Brian J. Dooley is an Irish human rights activist and author. He is Senior Advisor at Washington DC–based NGO Human Rights First. In October 2023 he was made an Honorary Professor of Practice at the Mitchell Institute, Queen’s University Belfast. He is a visiting scholar at University College, London (UCL). He is a prominent human rights voice on Twitter (@dooley_dooley).
From April 2020 to March 2023 he was Senior Advisor to Mary Lawlor, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. He is as an advisory board member of the Gulf Centre for Human Rights, and was a visiting scholar at John Jay College, City University of New York from 2022 to 2023, and at Fordham University Law School in New York from 2019 to 2020.
He receives the award for having dedicated his career to advocating human rights and bringing greater global attention to less visible issues. Congratulations with a big DISCLAIMER : I am a good friend and admirer of Brian [see posts: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/brian-dooley/] and he has represented Human Rights First on the MEA Jury for years.
Dooley has written numerous reports on human rights defenders and human rights issues based on research in countries including Bahrain, Egypt, China (Hong Kong), Hungary, Kenya, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Palestine, Ukraine, the USA (Guantanamo), and the United Arab Emirates. His efforts have played a crucial role in exposing human rights violations, and he has actively supported justice in conflict areas, including Ukraine and Northern Ireland.
Commenting on the Award, Brian Dooley said: “This is such a great honour for me, and I’m very grateful to the University of Oslo for recognising my work. I’ve been very lucky over decades that my work with Amnesty International, with The Gulf Centre for Human Rights, with Mary Lawlor – the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders – and with Human Rights First has enabled me to meet and work with Human Rights Defenders working in some of the most difficult places in the world. Too often great work by local activists in wars or revolutions, or those living under oppression, goes unseen and unreported. This award helps bring attention to this work, and to those who do it.”
Brian will receive his Award during the Oslo Peace Days this coming December.
The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) sentenced 43 individuals to life in prison in a mass trial on Wednesday 3 July 2024, according to the UAE’s state-run news agency, WAM. The trial, which has been criticized by human rights organizations for allegedly targeting dissidents, involved charges linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group designated as a terrorist organization by the UAE government. WAM reported the verdicts shortly after human rights advocates released statements announcing the sentences. Alongside the life sentences, five defendants received 15-year prison terms and another five were sentenced to 10 years. The court dismissed the cases of 24 defendants.
According to WAM, the court ruled that those convicted “have worked to create and replicate violent events in the country, similar to what has occurred in other Arab states—including protests and clashes between the security forces and protesting crowds—that led to deaths and injuries and to the destruction of facilities, as well as the consequent spread of panic and terror among people.”
While WAM did not identify those sentenced by name, and specific details regarding the trial are not clear, Joey Shea, a researcher focusing on the UAE for Human Rights Watch, noted a few prominent figures involved in the case to the Associated Press (AP).
On 10 July 2024, Human Rights First condemned the secret trial and sentencing of dozens of activists in the United Arab Emirates:
“Washington’s ally has again today demonstrated its violent repression,” said Senior Advisor Brian Dooley. “The Biden administration has struck millions of dollars of arms deals with the UAE dictatorship, and failed to sanction its officials responsible for cracking down on peaceful dissent. The message from Washington to the UAE has been clear for many years: Do what you want, there will be no consequences.”
Among those reportedly sentenced to life in prison after a mass trial is prominent legal scholar Nasser bin Ghaith. He graduated with honors from Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Ohio with an LLM in U.S. and Global Legal Studies in 2001. Another of those in the mass sham trial — which included 84 defendants — was Ahmed Mansoor, who received his Bachelor’s Degree in Electrical, Computer, & Energy Engineering and his Master’s in Telecommunications for the University of Colorado, Boulder. Human Rights First is still waiting for confirmation on the outcome of his case in the trial. [see https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/074ACCD4-A327-4A21-B056-440C4C378A1A]
Bin Ghaith, Mansoor, and other prominent activists in the trial were already in prison serving long sentences for their peaceful activism.
Today, 9 December, marks 25 years of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders (HRDs). It provides for the support and protection of HRDs, and for many HRDs it’s been a useful marking in legitimizing and supporting their work.
