Archive for the 'organisations' Category

‘media framing’ and the independence of the judiciary: the case of water boarding

April 30, 2012

What follows are my  SPEAKING NOTES ON THE OCCASION OF THE NJCM-THOOLEN AWARD  on Thursday 26 April 2012, the Hague. At this gathering of the Dutch Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (NJCM) I had the honor to hand over the award for the best master thesis on human rights. 

Dear friends,

When the Dutch Lawyers Committee, in 2005, decided to make an award in my name, I was most touched, especially as they had apparently dropped the requirement that I should die first.  Being alive has the additional advantage that on occasion I will be able to hand over the award myself, which I will do with the greatest pleasure in a few moments. This pleasure is the greater as the winning master paper touched on a topic very close to my heart: the role of the media or as it is sometimes referred to the “Fourth Estate”. There is some controversy about who exactly coined the term, but the most telling statement comes from Oscar Wilde who wrote: “Somebody — was it Burke? — called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time no doubt. But at the present moment it is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. …”. That was said in 1981 and it is hard to imagine that that Oscar Wilde would come to a different conclusion more than a century later.

Spinning (an important element in the toolkit of media framing) has become a profession and the title ‘spin doctor’ is quite appropriate as the results are indeed often doctored. There are surely great historical cases that we cannot recognise because we ourselves have been successfully framed; who knows what positive image Attila the Hun could have enjoyed if only his PR people had done a more professional job. To take a more serious and recent case: let’s look at the so-called ‘failure’ of the UN in Somalia. This was a combined UN-US operation with a humanitarian mandate. When in October 1993, 18 U.S. Rangers were killed in a fierce battle with Aideed’s forces and television showed the body of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets, American public opinion overnight turned against further U.S. involvement in Somalia and Clinton pulled out all troops soon afterwards. Although the Rangers were part of Washington’s own separate Somalia operation, and the US did not want to function under UN command, the incident was played and replayed as a major “UN failure.” The UN was widely, and wrongly, blamed for the gruesome deaths of the U.S. Rangers, despite the fact that they were not part of the UN operation, something that President Clinton finally acknowledged in 1996. Yet most people around the worlds continue to hold the UN responsible. I am afraid that each of us can probably come up with a favorite case of the media having got the better of the truth but that should not be tonight’s debate.

Laura Henderson in her paper “Tortured reality” has gone one important step further. She has investigated how media framing of waterboarding affects judicial independence. She had to limit herself to the US judiciary and to the specific case of ‘waterboarding’ in order to create an environment stable enough to draw some statistical conclusions. Her research is done very neatly. She makes clear that the concept of independence of the judiciary has always been defined broadly and not just as a prohibition of interference by the state, although that remains the classical background.  Cases of media pressure are dealt with in jurisprudence but they have always been considered in the context of an independent judge who is well-trained and not easily swayed by what the flimsy press has to say. The little jurisprudence there is does not contemplate a case of wilful, orchestrated influencing of all the media with the purpose of changing the perception and language of an existing concept.

What makes the study of Henderson stand out that it exactly tries pin down to what extent this has happened with the question whether the technique of ‘waterboarding’ changed in the minds of the judges after the 11 September watershed (no pun intended). The torrent of rhetoric not only framed everything in a ‘war’ context but also specifically tried to downplay the labelling of waterboarding as torture. And she did find the evidence. I will not reveal it all – you have to read for yourself the whole article once the NJCM has rightly published it. Laura herself indicates that further work is needed on how the independence of the judiciary is undermined by media framing and I hope that will be the case. She also gives some very useful indications of how the media framing could be countered, e.g. by strengthening the pluriformity of the media and raising the awareness of the judiciary. She describes her recommendations as ‘simple, yet effective”.  Here I beg to differ. There is nothing simple about changing the media landscape, especially if one adds the television and social media, which her study understandably had to leave out. The magnitude and multitude of media is such that no-one can really do much about it. All recent studies on the effect of the internet on our information intake show that they tend to solidify the dominant opinions/news/books etc, while giving great potential to small niche items, including the nutty and the genial. What gets squeezed is the moderate, considered, well-argued, balanced stuff in the middle. My fear is that the voice of the NJCM may well have the qualities described above!

