In a landmark ruling for fundamental freedoms in Colombia, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that for over two decades the state government harassed, surveilled, and persecuted members of a lawyer’s group that defends human rights defenders, activists, and indigenous people, putting the attorneys’ lives at risk.
The ruling is a major victory for civil rights in Colombia, which has a long history of abuse and violence against human rights defenders, including murders and death threats. The case involved the unlawful and arbitrary surveillance of members of the Jose Alvear Restrepo Lawyers Collective (CAJAR), a Colombian human rights organization defending victims of political persecution and community activists for over 40 years.
The court found that since at least 1999, Colombian authorities carried out a constant campaign of pervasive secret surveillance of CAJAR members and their families. That state violated their rights to life, personal integrity, private life, freedom of expression and association, and more, the Court said. It noted the particular impact experienced by women defenders and those who had to leave the country amid threat, attacks, and harassment for representing victims.
The decision is the first by the Inter-American Court to find a State responsible for violating the right to defend human rights. The court is a human rights tribunal that interprets and applies the American Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty ratified by over 20 states in Latin America and the Caribbean.
In 2022, EFF, Article 19, Fundación Karisma, and Privacy International, represented by Berkeley Law’s International Human Rights Law Clinic, filed an amicus brief in the case. EFF and partners urged the court to rule that Colombia’s legal framework regulating intelligence activity and the surveillance of CAJAR and their families violated a constellation of human rights and forced them to limit their activities, change homes, and go into exile to avoid violence, threats, and harassment.
Colombia’s intelligence network was behind abusive surveillance practices in violation of the American Convention and did not prevent authorities from unlawfully surveilling, harassing, and attacking CAJAR members, EFF told the court. Even after Colombia enacted a new intelligence law, authorities continued to carry out unlawful communications surveillance against CAJAR members, using an expansive and invasive spying system to target and disrupt the work of not just CAJAR but other human rights defenders and journalists.
In examining Colombia’s intelligence law and surveillance actions, the court elaborated on key Inter-American and other international human rights standards, and advanced significant conclusions for the protection of privacy, freedom of expression, and the right to defend human rights.
The court delved into criteria for intelligence gathering powers, limitations, and controls. It highlighted the need for independent oversight of intelligence activities and effective remedies against arbitrary actions. It also elaborated on standards for the collection, management, and access to personal data held by intelligence agencies, and recognized the protection of informational self-determination by the American Convention.
On 1 April 2024, Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA is a human rights organization committed to protecting freedom of expression, press freedom, the right to assemble and protest, and access to information in Turkey. It serves as a vital platform where journalism and legal expertise merge to safeguard these freedoms, particularly for journalists, lawyers, and human rights defenders facing increasing challenges). SEMRA PELEK wrote about Mine Özerden, a human rights defender now detained for 700 days. The detailed statement if woth reading in full:
From Mine Özerden’s standpoint, the Gezi Trial began with an unsubstantiated criminal complaint. Despite efforts, no informant was identified. Tax inspectors investigated the allegations but couldn’t confirm them. The court ruled the phone taps used as evidence were illegal. Nonetheless, Özerden was sentenced to 18 years and has been in prison for nearly two years.
“I’ve said this repeatedly, and I’ll say it again: I still can’t comprehend why I’m here, and there hasn’t been anyone who could logically explain it to me yet.”
With these words, Mine Özerden began her defense during the session of the Gezi Trial held at the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court on October 8, 2021. She posed the same question during her defense at the session held on January 17, 2022. Özerden has been asking the same question at every hearing since the initial session of the Gezi Trial on June 25, 2019. However, in the years that have passed, she has received no answer to her question throughout the entire legal process.
Mine Özerden’s lawyer requested an explanation from the prosecutor through the court regarding this matter. However, the court rejected the request: “The request for a statement from the Public Prosecutor regarding which acts and crimes are being attributed to the defendant Mine Özerden by the defense attorney has been rejected…”
The court failed to provide any justification or further clarification of the rejection. However, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, every defendant has the right to effectively present their defense, and the right to “be informed.” This means that prosecutors and courts are obligated to inform the defendant of the accusations against them to ensure a fair trial. The laws clearly state this right, however, Mine Özerden was not granted this right throughout the entire trial, and the judiciary system did not provide any logical explanation for this.