The anniversary is a good time to reflect on what’s working and what isn’t for HRDs, and we discussed some of these issues on a Human Rights First webinar a couple of days ago.
In many ways it was a different world in 1998. Celine Dion and the Backstreet Boys were the big rock acts then. The internet, mobile phones, and digital surveillance of HRDs, were all in their infancy.
For HRDs, much has changed, and it’s possible to see 25 years of success as HRDs have achieved some great things. They’ve changed laws, won the release of people from prison, distributed humanitarian aid, exposed corruption, documented and publicized human rights violations.
For some HRDs just keeping going despite pressure and threats is success in itself. Hundreds are killed every year for their peaceful work on behalf of others, for embarrassing corrupt officials, for making good things happen.
But there is now a greater recognition of the value of the work of HRDs than there was in 1998, and a better understanding of who they are. The family of HRDs has expanded in the last 25 years – back then NGOs discussed whether those working on environmental rights, or those documenting corruption, or medics working in war zones, really counted as HRDs. Now we know they do.
We better understand too the responsibilities of businesses to protect HRDs, and that defenders working on certain issues face specific threats, that those working on land rights, indigenous rights or environmental rights away from big cities are most likely to be murdered. We know too that many defenders are targeted not just for what they do but for who they are.
Women Human Rights Defenders experience added layers of harassment. They’ve always lived with pressure from society in terms of what they should get engaged in and not, pressure from their families on what a woman should do or not, and since 1998 there’s now added pressures in the digital sphere. They are targeted more than other HRDs with digital harassment, which we see very often leads to physical attacks offline.
Our organizations share a similar approach to working with HRDs. The NHRF supports HRDs working for NGOs outside big cities, often formed by people from the community that they work in. It supports organizations where women are in leaderships roles, and provides resources over the long term. For instance, the NHRF works with an NGO in Thailand originally formed by young women to organize their community in the face of a mining company. Most of these women are now grandmothers, but still keep up their human rights work.
The NHRF also works with organizations of HRDs in Indonesia made up of family members of those killed and tortured in in the 1960s who are now seeking redress and working against impunity.
Human Rights First, meanwhile, continues its decades-long work on Northern Ireland, also working with bereaved families of those killed during the conflict in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s who are also looking for redress and working against impunity.
For many HRDs achieving success is a long road, requiring perseverance and allies. International standards and rules aren’t protecting them enough. Their work needs to be better understood, and better funded.
The picture for HRDs since 1998 is mixed, and no doubt will be for the next 25 years. HRDs will achieve more successes, but unless governments find the political will to implement the protections of the HRD Declaration, more defenders will be attacked, jailed and murdered.
So, what do the next 25 years hold for HRDs? The future is hard to predict, but one thing we can say for sure is that HRDs will continue to be, as the UN Special Rapporteur for HRDs Mary Lawlor says, ordinary people doing extraordinary things.
In these times, when many people from Gaza to Ukraine question the power of the human rights framework to actually protect people’s rights, everyone with power must ensure that HRDs can be funded, protected and supported. We will all be better off for it.
On 7 September 2023, Maryam Al-Khawaja announced that she would return from exile to Bahrain to try and save her father Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/09/11/maryam-al-khawaja-risks-prison-by-returning-to-bahrain-to-press-for-her-fathers-release/]. Now Front Line’s Interim Director Olive Moore announced that she will accompany Maryam on the trip to Manama this week to press the Bahraini authorities to release him. Other leading human rights figures have announced their participation in the trip, including Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General; Tim Whyte, Action Aid-Denmark’s Secretary General; and Andrew Anderson, former Front Line Defenders Executive Director and Amnesty International staff member.
“Front Line Defenders owes a debt of gratitude to Abdulhadi, both as a former staff member and friend to many in the organisation, but more importantly as a principled and trailblazing human rights defender in Bahrain and the region. We will not rest until the Bahraini authorities free him and the human rights defenders Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace and Naji Fateel, both also unjustly imprisoned for over a decade.” said Moore.
The exact timing of the solidarity trip is not being publicised, but it comes the same week as the Bahraini Crown Prince visits Washington, DC, and more than a dozen human rights organisations, including Front Line Defenders, have also called on President Biden’s administration to demand the release of human rights defenders.