In the end there can be only one winner. A feature of almost any award and painfully brought home two days ago in Geneva where I was for the announcement of the 3 nominees for 2012 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. All 3 nominees are extremely courageous Human Rights Defenders (Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, the multimedia monk form Cambodia, and Shirin Ebadi’s former lawyer: Nasrin Sotoudeh) and the Jury making the final choice on 2 October will have a hard time.

Still, the hard choices have been made already for the NJCM Thoolen Award – may I take this occasion to thank the Jury and Franka for their excellent work – and I am proud to hand over the prizes to the 3 finalists.

Breaking news: the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights – MEA 2012 nominee

April 24, 2012

Today the nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 are announced in Geneva. The ann0uncement was made by the new Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation, Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey, until last year the President of and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.  Each nominee deserves its own post!  One of the 3 nominees is the Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR).

BCHR is a nongovernmental organization that conducts research, documents human rights abuses, provides information to international NGOs and the diplomatic community in Bahrain and advocates locally and internationally.  Several of its leaders have been arrested wihout cause. BCHR has continued its human rights activities despite a hostile environment, in particular the numerous threats issued by the Government, warning that further ‘legal’ action will be taken against the members should they continue their activities.  Through its website (www.bahrainrights.org) BCHR struggles to promote democracy and human rights in accordance with international norms, encourages and supports individuals and groups to be proactive in the protection of their own and others’ rights. BCHR has emerged as a model NGO in the region on how to continue to operate and leverage national and international advocacy despite a repressive national context. It is only the second time in the 20-year history of the MEA that an organisation is one of the nominees.

Breaking news: Nasrin Sotoudeh from Iran – MEA 2012 nominee

April 24, 2012

Today the nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 are announced in Geneva. The ann0uncement was made by the new Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation, Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey, until last year the President of and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.  Each nominee deserves its own post!  One of the 3 nominees is Nasrin Sotoudeh from Iran.

Nasrin Sotoudeh is a human rights lawyer and a member of the now closed Defenders of Human Rights Centre (DHRC); she was imprisoned for “spreading propaganda against the State”, “collusion and gathering with the aim of acting against national security” and “membership in an illegal organisation”. She worked for Shirin Ebadi‘s law firm, and represented imprisoned opposition activists following the June 2009 presidential elections. In this regard, she represented Shirin Ebadi after she left Iran and her assets were confiscated. On September 4, 2010, Nasrin Sotoudeh was arrested, and later sentenced to 6-year of prison and a 10-year ban on practising as lawyer. She remains detained in Evin prison and on several occasions subjected to solitary confinement. Unlike fur common criminals her family visits and furlongs are limited. Despite real danger for her security and liberty, Nasrin Sotoudeh has relentlessly defended those most vulnerable. As started by Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi “Ms. Sotoudeh is one of the last remaining courageous human rights lawyers who has accepted all risks for defending the victims of human rights violations in Iran”. After Akbar Ganji (2006) and Baghi (2009) this is the third human rights defender from Iran chosen by the Jury in the last seven years. The Government will surely portray this as a bias, but the rest of the world will understand that Iran is one of the worst when it comes to respect HRDs.

Breaking news: the venerable Luon Sovath from Cambodia – MEA 2012 nominee

April 24, 2012

Today the nominees of the Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders 2012 are announced in Geneva. The ann0uncement was made by the new Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation, Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey, until last year the President of and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland.  Each nominee deserves its own post!