Let’s ask a question of our own here: Is there no answer to Ozerden’s question in the 657-page indictment written by the prosecution, which led to Osman Kavala’s aggravated life sentence and the 18-year sentences that Mine Özerden, Çiğdem Mater, Tayfun Kahraman, and Can Atalay have been given in the Gezi Trials? They are currently convicted of serious charges such as “attempting to overthrow the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” and “aiding this attempt,” which means the higher Court of Cassation also signed off on the decision. In the document of approval released by the Court of Cassation, is there any answer to the aforementioned question? No, there isn’t!
Scrutinizing the Gezi Trial files, one question remains: Why is Mine Özerden in prison?
And you can’t find the answer to that question. After poring over the files line by line, one can’t help but be reminded of Kafka’s novel, The Trial. So much so that you could replace the protagonist Josef K.’s name with Mine Özerden’s: “Somebody must have made a false accusation against Mine Özerden, for she was arrested one morning without having done anything wrong.”
This is exactly how the Gezi Trial, which today stands like a specter against the freedom of expression and assembly not only of the defendants but of the whole society, began for Mine Özerden.
Let’s start from the beginning: On September 26, 2013, a “criminal complaint” was sent via email to the Istanbul Communication Electronics Branch Directorate. According to the indictment, the person, who didn’t provide their name in “criminal complaint number 11167,” claimed to have “important information regarding the Gezi protests” and alleged that “before the protests began in Taksim, Mine Özerden opened bank accounts for several individuals under the direction of Osman Kavala from the Open Society Foundation.” According to the informant’s claim, the money collected in these accounts was intended to purchase “gas masks, bandages, and goggles,” which would then be “distributed to protesters.”
In the thousands of pages of the Gezi Trial file, this is the sole allegation concerning Mine Özerden.
Following up on this allegation requires due diligence in seeking the facts. Unlike Kafka’s novel, Özerden’s experiences are not allegorical but real; she has been held in Bakırköy Women’s Prison for nearly two years due to this unsubstantiated criminal complaint.
In the indictment, the prosecutor – after quoting the informant’s claim in quotation marks and bold black letters – immediately indicates in the next sentence that they “could not locate the informant”: “Upon the instruction of our Republic Prosecutor’s Office, an investigation was conducted into the IP address to obtain a detailed statement from the informant, however, no identification was made.”
In other words, the informant could not be found. So, were the bank accounts alleged by the informant opened?
No!
That, in fact, is the following sentence, where the prosecutor offers his admission that the informant could not be found. In the indictment, Istanbul Foundation’s 1st Regional Directorate’s investigation of the accounts of the Open Society Foundation, eventually preparing a report on this inquiry, but the report clearly stated that “no determination could be made regarding these allegations.”
In other words, the claim of an unidentified informant could not be substantiated.
On April 22, 2022 Mine Özerden’s lawyer submitted Tax documents, which proved that the informant’s claim was false to the file.
The court dismissed the Tax Inspectorate report and did not consider it as evidence.
Fact Two: No bank accounts opened; no purchase was made
Typically (in any rule-of-law state), when an informant cannot be found and an unsubstantiated criminal complaint is involved, the case is closed with a verdict of non-prosecution.
Moreover, according to the established jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, evaluating a purely unsubstantiated complaint on its own is also unlawful. Thus, this jurisprudence also warranted closing the case at this stage. The law is clear: you cannot prosecute anyone with a non-existent crime and an unsubstantiated allegation.
However, instead of closing the file at this point, the prosecutor opened another investigation completely unrelated to the Gezi inquiry. Mine Özerden was incidentally wiretapped within the scope of this investigation. It wasn’t until much later, when the Gezi Trial indictment was prepared, that the fact Özerden had been coincidentally wiretapped in this investigation emerged. When her lawyer officially questioned this, it was revealed that Özerden had never been a suspect in this investigation. Furthermore, there was no wiretap order issued against her in this investigation. Her lawyer had requested wiretap orders from the court, neither the police nor the prosecution had submitted these orders to the file.
In one of these coincidental wiretaps included in the Gezi Trial indictment despite having no relevance to the Gezi investigation, Mine Özerden had a conversation with Osman Kavala on May 30, 2013. In this conversation, Mine Özerden mentioned to Osman Kavala that she had received “some offers.” Someone suggested, “Let’s buy gas masks and distribute them to the youth.” The conversation continued with discussions on how this could be done, such as “maybe opening a bank account.” It was nothing more than an exchange of ideas, with the conversation ending with the suggestion, “One of the volunteers could probably do that.”