“Now is the moment for the Biden administration to step up to the plate and show solidarity with human rights defenders in Bahrain. In meetings with the Crown Prince this week, the US government must be unequivocal in its calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja and other unjustly imprisoned human rights defenders,” said Olive Moore.
Human Rights Watch stated on 11 September: “If Maryam al-Khawaja can have the courage to risk her life for democracy and human rights in Bahrain, the least the Biden Administration can do is show the political strength to use its leverage to call on its allied government to free its political prisoners.“
The same day Human Rights First’s Brain Dooley blogged about two prisoners (among the hundreds on hunger strike) that have told him about the daily reality of the protest.
On 18 August 2023 Brian Dooley posted for Human Rights First about the new crisis in Bahrain‘s prisons as at least 500 prisoners are on hunger strike refusing food in protest at their detention conditions. Among those denied the care they need are prominent rights activists Abdulhadi Al Khawaja, Abduljalil Al Singace, and Hassan Mushaima, who have been jailed since their peaceful protests in 2011. On 15 August 2023, human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja was denied a prearranged video call with his daughter days after he was rushed to the intensive care unit where doctors declared his life was in danger. Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja is at imminent danger of losing his life since he has started a water-only hunger strike on 9 August 2023. [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/4d45e316-c636-4d02-852d-7bfc2b08b78d]
Bahrain’s main prison, Jau, currently holds an estimated 1300 prisoners, around half of whom are on a hunger strike. The current crisis could have been easily avoided – if Bahrain’s government had shown an iota of wisdom, it would have released those unjustly jailed years ago, and given all those who need medical treatment adequate care.
It’s another mishandling of a situation that now threatens to spiral dangerously out of control. In March 2015 there was a prison riot at Jau. HRF predicted that the poor conditions, overcrowding, and poor medical care would erupt into large-scale disturbances, and they did.
I spoke to several former inmates of Jau last night. One recently released prisoner said “This frustration in the prison has to go somewhere, it’s been building for so long. The situation is getting worse every day with more and more prisoners joining the protest. Some have already collapsed.”
Some prisoners began refusing food on August 7, and many more have since joined the protest. International attention is starting to turn towards Jau. Yesterday I joined others in an overnight protest outside the Bahrain embassy in London, praying for those prisoners in urgent need of medical care.
But if any of the hundreds of prisoners on the hunger protest die, the consequences of Bahrain’s failure to resolve the crisis could be catastrophic, with unrest spilling onto the streets. The authorities in Bahrain need to act fast to prevent a similar outcome to 2015, when they responded to prison unrest by torturing and ill-treating dozens of detainees. Better to make the smart move now, grant the prisoners’ basic demands including proper health care, and avert another disaster.
Among those in most acute danger are the leading rights activists. Human Rights First joined other NGOs this week urging the State Department to use its considerable influence with Bahrain to press for a speedy and humane resolution to the crisis.
On 22 July 2022 Brian Dooley and Quinn Fulton wrote for Human Rights First a post: “Ten Years But Still Counting – UAE Fails To Release Jailed Activist Al-Roken“
Human Rights First has covered their cases and others for many years, and urged a succession of U.S. administrations to use the influence they have accrued – not least through supplying the Emirates with billions of dollars of weapons – to push for the release of jailed human rights activists there.
The U.S. government knows exactly who Al-Roken is and what he stands for. He has been featured in a succession of U.S. reports describing him as “a human rights activist” (2007), “a lawyer…reportedly held incommunicado and without charge for unknown reasons” (2012), and a “lawyer, academic and human rights defender” (2021).
In 2015, Human Rights First wrote about his wrongful imprisonment, and noted in a report that year on human rights in the Emirates that “Former heads of the Jurists Association are now political prisoners, including renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Mohammed Al-Roken. He is one of dozens serving long prison sentences after being convicted in mass trials.”
We have continued to raise cases through the media of human rights defenders wrongfully detained in the Emirates, and we successfully campaigned for the release of American citizens Mohammed and Kamal Al Darat when they were tortured and detained in the Emirates for over a year.
When calling for Al-Roken’s release, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders noted that he was jailed on charges of “plotting against the government,” and “subjected to intermittent periods in solitary confinement, allegedly without justification or explanation.” The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention said Al-Roken “is reportedly well known for defending victims of human rights violations in the United Arab Emirates,” and deemed his detention as arbitrary.