One of the 3 nominees is the venerable Luon Sovath from Cambodia. In Cambodia forced evictions remove families from their homes and lands with little or no notice, without genuine consultation, and often without compensation. Despite threats of violence, arrest and disrobing, the venerable Luon Sovath, a non-violent, innovative human rights defender, firmly supports and documents at-risk rural and urban communities, mainly by advocating to stop forced evictions, documenting their struggles with videos (the venerable Sovath  is also known as the ‘Multimedia Monk’ as he is never without his camera, his mobile phone and his laptop), poems and songs, defending their right to housing, as well as for adequate compensation and alternative housing, organizing public forums to educate communities on how Buddhism, human rights and democracy are in the same line. His peaceful, non-violent approach (the venerable Sovath also composes songs to unite and inspire – regularly distributing the songs on CDs to the communities) is crucial in the nascent grassroots mobilization of affected communities nationwide; his increasingly prominent role has drawn the reaction of the authorities, and his advocacy against forced evictions touches powerful economic interests. The threats against the venerable Sovath are very real, from powerful businessmen, from the authorities and even from some of the conservative clergy.

Upon handing over the Martin Ennals Foundation to Mrs Micheline Calmy Rey

April 24, 2012

Deutsch: Schweizer Bundesrätin de:Micheline Ca...

It took almost 20 years but I finally have been able to step down as Chair of the Martin Ennals Foundation. Yesterday the Board accepted my resignation and selected Micheline Calmy Rey as my successor (now that is upgrading!). In an hour from now she will be announced as such at the press conference in Geneva which is being streamed on http://www.martinennalsaward.org.

My departure has been carefully crafted since November last year but we have been most fortunate that in the meantime Micheline Calmy Rey left her government position and accepted the challenge to lead the MEA to its destiny as the most influential human rights award in the world. I realize that this is not a modest thing to say but I think that facts speak for themselves:

The MEA has a Jury composed of the world’s leading international human rights organisations, a unique cooperation among sometimes competing NGOs. The Laureates over the last twenty years have been outstanding examples and have all claimed that the recognition of the award has helped them in continuing their work.

The growth of the impact of the award has a lot to do, not only with its longevity, but also with the joining of forces by other entities, in the first place the City of Geneva which is now the main organiser of the ceremony at Victoria Hall.

I am sure that the foundation will be able to pursue the increased use of multimedia techniques for protecting the HRDs.  As this is often a question of resources, I will continue to advise the MEA in particular with regard to fundraising and publicity.

So, I am not really retiring; there are simply too many Human Rights Defenders out there who need support. This year’s nominees, who will be introduced to you in a few hours, illustrate the need for international recognition and protection.

Geneva, 24 April 2012

Turkmenistan and the UN: a rare comprehensive review of human rights shortcomings

April 3, 2012
On 30 March Human Rights Watch (HRW)  together with the International Partnership for Human Rights, and Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights made public a report that on the result of the Turkmen government’s hearing at the UN Human Rights Committee. Both the hearing and the original NGO submission  show its abysmal human rights record.  “The UN review leaves no doubt about the urgent need for human rights reform in Turkmenistan. What’s key now is to make sure the Turkmen government does what it takes to rectify abuses” stated Veronika Szente Goldston, Europe and Central Asia advocacy director at Human Rights Watch.  Given Turkmenistan’s exceptionally poor record of cooperation with the UN’s human rights bodies, sustained external pressure is essential to enforce compliance, the organizations said.
The Turkmen government’s clampdown on freedom of expression and repression of civil society activism, torture and ill-treatment in places of detention, and the lack of an independent judiciary topped the committee’s concerns. It directed the Turkmen government to report back within one year on measures taken to address them. The committee also highlighted other important areas of concern, such as: Incommunicado detention and imprisonment and restrictions on “the exit and entry into [the country] by certain individuals.  Other concerns raised by the committee include: The Law on Public Associations, which “severely restricts freedom of association; reports of the use of child labor in cotton harvesting; criminalization of homosexuality; and the “alleged use of a forced assimilation policy of ‘Turkmenisation,’ for ethnic minorities.
For the full report go to: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/30/turkmenistan-damning-un-report-shows-need-urgent-action
RELATED MATERIALS:

Will Bahrain’s highest court do justice tomorrow for HRD Al-Khawaja?