The claim of the unidentified informant was based on this conversation. Özerden, who was coincidentally wiretapped in an investigation, where she was not a suspect, was accused on the basis of this wiretap turned into a criminal complaint. Özerden’s lawyer requested the full resolution of this wiretap. However, neither the complete resolutions of wiretaps nor the wiretap recordings were found by the prosecution and were never submitted to the file.
The conversation between Mine Özerden and Osman Kavala remained at the level of ideas because the content of the conversation was not substantiated during the investigation and trial process. No bank account was found to have been opened. Something that doesn’t exist can’t be found in the first place.
There is no evidence in the file that gas masks, bandages, or goggles were purchased. Not a single invoice exists, nor is there any evidence anywhere that these items were found.
So, suppose even one piece of evidence existed in the file – for example, if a bank account had been opened or if an invoice for goggles had been found – what would happen? Opening a bank account and buying gas masks, bandages, or goggles is not a crime under any law. Therefore, Özerden’s lawyer brought goggles, gas masks, and bandages to the trial and asked the panel, “Is acquiring these items a crime?”
Fact Three: No Press Statements or Meetings were Found to Constitute a Crime or Incitement to Commit a Crime
Despite the lack of concrete evidence, the indictment directed the accusation of “aiding an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey by force and violence” against Mine Özerden. To strengthen such a serious accusation, the prosecutor highlighted Özerden’s voluntary coordination of the Taksim Platform and her continued membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür, where she had worked years ago.
The Taksim Platform was established as a peaceful dialogue platform, holding weekly exchange of ideas meetings, and organizing art events. Although the activities of the platform fell within the scope of freedom of assembly and expression, it was criminalized in the indictment, yet no crime associated with the platform can be found.
Not a single press statement by the platform was included in the indictment. There was not any piece of evidence regarding which press statement or meeting of the platform, on which date, would constitute a crime according to the law. There was also no evidence that any post or statement released by the Taksim Platform could constitute a crime or incitement to violence in the indictment or the file.
The rationale behind the establishment of the Taksim Platform and all updates, statements and press releases ever released by the platform is still accessible today on the website taksimplatformu.com. So, if there had been even the slightest evidence that Taksim Platform was inciting violence, it would be easy for the prosecution to find and include in the indictment.
Moreover, the accusations against Özerden based on her membership in the board of directors of Anadolu Kültür were already refuted explicitly by the Tax Inspectorate report.
Fact four: Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
It gets even stranger from here. In the indictment, Özerden is accused of organizing meetings of the Taksim Platform in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, attending the platform’s meetings, and even participating in violent actions in Gezi Park.
But the problem here is this: Mine Özerden was not in Istanbul during the Gezi protests.
The Gezi protests began on May 31, 2013. However, Özerden was working at a language school in Fethiye from June 1 to July 31, 2013. Furthermore, not a single video, photograph, or technical surveillance recorded by the police indicating Özerden’s presence in Istanbul during that period has been included in the case file.
However, official Social Security Institution (SGK) records proving Özerden’s presence in Fethiye during that period were submitted to the court. But neither the prosecutor during the investigation process nor the Istanbul 13th Heavy Penal Court during the trial took this into account. The Court of Cassation 3rd Criminal Chamber, which upheld the 18-year prison sentence, also did not. .
Even if it were the opposite, if Mine Özerden were in Istanbul during that time, it still wouldn’t prove anything. Being in Istanbul during the Gezi protests, organizing a meeting, or attending one is not a crime. On the contrary, the right to assembly and freedom of expression are protected by the Constitution.
Fact Five: Wiretapping is Illegal
So, what was written about Mine Özerden on all those pages in the indictment whenthere was no concrete evidence of a crime against her?
The indictment merely contains pages of phone conversations between Özerden and her friends! These conversations delve into personal matters, discussing, for instance, the exhaustion of life and the beauty of getting away from some stressors of life. In one conversation, for instance, Mine Özerden advises a friend to attend a conference in Istanbul where world-renowned philosophers Slavoj Žižek and Alain Badiou are speakers. The conference, titled ‘Globalization and the New Left,’ was organized by Bakırköy Municipality and MonoKL publications. However, this advice was included in the indictment as if it were a crime.