We know that getting people who have been wrongfully detained in the Emirates out of prison is difficult, but it sometimes can be done if there is substantial international public pressure – as with the Al Darats and the British academic Matthew Hedges.
That’s why it’s important that the Biden administration speaks out publicly about Al-Roken. Our years of advocacy experience tells us that behind-the-scenes diplomacy is unlikely to work..
It is of course the worst for the direct victims of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, but the very courageous people who stand up against the autocratic government and nationalistic media in Russia deserve all our attention. On 26 February 2022, Human Rights Watch wrote “Russia: Arbitrary Detentions of Anti-War Protesters“:
Police arbitrarily detained hundreds of peaceful protesters across Russia on February 24, 2022, at rallies in solidarity with Ukraine and against the war, Human Rights Watch said. The authorities also arrested at least two human rights defenders who spoke up against Russia’s full-scale invasion in Ukraine, threatened to block mass media outlets in case their reporting on the war differed from the official narrative, and demanded that foreign social media platforms stop restricting reports from Russian state media.
“For years, Russian authorities have been suppressing free speech and peaceful protests to stifle critical voices,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Now the government is silencing all those who speak out against the war with Ukraine.”
According to OVD-Info, an independent human rights project working to protect freedom of assembly in Russia, by the evening of February 25, police had detained at least 1,858 people for participation in anti-war protests in 57 cities, including Moscow, Saint Petersburg, Krasnodar, Ekaterinburg, Saratov, Nizhny Novgorod, and Voronezh. Some of detained protesters stood in single pickets and held posters saying “no to war, do not be silent,” “stop the war,” and other similar slogans.
At around 3 p.m. on February 24, the police detainedMarina Litvinovich, a human rights activist, in Moscow after she had made a call over social media to “come out and say we are against war.” She was released several hours later, pending a court hearing and the next day was fined for violating the rules on public gatherings. https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-litvinovich-fined-ukraine-invasion-protest/31723131.html
In response to calls for peaceful protests, Russia’s Investigative Committee published a news release with a warning that organizing unsanctioned gatherings is a prosecutable offense and threatening “harsh punishment” for organization of “mass riots.”
In the evening of February 24, protesters gathered in different cities across Russia to demonstrate against war. According to OVD-Info, more than 1,000 protesters were arbitrarily detained in Moscow and around 400 in Saint Petersburg where the biggest protests took place.
Human Rights Watch analyzed and verified 27 videos recorded north of the Gostinny Dvor metro station in Saint Petersburg and close to Pushkinskaya Square in Moscow that were published on social media on February 24. The vast majority document brutal arrests of peaceful activists by police officers. In at least four cases, videos show police officers beating protestors, pushing them to the ground, dragging them, grabbing them by the head, and choking them.
Mass media and OVD-Info also reported other cases of excessive use of force by the police, refusal of medical assistance, and denial of access to lawyers. At night, at least six police stations in Moscow, and some stations in Saint Petersburg, Saratov, Voronezh and Ekaterinburg refused access to outside visitors after initiating the “Fortress” protocol, authorized for a situation of potential attack, which meant lawyers were denied access to their clients for hours. On February 25, OVD-info reported they could not get in touch with three of the detainees on their list.
Russian public figures, journalists, scientists, activists, and average social media users have been publicly expressing their shock and indignation at the full scale Russian military operations in Ukraine and calling for the hostilities to end. Thousands used the hashtag #нетвойне (#notowar).
Lev Ponomarev, a prominent human rights defender and the founder of the Movement for Human Rights, initiated a petition “against war,” calling on the Russian military to withdraw from Ukraine and inviting people to join the peaceful anti-war movement. The police detained Ponomarev on February 24 and charged him with organizing unsanctioned protests in connection with the petition, which had gathered over 550,000 signatures by the evening of February 25.
On February 24, the internet regulator Roskomnadzor published a warning to mass media disseminating “unverified” and “false” information, claiming that only information from official sources can be used when reporting on the “special operation” in Ukraine. The authorities also said that all “false” information would be instantly blocked and warned about fines for disseminating “fake” news.
