Archive for the 'human rights' Category

23 NGOs denounce over 2000 violations re Human Rights Defenders in the Americas

April 5, 2011

Most of us think that the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas has at least slightly improved over the last years. NGO reports seem to debunk this. The 2010 report from the United Nations Special Rapporteur points out that between 2004 and 2009, over 146 complaints of threats against human rights defenders were filed in the Americas (mostly Colombia, Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, and Peru). Now, on 29 March 2011, a group of 23 NGOs from 11 countries has concluded that the situation is even worse with over 2000 cases since 2002. According to their research, in Colombia more than 1000 human rights defenders were victims of aggression including murder, threats, arbitrary detention, and torture; in Guatemala, 1072 acts of aggression were recorded, and at least 50 human rights defenders have been murdered in Honduras since the coup d’état. At the meeting of the Inter-American Human Rights Commission (IACHR), where this information was made public, NGOs placed special emphasis on the increase in illegitimate state intelligence activities against human rights defenders.

The organizations called on the IACHR to create a specific office or rapporteurship for the protection of human rights defenders.  They also asked the IACHR to demand that states adopt effective protection measures and improve public policies that guarantee the work of defenders. States were also urged to investigate the acts of violence and threats carried out against people who put their lives at risk to denounce situations of social injustice.

For further information contact: Milli Legrain of CEJIL, Tel +1.202 319 3000, mlegrain@cejil.org

Front Line expresses grave concern about disappearance of human rights lawyers in Syria

March 31, 2011

Yesterday, Wednesday  30 March, Front Line – one of the 10 NGOs in the Jury of the MEA –  issued an urgent appeal concerning a number of human rights lawyers that have been disappeared amid the upheaval of the last weeks. Between 5 and 27 March 2011, a number of human rights lawyers may have been arrested and remain detained in undisclosed locations in Syria, including Messrs Hussain ‘Issa and Tamer Al-Jahmani, Sulayman Nahili, Nidal Al-Shaykh Hammoud and Muhammad Ibrahim ‘Issa. It is believed that they are at risk of torture and ill treatment.

Front Line notes that “these arrests reflect an ongoing and widescale crackdown by the Syrian authorities against human rights defenders, pro-democracy and political activists across Syria in response to ongoing protests calling for democratic reforms and improved observance of civil and political rights. As part of this crackdown, which has also involved violent attacks on protesters including through the use of live ammunition by security forces, a large number of human rights defenders have been subjected to arrests, detentions and charges solely as a result of exercising their fundamental rights to free assembly and expression”. For more detail see: www.frontlinedefenders.org/

Chinese Human Rights Defender Liu Xianbin heavily punished

March 31, 2011
On Friday 25 March, a court in Sichuan province sentenced Liu Xianbin to ten years in prison for writing articles calling on human rights and democracy, which is considered inciting ‘subversion’. His wife, Chen Mingxian, said the court did not allow Liu to defend himself. His lawyer, Chen Wei, was also charged on Monday with inciting subversion (as were two other persons  from Sichuan: Yunfei and Ding Mao).
Many human rights organisations from around the world  – including Hong Kong – have criticised the trial and are calling on the Chinese authorities to immediately release Liu (e.g. Amnesty International’s Catherine Baber says the ten-year sentence is “appalling” and a travesty of justice). Liu is a veteran of the human rights movement and has been imprisoned several times for his work. He served 2 years for taking part in the 1989 democracy movement and in 1999 he was sentenced to 13 years after helping to establish the China Democratic Party. He was released early in 2008, but arrested again in June 2010.
This tenacious and courageous HRD deserves admiration and support.

Some good news in the crime-should-not-pay series: Iran investigator

March 28, 2011

In 2002 the UN decided not to renew its Special Rapporteur on Iran. He had explicitly been banned from visiting the country in 1996 and this became an example of how non-cooperation by States with UN mechanisms paid off. But now, on Thursday 24 March 2011, the UN Human Rights Council has redeemed itself and voted to step up international scrutiny of Iran by appointing an investigator to monitor the country amid a crackdown on dissent, detention of Human Rights Defenders and a surge in executions. Ending this nine-year break in scrutiny was done by a surprisingly large margin in the Council’s vote ( 22 to 7 and 14 abstentions). This is the first country-specific appointment of a Special Rapporteur by the new Council.

In December last year, the UN General Assembly had expressed “deep concern at serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations” in Iran, such as “torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including flogging and amputations.” High Commissioner Pillay last month also expressed dismay at an increase in executions since the beginning of 2011 and reiterated calls for a moratorium on the death penalty. She had highlighted the executions of “political activists” who were arrested during protests in September 2009 and hanged in January this year.