Similarly, Özerden’s response of “enjoy the beautiful weather, how lovely” to a friend saying “the weather was even better two or three days ago” is also included in the indictment as part of these casual conversations. None of the phone taps contain any reference to the organization of the Gezi protests. Instead, they clutter the file. Moreover, these wiretaps are illegal!
The Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court, which handled the case, determined that the wiretaps were illegal. In its decision dated February 18, 2020, acquitting 16 defendants in the Gezi trial, including Osman Kavala, Mücella Yapıcı, Can Atalay, Yiğit Aksakoğlu, Tayfun Kahraman, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, Yiğit Ekmekçi, and Ali Hakan Altınay, the court made the following legal assessment:
“We have 53 wiretap orders in our file. It is understood that the first wiretap order was issued for the offense of ‘forming and leading a criminal organization,’ not for the offense of ‘crimes against the government.’ Later, it was observed that Article 312 of the Turkish Penal Code (crimes against the government) was added to the requests and decisions for extending the wiretapping. However, Article 312 was not among the crimes subject to legal wiretapping as listed in Article 135/8 of the Criminal Procedure Code at that time. There is no wiretap order issued after that date. Therefore, it is accepted that the wiretap recordings are in violation of the law and are illegal evidence, considering the established precedents of the Court of Cassation and the principle that ‘the fruit of the poisonous tree is also poisonous.’ Hence, the wiretaps included in the indictment are considered as prohibited evidence.”
In other words, all phone conversations used as evidence against Mine Özerden, along with other defendants, were the fruits of the poisonous tree. In summary, the real crime was the wiretapping of phones.
But as if that weren’t enough, a new term called ‘revaluation’ was coined to justify the inclusion of wiretap recordings in the indictment. The indictment stated that “the revaluation of all evidence concerning the investigation, especially the wiretaps, was ordered.” However, there is no procedure called ‘revaluation’ in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mine Özerden asks: “Isn’t this openly insulting to use the word ‘revaluation’?”
They Were Convicted with the “Poisonous Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”
Ultimately, the acquittal verdicts were overturned. Despite no additional evidence being presented to substantiate the allegations, the convictions handed down by the Istanbul 13th High Criminal Court on April 25, 2022, against Osman Kavala, Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman were upheld by the Court of Cassation’s 3rd Criminal Chamber.
Osman Kavala, who was sentenced to an aggravated life sentence for the allegation of “attempting to overthrow the Government of the Republic of Turkey,” has been in prison for over six years. Can Atalay, Çiğdem Mater, Mine Özerden, and Tayfun Kahraman, who were each sentenced to 18 years in prison for “aiding this attempt,” have been deprived of their freedom for 700 days.
Responding to our questions from prison, Mine Özerden made the following comment regarding the entire legal process:
“Not only do the institutions and decision-makers of the country I am a citizen of fail to protect our rights, but they also increasingly violate our fundamental, constitutional, and legal rights more and more everyday. For nearly two years, we have been deprived of our physical freedom without reason, evidence, or truth…
I find myself involuntarily caught in a senseless quarrel of irrationality and illogic. We are continuously instrumentalized by different political segments with various affiliations. My wish is for people from all walks of life to stand up against injustice and for a collective will demanding basic human rights to emerge.”
Mine Özerden still awaits a logical explanation as to why she is being tried, why she is being punished, and why she has been held at Bakırköy Women’s Prison for years.
Instead of explaining, the judiciary merely extends to her the poisonous fruit of a poisonous tree.
On 12 March 2024 the recently appointed UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, Ben Saul, warned that two decades of prolific global efforts to counter terrorism have not been matched by an equally robust commitment to human rights.
In his first report to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur painted a counter-terrorism landscape strewn with human rights violations, including unlawful killings, arbitrary detention, torture, unfair trials, privacy infringements from mass surveillance, and the criminalisation of freedoms of expression, assembly, association and political participation. For earlier posts on this topic, see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/tag/anti-terrorism-legislation/
“The misuse of counter-terrorism measures not only violates the rights of suspected criminals but can also jeopardise the freedoms of the innocent,” Saul said.
He condemned the rampant weaponisation of overly-broad terrorism offences against civil society, including political opponents, activists, human rights defenders, journalists, minorities, and students. Unjustified and protracted states of emergency continue to undermine human rights, the expert warned.