April 1, 2012

A leading Bahraini human rights defender, Al-Khawaja’s appeal is set to be heard in Bahrain’s Court of Cassation on 2 April. He is currently serving a life sentence for his role in anti-government protests last year. The activist is at risk of death after 50 days on hunger strike (according to his lawyer, he has lost 16 kg since his hunger strike began on 8 February). Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja, 52, is a former protection co-ordinator with Frontline, an NGO on the Jury of the MEA. He was arrested in April last year for being one of the leaders of anti-government protests and was sentenced to life imprisonment in a grossly unfair trial by a military court last June.  “Bahrain must ensure that Al-Khawaja is released immediately and unconditionally,” said Philip Luther of  Amnesty International, another member of the MEA Jury. He added: “The continued imprisonment of Al-Khawaja demonstrates that the Bahraini authorities are not serious about fulfilling their promises to release people imprisoned for exercising their right to free spHe has not used or advocated violence in his participation in the anti-government protests, and no such evidence was shown by the authorities during the trial.

Activists in Bahrain have repeatedly called for ’s release. Demonstrators in Manama attempted to stage a sit-in at a main highway on Monday, but were quickly dispersed by riot police.  Al-Khawaja, who is married with four daughters, is also a citizen of Denmark, where he lived in exile for decades. He returned to Bahrain after the government announced a general amnesty in 2001. Danish diplomats have visited him in prison several times and confirmed his deteriorating health.

A balanced post on how the US should balance its human rights record

March 23, 2012

Under the title “A Diminished Force for Good” Tom Parker of USA AI posted on 21 March 2012 a piece that – in a frank way – argues that the US should act with regard to its own human rights problems in order to regain international influence. It takes the lead role of the US in getting a resolution on Sri Lanka (successfully) passed in the Human Rights Council in Geneva this week and contrasts it with how the US has dealt with human rights abuses in its own ambit.

As Amnesty’s recent report Locked Away: Sri Lanka’s security detainees makes clear, human rights abuses still continue to this day in Sri Lanka. Instances of arbitrary and illegal detention have been widely reported, as have acts of torture and extrajudicial execution. Tom Parker says “I know from my own personal experience of working with Sri Lankan human rights defenders that the climate of fear in which opponents of the Rajapaksa regime operate is all-pervasive. The situation in Sri Lanka is grave and the intervention of the United Nations is much needed. .However, welcome though the US-sponsored resolution is, it is greatly undermined by the embarrassing gap that exists between US rhetoric and US behavior. Critics have not been slow in pointing this out.”…”The complete failure of the United States to address the deliberate use of torture as an integral part of the War on Terror hugely diminishes its ability to put pressure on other states to adhere to human rights standards that it itself has ignored. And we are all the poorer for it.”

“The alacrity with which the US Army has responded to the tragic deaths of sixteen Afghan villagers in Zangabad, Afghanistan, earlier this month demonstrates that accountability is nothing to be afraid of. Indeed it can be a powerful force for good….. The US is one of the [governments that actively promote human rights] but its influence has been greatly diminished over the past decade because of its reluctance to meaningfully address its own, very public, failings in this regard….We need a strong US voice speaking out for human rights in the world, but that can’t happen without real accountability at home.”

for the full text see: A Diminished Force for Good.

Concrete steps towards better protection of human rights defenders

March 15, 2012

On March 8 and 9, 2012, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a joint programme of the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), organised the fourth “inter-mechanisms” meeting, which was hosted by the Office of the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva, Switzerland. This is a unique informal platform where under Chatham House Rules key actors meet to fine tune standards and mechanisms for Human Rights Defenders.

On this occasion, international and regional mechanisms and programmes for the protection of human rights defenders – operating within the United Nations, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the Council of Europe, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(IACHR) and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights – joined by representatives of the European Union, the International Organisation of the Francophonie and various NGOs, discussed the drafting of a joint report on existing standards and recommendations related to the protection of human rights defenders at the international and regional levels. IACHR offered to take a coordinating role in drafting the report, with the back up of the Observatory. This report would be inspired by the 2011 Commentary of the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders and the IACHR Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders. Such a document, the first of its kind, will not only be a useful tool to human rights defenders, States and other relevant stakeholders, but will also demonstrate a unity of approaches among mechanisms.