Belarus refuses access to human rights monitors

March 20, 2011

And to add immediately a second instance in the series ‘response to non-response” here is the case of Belarus as reported by HRW:

On March 17, 2011, Belarusian authorities ordered Andrei Yurov, a leading Russian human rights defender visiting Belarus, to leave the country within 24 hours. He is the second human rights activist the government has banned from the country this month as on March 9, another member of the International Observation Mission, Maxim Kitsyuk, a Ukrainian national, was refused entry at the border while entering Belarus via train from Kyiv.

Both Russia and Ukraine have a no-visa regime with Belarus. Belarusian authorities did not charge Yurov or Kitsyuk with a crime or other offense, nor did they explain the grounds on which they effectively being expelled or would be denied entry to Belarus in the future. For more information see the website of HRW.

 

Human Rights Watch office in Uzbekistan closed: HRDs made more vulnerable

March 20, 2011

As a first contribution in the series “response to non-response“, here  is what happened to Human Rights Watch office in Uzbekistan, the home of the 2008 MEA Laureate Mutabar Tadjibaeva:

On 17 March 2011 Human Rights Watch reported that the Uzbek government has forced it to close its Uzbekistan office. For years the government has obstructed the organization’s work by denying visas and work accreditation to staff, but has now officially ended the presence in Tashkent after 15 years. “With the expulsion of Human Rights Watch, the Uzbek government sends a clear message that it isn’t willing to tolerate critical scrutiny of its human rights record,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “but let me be clear, too: we aren’t going to be silenced by this. We are as committed as ever to report on abuses in Uzbekistan.”

HRW added that the Uzbekistan authorities’ move is the culmination of years of harassment and an attack not just on the organisation but on all human rights defenders in the country.  It is urging the West to finally stand up to Uzbekistan’s president Islam Karimov and condemn the closure or risk making the same mistakes it did in backing autocratic regimes in the Middle East.  Steve Swerdlow, a researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW) who spent two months in Uzbekistan at the end of last year before being forced out of the country, told IPS: “The West needs to stand up and give its support for human rights and show Uzbekistanis that it is on the right side of history.”  He added: “Our closure just leaves what human rights defenders there are in Uzbekistan even more isolated and under threat”.  According to IPS the only registered local human rights monitoring group in Uzbekistan, Ezgulik, has said the regime’s move to shut down HRW would “isolate” Uzbekistan, while Uzbek human rights activist Abdurahmon Tashanov told local media that with HRW no longer in the country local rights defenders had lost their “moral support”.

taking on non-response: this blogger’s lone response

March 20, 2011

One of my first posts – almost a year ago (28 April 2010) – dealt with the weakness of enforcement of internationally recognized human rights. It stated, only half-jokingly, that “the best advice one can give a tyrannical regime is to simply ignore all international condemnations, refuse to answer any queries, do not let any UN Rapporteurs or NGOs in, and after a while – usually quite quickly – the furor, if any, will dampen and the media will shine their light elsewhere, most likely where there is some degree of cooperation and access”.  It concluded with some ideas on how to counter trend:

  • Every year on 10 December, Human Rights Day, the human rights movement – through a coalition of major and representative NGOs – makes public a list of the top 10 ‘refusniks’ (countries that stand out in ‘non-cooperation’)
  • Non-enforcement of decisions by any of the UN treaty bodies will have to be strengthened (report to the General Assembly is not enough). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights could be asked to compile annually a list of non-enforced decisions and give it the widest possible dissemination, including to the meetings of the States Parties. Persistent non-compliance should be routinely followed by inter-state complaints.
  • A business company struck of the list of the Global Compact MUST make this known in the same media and publications in which its joining was announced and with same emphasis (this should be made this part of the code). Non-compliance with this requirement should lead to an active campaign by the UN to explain why the company was struck off the list.

On the LinkedIn platform there were some encouraging reactions, but the truth is that most of the the ideas proposed could only be carried out by large groups of individuals or NGOs. However, there is one thing I can do as a lone small-time blogger, which is to highlight incidents of ‘non-response’ by States to actions concerning HRDs, such as refusing to receive missions, answer specific queries, closing offices, forbid showing of films or publications etc.; all things that tend to get less media attention than they deserve. To keep it manageable, I will limit myself – for the time being – to survey Laureates of the MEA, products of the True Heroes Foundations or actions by the 10 international NGOs on the Jury of the MEA. It may not help a lot but it is within my means to draw attention to the more hidden attacks on human rights and perhaps make that crime pay less.

Any cases you come across are most welcome.

 

NGOs in China and Europe, just published, contains fascinating information

March 8, 2011

One should be careful praising books to which one has contributed oneself. But I make an exception for this volume which makes a comparison of the experiences of NGOs in China and Europe. The chapters on China contain the most comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of various types of NGOs currently active in the country. The contributions on foreign NGOs in China, non-governmental think tanks, public interest legal organizations, labour related NGOs and charity organizations, are the first in English to discuss successful experiences as well as the difficulties they face in the post-Mao era. They show that the Chinese government does not know on which foot to dance. It wants a flourishing civil society (without which social and economic growth cannot be sustained) but also wants to continue to exercise full control over developments less ‘harmony’ is threatened.  This applies specially to NGO work in the sensitive human rights sector.