“Excessive military violence in response to terrorism also destroys fundamental rights, including through violations of international humanitarian law and international criminal law,” Saul said. “Cross-border military violence is increasingly used by states even when it is not justified under the international law of self-defence.”
“Many states have also failed to address the root causes of terrorism, including state violations of human rights – while impunity for those violations is endemic,” he said.
Saul said regrettably, the UN has been part of the problem, by encouraging authoritarian regimes to strengthen counter-terrorism laws in the absence of a rule of law culture or human rights safeguards. “The UN must also do better to meaningfully consult civil society on counter-terrorism,” he said.
Announcing his priorities for his three-year term, the Special Rapporteur said his focus would include ensuring regional organisations respect human rights when countering terrorism; all coercive administrative measures used to prevent terrorism comply with human rights; and States are held accountable for large-scale violations of human rights resulting from counter terrorism – and victims receive full and effective remedies.
Saul will also continue the efforts of his predecessor on preventing the abuse of counter-terrorism measures against civil society; protecting the 70,000 people arbitrarily detained in north-east Syria in the conflict against ISIL; protecting detainees and transferees from the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; ensuring that the UN safeguards human rights in its counter-terrorism work, regulating new technologies used in counter-terrorism; and protecting the victims of terrorism.
“Human rights in counter-terrorism are at increased risk because of rising authoritarianism, surging domestic polarisation and extremism, geopolitical competition, dysfunction in the Security Council and new tools, including social media, for fuelling dehumanisation, vilification, incitement and misinformation,” the Special Rapporteur warned.
“Double standards and selectivity by major powers in the enforcement of human rights is also eroding public confidence in the credibility of the international human rights system,” he said. “States must move beyond rhetorical commitment to human rights and instead place human rights at the heart of all counter-terrorism measures.”
Responding to news that the Emirati authorities have begun a mass prosecution on trumped-up terrorism charges of more than 80 Emirati human rights activists – including renowned currently-jailed Emirati human rights activists who have already spent a decade behind bars – Aya Majzoub, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director, said:
“To begin hearings in a new sham mass trial in the midst of what it billed as ‘the most inclusive COP ever’, is a jaw-dropping show of contempt for human rights by the Emirati authorities. The timing appears to be deliberately intended to send a clear message to the world that it will not tolerate the slightest peaceful dissent and that the authorities have no intention of reforming the country’s dire rights record. COP28 has already laid bare the barriers of fear and legalised repression that smother dissent in the UAE.
“The UAE must immediately release all arbitrarily-detained prisoners, drop charges against them and end their ruthless assault on human rights and freedoms.”
The new mass trial – first reported by the Emirates Detainees Advocacy Centre and confirmed to Amnesty by exiled Emirati activists – is a joint prosecution of more than 80 defendants, including victims of a past mass trial such as Mohamed al-Siddiq, father of the late exiled Emirati human rights defender Alaa al-Siddiq, prisoners of conscience such as Khalid al-Nuaimi, Hadef al-Owais, Nasser bin Ghaith and Sultan al-Qasimi, and longstanding human rights defenders such as Mohamed al-Roken and Ahmed Mansoor (see below).
Fresh charges against Ahmed Mansoor
Last month, Amnesty UK campaigners flew a protest plane over Manchester City FC’s Etihad Stadium carrying a large banner saying “UAE – Free Ahmed Mansoor”. Mansoor is a blogger, poet and leading Emirati human rights activist who has been in jail and kept in solitary confinement in the UAE since 2017 as a direct result of his campaigning activity. In 2017, Mansoor was convicted on charges which included “insulting the status and prestige of the UAE and its symbols”, “publishing false information to damage the UAE’s reputation abroad” and “portraying the UAE as a lawless land”. The following year, Mansoor was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, with the sentencing court also ordering that he be placed under surveillance for three years after release. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the country’s supreme court on 31 December 2018.