Participants also shared their experiences and lessons learnt in order to identify possible ways tostrengthen the coordination and cooperation among existing mandates on the protection of human rights defenders. In particular, action-oriented discussions focused on how to ensure accountability for human rights violations against human rights defenders, which is a central issue for all mechanisms and programmes in order to combat impunity.

Participants also discussed core policy challenges affecting the protection of human rights defenders in relation to freedom of association, as well as possibilities of cooperation with the newly appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association. A specific focus on the right to receive and access funding, including foreign funding was discussed, reflecting renewed preoccupations by mechanisms on restrictions by States in this regard. These issues should be further discussed during a future inter-mechanisms meeting, to be organised by the Observatory.

For more information, please contact :

• OMCT : Delphine Reculeau : + 41 22 809 49 39
• FIDH : Karine Appy / Arthur Manet : + 33 1 43 55 25 18

Concrete steps towards better protection of human rights defenders / March 15, 2012 / Urgent Interventions / Human rights defenders / OMCT.

Ethiopia’s restrictions on HRDs just the tip of the iceberg: repression becomes more sophisticated worldwide

March 13, 2012

Governments are becoming increasingly ‘sophisticated’ in their repression of human rights defenders. Probably as a result of the remarkable worldwide acceptance of human rights as a universal set of standards, Governments that want to continue to suppress criticism are resorting to more and more indirect methods of repression.

The basic universality of human rights is nowadays accepted by the quasi-totality of mankind.  In the words of Normand and Zaidi, ‘the speed by which human rights has penetrated every corner of the globe is astounding. Compared to human rights, no other system of universal values spread so fast’. This has not stopped a small number of governments (e.g. Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea) to continue to oppose the idea and depict human rights as a ‘western’ or ‘foreign’ product, alien to their culture. But the big majority seems to have accepted that there is a crucial distinction between the universality of human rights and its universalisation (or universal application). The first is the moral and legal principle that a core of human rights exists and applies to every person in the world irrespective of his or her culture, country, etc.  The second is the process by which these universal standards become a reality. Here one cannot make the same optimistic observation about the speed by which human rights are spreading, but this is not only due to the ever-present gap between rhetoric and reality. The international system itself allows for differing interpretations by giving a margin of appreciation at the regional and national level and by permitting States to make reservations to international agreements. The big question is then, to what extent local cultural, legal and religious practices can be accommodated by the international system without losing its coherence.

In this context one sees increasingly that Governments use ‘tricks’ or at least more roundabout ways to tackle those they want to silence. Recent examples are the disbarment of lawyer Intigam Aliyev in Azerbijan (continuing legal work without license), financial fraud charges against Ales Bialiatski in Belarus (NGO refused recognition, therefore no bank account in Belarus, thus acceptance of grants in neighboring countries illegal), withdrawal of recognition of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights. Now Amnesty International has come with a report on Ethiopia ‘Stifling human rights work: The impact of civil society legislation in Ethiopia’ (PDF).  It describes in detail how the 2009 Charities and Societies Proclamation imposes heavy restrictions on human rights groups operating in the east African country, and allows for excessive government interference. The result is that Ethiopians have less access to independent human rights assistance. Amnesty International’s Deputy Africa Director Michelle Kagari said: ‘Rather than creating an enabling environment for human rights defenders to work in, the government has implemented a law which has crippled human rights work in Ethiopia. The space to make legitimate criticism is more restricted than ever.’ Human rights defenders risk imprisonment if they violate vaguely defined provisions within the 2009 law, making them afraid to speak out, and often resort to self-censorship, in order to avoid repercussions.

There are surely many other examples and it goes to show that those of us who want to assist HRDs in their work have to become also more sophisticated and cut through the maze of legalistic and bureaucratic measures to unearth the truth about the situation of HRDs. We have our work cut out!