions where citizens do not have access, due to lack of infrastructure or resources, to other media like TV or the Internet.
Somewhat different from the Observatory’s report on Zimbabwe I referred to in my post of 26 November 2012, this report by a broad coalition of local NGOs (listed at the end of the document) paints a more mixed picture. The report of the Zimbabwe NGO Human Rights Forum covers the period September to december 2012.
After reflecting on the deadlock in the constitution making process, the report documents the continuing harassment of civil society and political activists that characterised the period. The operating environment for NGO’s continued to be very challenging. Police arrested and ill-treated peaceful protesters, especially the Women of Zimbabwe Arise activists. Other organisations that faced raids and arrests included the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe, the Counselling Services Unit and many other civil society organisations offering vital services to vulnerable Zimbabweans. Human Rights lawyers were hampered at every turn as they tried to carry out their professional duties and protect Human Rights Defenders.
Fears of the same levels of political violence that characterised the 2008 election period were re-ignited when President Mugabe announced to the UN General Assembly that there would be a constitutional referendum in November 2012 and harmonised elections in March 2013. The news was greeted with great concern. In September 2012, the Zimbabwe Election Support Network stated that it would be logistically impossible to hold a referendum in November and elections in March. They cited disputes in finalising the new constitution, continuing political intimidation and gross inaccuracies in voters’ lists that still name ‘ghost’ electors who have long been dead. The organisation called for a number of important issues to be dealt with first. These include resourcing the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission, revision of the outdated Referendum Act and effecting technical changes to the Electoral Bill as well as updating and cleaning the voter’s roll. This led to the passing into law of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Amendment acts.
Sadly as 2012 drew to a close the Annual ZANU PF Congress rang a warning bell against NGO’s and, as if nothing had ever changed, within days, the police began wantonly raiding and arresting human rights organisations all over again.
Despite the setbacks narrated above, it is our view that Zimbabwe is in a better place today than it was 2008. All the credit is due to the Human Rights Defenders who have tirelessly worked on the ground as well as our regional and international partners and without whose input the country could have descended into lawlessness. The attainment of democracy is a process not an event and indeed Zimbabwe is currently in transition although that transition is fraught with unnecessary detours and compromises. However such compromises, disappointing as they may be in the short run, may aid the transitional process in the long run. A case in point is the limited temporal jurisdiction of the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission and Zimbabwe’s failure to ratify the Rome Statute.
Ironically a focus on ratification of the Rome Statute for some countries in transition can impede the chances of a peaceful transition. In other words whilst Zimbabwean civil society is absolutely committed to ratification, that long-term necessity should also not derail the process of transition, and this indeed calls for a judicious balancing act. ‘In other words it was important not to allow perfection to become the enemy of the good.’
Last minute announcement: ‘Lives on the Line’, narrated by Martin Sheen, is to be aired tomorrow on Tuesday, 8th of January on Irish channel RTE1. Written and directed by Nuala Cunningham and narrated by Martin Sheen, this documentary, ‘Lives on the Line’, follows Mary Lawlor, founder of Front Line Defenders, an Irish-based international organisation dedicated to offering practical support to human rights defenders at risk throughout the world, as she goes to Guatemala to visit a number of human rights defenders who are risking their lives every day for their work. One such individual, Dr Yuri Melini, survived an assassination attempt on his life in 2008 but continues to fight for the protection of the environment and the rights of indigenous Mayan communities in Guatemala.
Ragab Saad, a researcher at the Rowaq Arabi Journal of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) just published an sharp piece criticizing the latest developments at Egypt’s National Council for Human Rights, which make the Council a lot less independent and cast doubt on whether it should be recognized as such by the UN. Good read!
On 26 October 2012 I referred in this blog to the controversy raised by a Arab blogger about the status of Human Rights Defenders in the Emirates (UAE) who were described as being in fact intolerant islamists. No enlightening comments were received, so I have to concluded that the attack was a politically motivated defense of government policy. That is this policy is far from HRD friendly is brought home again by a recent press release from the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) which claims that the number of human rights defenders and activists in detention has now reached 77 as the crackdown continues.
On 14 December 2012 an Egyptian journalist was arrested and three Egyptian doctors were arrested four days later (reportedly bringing the total number of Egyptian activists in detention in the UAE to 11).
The Gulf Centre for Human Rights GCHR has issued previous appeals concerning the deteriorating situation in the UAE (http://gc4hr.org/news/index/country/2). It is reported that approximately 200 people who are supporters or relatives of human rights defenders and activists are being prohibited from travelling. For many of them it is only when they have attempted to leave the UAE, often having purchased tickets in advance, that they are informed of this restriction on their freedom of movement.
It is feared that more interrogations and arrest will take place in the near future.Some of the detained human rights defenders have had their detention extended, including prominent human rights lawyers Dr. Mohamed Al-Mansoori and Dr. Mohamed Al-Roken, who had their detention extended on 2 January 2013. It is reported that these extensions are granted as officials have, to date, failed to gather evidence to prosecute those detained. The GCHR call for urgent action, see:
AND VIET TAN ON 9 JANUARY REPORT ON THE TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF 14 ACTIVISTS IN VIETNAM
terised the period. The operating environment for NGO’s continued to be very challenging. Police arrested and ill-treated peaceful protesters, especially the Women of Zimbabwe Arise activists. Other organisations that faced raids and arrests included the Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe, the Counselling Services Unit and many other civil society organisations offering vital services to vulnerable Zimbabweans. Human Rights lawyers were hampered at every turn as they tried to carry out their professional duties and protect Human Rights Defenders.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 