Roskomnadzor also sent official letters to Facebook (Meta) demanding that it should lift restrictions imposed by the social media platform on official pages of state and government mass media. The authorities said that Facebook had marked them as “untrustworthy” and hid their publications from the platform’s search. Roskomnadzor also called on Russian users to switch to national internet resources and social networks due to “unfounded blockings by foreign platforms.”
On February 25, the Office of the Prosecutor General, in coordination with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, accused Facebook of being “involved in violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms” and imposed restrictions on access to the platform in Russia.
The authorities’ actions to prevent people from participating in peaceful public protests and freely expressing their opinions violate fundamental rights, including those to freedom of expression and assembly and the prohibition on arbitrary detention, guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Russia’s own Constitution.
“The ability to express disagreement in a peaceful way is crucially important in any society that respects human rights and rule of law,” Williamson said. “This abusive crackdown on a peaceful anti-war movement is yet further proof, if more was needed, of the government’s intolerance of independent voices.”
On the other hand, in a post of 25 February 2022, Brian Dooley of Human Rights First relates what human rights defenders in Ukraine are telling about the immediate impact on them of the Russian invasion.
On 13 January 2022 Brian Dooley devoted a blog post for Human Rights First to the US’ State Department’s efforts to draft HRD Guidelines:
Ten years ago, I testified in the US Congress for Human Rights First on why the US government should issue guidelines to its embassies on engaging with human rights defenders.
We then spoke to State Department bureaucrats in many months of negotiations too soporific to recount here, and by March 2013 they finally produced some useful guidelines for US diplomats, modelled largely on those adopted by European countries a decade before.
It’s a great idea – US government officials were offered specific advice on how and why to engage with Human Rights Defenders, and the hope was that the guidelines would set minimum standards for US embassies all over the world.
Engagement with human rights defenders by US diplomats tends to patchy – some embassies do it well, others hardly do it at all. HRDs in countries which are antagonistic to Washington tend to enjoy relatively easy access to US diplomats who share their criticism of the local government, whereas HRDs in countries ruled by dictators who are allies of the US complain about a lack of support from US embassies.
The guidelines encouraged officials to maintain regular contact with HRDs, or possibly to attend their trials or visit them in detention, and otherwise explore ways to support and protect them. All good in principle, but the State Department failed to adequately encourage its embassies to implement the suggestions.
So five years ago I was back in the US Congress, testifying that the guidelines “haven’t been properly promoted or widely translated …[and that] protecting HRDs is too important a job to do half-heartedly.”
Those US guidelines were pretty good, but the problem was so few people ever heard about them. When I mentioned them to human rights NGO staff, to officials of other governments, to human rights defenders, to people in the UN, to American ambassadors in the Middle East, even to State Department officials in the Bureau of Democracy, Rights and Labor, I was generally met with a “Huh?”
The good news is that, after more years of advocacy by ourselves, Earthrights, and others, the State Department has now released updated guidelines, complete with an assurance that “The Biden-Harris Administration is committed to putting human rights and democratic principles at the center of our foreign policy.” All nice enough, though these commitments to support HRDs should be institutionalized long term and not dependent on a particular administration.
The content is strong, advising sensible courses of action including that US officials “Encourage investigations and prosecution of those who harass and attack human rights defenders,” and that US officials “seek the consent of human rights defenders before taking any actions on their behalf and take precautions in communicating with them online and offline.”
The guidelines could act a great starting point for US officials at any embassy who want to connect with local civil society and activists. The challenge is to prevent these new standards from getting left on the shelf like the last ones.
To guard against that, we and others are hoping Congress will pass legislation aimed at keeping the State Department focused on protecting HRDs, including requiring US embassies to post the guidelines on their websites in relevant languages in an invitation to local HRDs to engage with them.
This engagement and support is currently horribly inconsistent. For instance, last week the US embassy in Niger issued a short public statement in support of local HRDs, which is great. But the US embassy in Cairo has for years been mortifyingly silent about the extensive attacks on local HRDs by Egyptian authorities.
The US government should use its power much more often to protect human rights defenders, not least at a local level where its embassies can offer much more consistent support to human rights defenders, and not just in countries that are adversaries of the US, but with its allies too.