On 10 November 2023 the Caucasian Knot reported that the ECtHR had found a violation of the rights of Krasnodar activist Nikitin. Alexander Konstantinovich Nikitin is a Russian former submarine officer and nuclear safety inspector turned environmentalist. In 1996 he was accused of espionage for revealing the perils of decaying nuclear submarines, and in 2000 he became the first Russian to be completely acquitted of a charge of treason in the Soviet or post-Soviet era. Nikitin is still engaged in environmental and human rights issues in Russia. He is the head of Bellona Foundation’s Saint Petersburg branch, and is engaged in environmental and nuclear safety projects, as well as in human rights cases. He is a widely recognised HRD, see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/D519B52C-D0C3-4B3B-B8F6-798A34B1BF04
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has awarded compensation of EUR 5000 to Alexei Nikitin, a Krasnodar activist. Nikitin was detained at an action against increasing prices for public transport in 2018 and at a rally in support of Alexei Navalny* in 2021.
Navalny’s offices are recognized as extremist organizations and banned in Russia. Alexei Navalny is a founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation (known as FBK), an NCO that is included by the Russian Ministry of Justice (MoJ) into the register of NCOs performing functions of a foreign agent. The NCO is also recognized by a court as extremist and banned in the territory of Russia.
The Christian Science Monitor of 30 October 2023, tells the story of attorney Dennis Muñoz who seeks to uphold human rights in El Salvador, despite increasingly difficult and dangerous odds.
Víctor Peña/Special to The Christian Science Monitor
Mr. Muñoz found a way to channel his deep-seated desire for justice by becoming a lawyer in 2005. But he doesn’t work with just anyone – he goes for the tough cases of human rights abuses. He has defended multiple women who suffered miscarriages but were accused of murder in a nation where abortion is banned without exception. He has fought arbitrary arrests of environmentalists, activists, and average citizens. He could be called a defender of lost causes.
There’s no shortage of demand for Mr. Muñoz’s work in El Salvador, which has the highest incarceration rate in the world. And these days the risks of his work are almost as high as the demand for it.
In March 2022, a monthlong “state of exception” was enacted in response to extreme gang violence. The order suspended basic constitutional rights for those arrested under it. Securing a court warrant before searching private communications was no longer required, for example, and arrestees were barred from their right to a defense attorney and their right to see a judge within 72 hours.
But what started as an emergency measure has become ordinary practice. The state of exception has been extended every month for more than a year and a half now, with no end in sight. Violence has declined dramatically, but critics say the order’s extreme powers are seeping far beyond the gang-related arrests they were meant to address. Even those detained outside of the state-of- exception category are having their rights suspended.
That’s the group Mr. Muñoz focuses on. While he has taken a few state-of-exception cases, he primarily works on human rights violations, with the added burden now of his clients getting caught in the emergency order’s crosshairs. Despite death threats and intimidation, he’s not slowing down. Instead, fellow lawyers doing similarly risky work ask him to be on call if – or, perhaps more likely, when – they themselves are arrested.
… Despite quashing constitutional rights, the move has been overwhelmingly popular for providing a long-elusive sense of calm.
“A tired society, fed up with a lack of answers to the chronic problem of violence, is willing to accept short-term answers,” says Verónica Reyna, director of human rights for the Passionist Social Service, a nongovernmental organization focused on local violence prevention and support of human rights.
Gustavo Villatoro, minister of justice and public security, acknowledges that the state of exception is affecting more than gang members. Over 7,000 innocent people have been arrested, Mr. Villatoro said in August, noting that some degree of error is inevitable. But the consequences of those errors can be grave. Even if a case has nothing to do with gang activity, lawyers can be blocked from visiting their clients in detention, and court hearings can be suspended. Over 71,000 Salvadorans have been arrested under state-of-exception rules. With 6 million people in El Salvador, close to 2% of the adult population is currently behind bars. And many of them, even those not under the emergency order, lack access to a lawyer and may be tried en masse.
Margaret Satterthwaite, the United Nations special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, tweeted in May that in El Salvador, “public defenders reportedly have 3-4 minutes to present the cases of 400 to 500 detainees.” She warned that “fair trial rights must not be trampled in the name of public safety.”
In the last week of July, Salvadoran lawmakers eliminated a previous two-year limit on pretrial detentions and passed reforms to allow mass trials that could bring together 1,000 individuals in a single appearance before a judge.
“Maybe they won’t let us be lawyers anymore,” says Mr. Muñoz, “at least not private attorneys with independent criteria.”