The European studies draw examples from countries where the experiences of NGOs are at various stages of development. The section on NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe examines the rapid expansion of civil society and their pivotal role in promoting political change and building democracy in a transitional society, as well as the challenges they confront in advancing a strong civil society. Those chapters on NGOs’ experiences in Western European countries, especially in the Netherlands and the UK, provide insightful information and examination of the most contentious issues about NGOs’ accountability, fundraising, governance and relationship with their governments.

Contents: Introduction: challenges and opportunities for NGOs in different parts of the world, Yuwen Li; Part I NGOs in the Context of China: International NGOs in China: current situation, impacts and response of the Chinese Government, Han Junkui; The development and institutional environment of non-governmental think tanks in China, Jia Xijin; Development of charities in China since the reform and opening up, Liu Peifeng; The development of women’s NGOs in China, Shen Guoqin; Public interest legal organizations in China: current situation and prospect for future development, Xie Haiding; A review of the development of labour organizations in China in the 30 years since the reform and opening up, Zhou Shaoqing. Part II Civil Society Organizations in Europe: The voluntary sector and government: perspectives from the UK, Liz Atkins; Creating an enabling environment for NGOs in Central and Eastern Europe, Nilda Bullain; Socially responsible NGOs? A European perspective, Paul Dekker; The role and organization of voluntary action, Richard Fries; Oversight on fundraising by NPOs: Dutch experiences with a European perspective, Adri Kemps; Civil society in the Czech Republic, Petr Jan Pajas; Learning for a lifetime: NGOs, capacity building and nonprofit education in Eastern Europe, Balazs Sator.

My own contribution: ” The international human rights movement: not perfect, but a lot better than many governments think” traces the development of the international human rights movement of the last 60 years and zooms in on those aspects that are the most often misunderstood – or found objectionable – by authoritarian states.

The editor is Yuwen Li, Associate Professor of Chinese Law at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. The publisher is Ashgate, 340 pages, ISBN: 978-1-4094-1959-4 (ebook, ISBN 978-1-4094-1960-0)

 

Women HRDs in Nepal harassed: over a hundred cases documented

February 28, 2011

The Women’s Rehabilitation Center (WOREC) in Nepal began documenting cases of violations of women’s human rights in the context of armed conflict in 62 districts between 2005 and 2006. During the documentation process, it became clear that Women Human Rights Defenders themselves were at risk. They have been the target of specific threats and harassment in their work, torture, beatings, arbitrary arrest and detention, death threats, harassment and defamation, as well as restrictions on their freedoms of movement, expression, association and assembly. Defenders have been the victims of false accusations and unfair trial and conviction. WOREC-Nepal has been systematically documenting incidents of violence perpetrated against female defenders. WOREC Nepal has documented total of 105 cases of violations done to the HRDs committed by state and non state actors. Some of the 105 cases go back as far as 2004 but the majority of the cases documented have occurred in the last three years. The 105 documented cases of violations of HRDs’ rights, illustrate the extent of the sufferings of HRDs due to the lack of specific protection mechanisms for ensuring their right to defend. There are incidences of Women Human Rights Defenders being raped, murdered and intimidated for their work in strengthening a culture of democracy and human rights in the country. For the full statement see: http://www.humanrights.asia/news/alrc-news/human-rights-council/hrc16/ALRC-CWS-16-09-2011

How to get a real human rights film into the Oscars

February 27, 2011

Back from a long break with interesting news on the film front. Pamela Yates and Paco de Onis are among the best filmmakers specializing in human rights.  Although not linked to the True Heroes Foundation, their work deserves to be supported as it mostly is about the role of the unknown human rights defenders in the midst of one of the worst, large-scale atrocities of the last 30 years.

“Granito” is a unique story of destinies joined by Guatemala’s past, about how a documentary film intertwined with a nation’s turbulent history emerges as an active player in the present. In 1982, Pamela Yates went to Guatemala to direct her first documentary “When the Mountains Tremble” in the middle of an ongoing genocide during the regime of General Efraín Ríos Montt. A quarter century later, film outtakes from “When the Mountains Tremble,” as well as secret military documents and skeletal remains unearthed by courageous human rights defenders, are all being used in a genocide case to prosecute the military dictators that ordered the genocide of the Maya people, resulting in 200,000 killed.

“Granito” means “tiny grain of sand,” and is a Maya concept of collective change, about how all of us persevering together over time can cause change and bring justice to society. If this message of positive change is to reach the tens of millions of people that will tune in to the Oscars 2012 – without the filmmakers selling their souls to the big theatrical distributors – they have to make make an independent Oscar run. This means they have to fulfill the Academy rules on their own, for which they need support and money. So I joined their campaign by becoming “a Granito” and hope you will do the same on https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/granito/granito-how-to-nail-a-dictator.