For many years, the United Arab Emirates has been one of Washington’s most repressive military allies. Its brutal targeting of human rights defenders, its leadership role with Saudi Arabia in the war on Yemen, and its crushing of any internal political dissent has made it a focus of Human Rights First’s advocacy for a decade.
I visited the Emirates for Human Rights First in 2015 to research how bad things were, and things have only become worse — the few activists who weren’t intimidated into silence in 2015 have now been pushed into exile or sentenced to long terms in prison.
Washington continues to enable the Emirates’ dictatorship with weapons and political support; in April the Biden administration confirmed it would proceed with a $23 billion arms deal. But having powerful friends in Washington, and pushing Dubai’s glitzy image of tourism and shopping, can’t hide the reality of what really happens in the UAE.
Click below or listen here to my appearance on a podcast by the European Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (ECDHR) for more on what’s happening in the UAE behind their PR mask.
On 10 September 2021 Brian Dooley blogged for Human Rights First: “British Government Proposes Amnesty for Killings That’s Worse Than Pinochet’s”:
In a startling move, in July 2021, the British government announced a proposal to end all Troubles-era prosecutions, granting amnesty to its soldiers for any crimes they committed during this time. While the proposal has yet to be introduced as a bill, its mere introduction has already received a strong reaction.
Last week, I visited Belfast and Derry where I met with human rights NGOs and families of those killed during the Troubles. Human Rights First has been active on these issues for decades, with a focus on past abuses and on supporting the human rights lawyers helping families bring prosecutions against those who committed them.
This recently introduced proposal is a significant setback to the families whose loved ones were killed by British forces during those years. Many of which have spent decades looking for the truth about what happened to those who were killed. During my time with them, some of the family members said that this proposal, which would eliminate any potential for accountability, has left them exasperated and angry.
Some of the killings from this period, like those on Bloody Sunday in Derry or Ballymurphy in Belfast, are well known and have received international attention. Others, such as the Springhill-Westrock shootings and many others, have had less attention. Overall, during the Troubles (1969-1998), 3,350 people were killed, including 1,840 civilians, and 47,500 were injured.
In many cases of killings, there was no real investigation done at the time. Local human rights NGO, the Pat Finucane Centre, has recently published declassified documents showing how some soldiers evaded prosecutions. The new proposal would remove any possibility of the families having any possibility for legal recourse or bringing the killers to justice.
The wide scope of the UK government’s proposed amnesty is breathtaking.
Human Rights First has for many years worked with Belfast-based human rights NGO the Committee for the Administration of Justice (CAJ). This week, with a team of experts from Queen University, Belfast, the CAJ produced an analysis of the proposed amnesty laws, measuring the British government’s proposals “against binding international and domestic human rights law, the Good Friday Agreement and other international experiences of amnesties to deal with past human rights violations.”
This study found that the proposal would create an amnesty more sweeping than that of General Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator who introduced a policy to shield human rights violators from prosecution, which is often regarded as the worst. However, unlike the UK proposal, which excludes no crimes and has no temporal limits, Pinochet’s amnesty excluded certain crimes, such as sexual violence, and applied only to the first five years of the 17-year dictatorship. Additionally, Pinochet’s amnesty excluded criminal cases already before the courts and applied only to criminal prosecutions. The UK proposal on the other hand would close cases already in the system and apply to both civil and criminal cases.
Professor Louise Mallinder, one of the experts on the report and a world-renowned scholar of transitional justice who has examined roughly 300 amnesties relating to various conflicts around the world from 1990 until 2016, says the UK’s proposed amnesty “would offer the broadest form of impunity of all the amnesties surveyed.”
Yes, the British government’s standard for addressing past human rights violations by its soldiers, including murders, appears to be lower than that of General Pinochet’s.
The plan is so bad that all major political parties in Ireland, north and south, have united in rejecting it. Members of the U.S. Congress are reportedly signing a letter objecting to it.
The British government got many things wrong over the course of The Troubles. This proposed amnesty for its former soldiers is another huge mistake and should be rejected immediately.
Instead, a real process of justice should be followed, along the lines of that outlined in the 2014 Stormont House Agreement. Dealing with The Troubles’ past is difficult but not impossible. The families of those killed – and of victims of human rights violations in other post-conflict situations that a new UK precedent might influence – deserve much better than what the British government has proposed.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 