“The reforms have disrupted the whole system and have turned innocence into an exception,” says Ursula Indacochea, program director at the Due Process of Law Foundation, based in Washington. “Presumption of innocence is disappearing because the roles have shifted. The state no longer has to prove I’m guilty, but now I’m guilty and have to prove I’m innocent,” Ms. Indacochea said in a Sept. 7 radio interview in El Salvador.
Of the 35,000 authorized lawyers registered in El Salvador, Mr. Muñoz stands out for almost exclusively taking cases of human rights violations.
“Things aren’t easy right now,” he says, describing the justice system as “made to convict.” The government is “criminalizing the job of lawyers,” he adds.
Yet Mr. Muñoz looked anything but cautious at a press conference in early July, where he was the only person wearing a suit at the San Salvador offices of the Christian Committee for Displaced People in El Salvador, a wartime human rights organization. He headed to the podium in the ample room, sparsely decorated with pictures of St. Óscar Romero, the archbishop of San Salvador murdered by right-wing death squads in 1980.
Mr. Muñoz discussed openly a forbidden topic. Five environmentalists were arrested in January over the alleged 1989 murder of a Salvadoran woman during the war. The case was under a court-issued gag order.
“It’s very serious that environmentalists are being unjustly accused, bending [what are considered] the rules of due process anywhere in the world,” Mr. Muñoz said, staring into the cameras.
His clients in this case are former guerrilla members, and two of the accused are part of the Association of Economic and Social Development Santa Marta, known as ADES. One of the country’s oldest environmental organizations, ADES was key in achieving the total ban on mining here in 2017. In a country where almost the entirety of war crimes remain unresolved and defendants in active cases are rarely imprisoned, the arrest of these men was an outlier, apparently due to their vocal criticism of the government. The U.N. called for the activists’ immediate release.
“Dare I say there are crimes being committed against these environmentalists,” Mr. Muñoz said before the media. “It’s nefarious that things like this happen in a country that calls itself democratic but really has a criminal injustice system in place.”
Víctor Peña/Special to The Christian Science Monitor
By late August, Mr. Muñoz had successfully convinced a judge to grant an order for his clients’ release. “It’s a crumb of justice, but we shouldn’t celebrate until there’s a dismissal of proceedings,” he said at a later press conference.
It’s hard to reconcile this image of seeming fearlessness with Mr. Muñoz’s request when the Monitor approached him for an interview: Could the piece leave out his last name? The question reflects a sense of fear that has built up over many years of doing this work.
Mr. Muñoz downplays receiving death threats, normalizing the culture of violence he’s lived under for most of his professional life. “They say they wish that I was extorted or killed because of the people I’ve defended,” he says about the social media threats. He thinks he’s been able to stay off the political radar by censoring his opinions. “I issue legal and technical opinions,” he explains. “Other colleagues have entered the political arena and expose themselves more to attacks.”
De Lima, who has now been in detention for more than six years, was acquitted for allegedly trading illegal drugs while she was secretary of justice, after being acquitted in the first case against her in 2021. Both cases were evidently fabricated and there is no reason to think that the third case against her is any more credible.
Then-President Rodrigo Duterte directed de Lima’s persecution in response to her attempts to investigate killings that took place in the early stages of Duterte’s “war on drugs” in 2016. But Duterte’s enmity toward her started in the late 2000s when, as chair of the Commission on Human Rights, de Lima began an investigation into killings attributed to a “death squad” operating in Davao City, where Duterte was the mayor. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is investigating those killings as well as numerous “drug war” killings that took place while Duterte was president. In 2019, as part of his efforts to avoid international justice, Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the ICC’s Rome Statute, which obligates states party to the treaty to cooperate with the court.
While de Lima’s latest acquittal brings hope that her unjust detention may be ending sooner rather than later, she never should have been prosecuted or held in pretrial detention without bail. Duterte’s improper influence over the Department of Justice was evident by the recanting of the testimony of three key witnesses in this case, saying they had been coerced.
This is an opportunity for the Department of Justice to regain some of its credibility by dropping the outstanding case against de Lima. But there also needs to be accountability. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who last week conceded abuses were committed in the “war on drugs,” should urgently launch an inquiry into how the levers of the justice system were manipulated against de Lima and implement reforms to ensure such politicization of the justice system never happens again.
This is echoed by anOpen Letter to the Government of the Philippines on 24 May 2023 by
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Balay Alternative Legal Advocates for Development in Mindanaw (Balaod Mindanaw)
Karapatan Alliance Philippines (KARAPATAN)
Philippine Collective for Modern Heroism (Dakila)
Purple Action for Indigenous Women’s Rights (LILAK)
They welcome the acquittal of Leila de Lima, former Senator and chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, on one of her two remaining politically motivated charges on 12 May 2023 by a Muntinlupa court….
De Lima’s arrest is in violation of her constitutional rights as a sitting senator and in contravention of international human rights law. The arrest is purely based on politically-motivated charges, following her senate investigation into the thousands of extrajudicial killings under Duterte’s ‘war on drugs.’….De Lima should never have been detained in the first place.
The arbitrary detention and mistreatment of former Senator de Lima reflect the Duterte administration’s judicial harassment of human rights defenders as well as the Philippines’ shrinking civic space. Nearly a year after President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. took office in June 2022, de Lima’s case remains stagnant. The slow progression of the case demonstrates both the previous and current Philippine administrations’ unwillingness to seek justice and accountability…
FORUM-ASIA alongside its reputable Philippine member organisations urge your Excellencies 1) to immediately and unconditionally drop the remaining politically motivated charges against de Lima; 2) to request the Muntinlupa court to grant her bail petition for release; 3) and to provide compensation and other reparations for the human rights violations she was made to endure.
Philippine authorities should release and allow de Lima to be reunited with her loved ones after six long years.
We demand the immediate release of de Lima and all other political prisoners who have been persecuted for their work and beliefs in human rights and social justice.
Earlier on Monday, 9 January 2023 the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had rejoiced in the acquittal of members of Karapatan, – the Alliance for the Advancement of People’s Rights – and their allies GABRIELA – National Alliance of Women – and the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines (RMP) in the face of the perjury charges brought against them by the Philippine authorities.
The Quezon City Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 139 issued its judgment on the retaliatory and trumped-up perjury case against ten human rights defenders, Karapatan Chairperson, Elisa Tita Lubi; Karapatan Secretary General, Cristina “Tinay” Palabay; Karapatan Deputy Secretary General, Roneo Clamor; Karapatan Treasurer, Gabriela Grista Dalena; Karapatan National Council members, Edita Burgos, Wilfredo Ruazol, and Jose Mari Callueng; GABRIELA Chairperson, Gertrudes Ranjo Libang; GABRIELA Secretary General, Joan May Salvador, and member of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines, Emma Cupin, acquitting them of all charges.
In a case of judicial harassment, which started in July 2019, the then-National Security Adviser Hermogenes Esperon Jr. submitted a perjury complaint against the three organizations related to the registration of the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines. Although the case was initially dismissed for lack of probable cause and sufficient evidence, in February 2020 the Quezon City Prosecutor, Vimar Barcellano, granted a motion for reconsideration of the perjury case.
The judicial harassment resulted in global condemnation from civilsociety, Members of the EuropeanParliament and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders calling on the Philippine authorities to put an end to the judicial harassment faced by the ten human rights defenders and the wider human rights movement in the country.
While we celebrate the acquittal, we remain as committed as ever to stand in solidarity with members and the wider human rights community in the Philippines in their struggles to advance human rights and social justice for all.
On 18 April 2023 CHRD called on the Chinese government to immediately release human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan, who have been criminally detained and denied access to lawyers of their choice. CHRD also calls on the Chinese government to end its de facto house arrest of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s 18-year-old son. CHRD urges the EU, EU member states, the US, UN bodies, and other member of the international community to forcefully condemn the Chinese government’s detention of Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan. See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/03/03/breaking-news-mea-laureate-yu-wensheng-released/
On April 13 at approximately 4:00 pm, human rights lawyer Yu Wensheng and his wife Xu Yan left their home in Beijing to travel by subway to attend an event at the European Delegation. They were invited to an event with the EU’s Ambassador to China Jorge Toledo Albiñana according to Politico.
However, Yu and Xu were prevented from accessing the subway by four plainclothes police officers. One of the officers, a state security police officer, told them that they were being summoned to a police station, which Yu Wensheng announced on Twitter. The four police officers took them to the Shijingshan Bajiao police station. Human rights lawyers Wang Quanzhang, Li Heping, and Bao Longjun were also harassed by authorities during this period.
The EU Delegation to China tweeted on April 13, “We demand their immediate, unconditional release. We have lodged a protest with MFA [China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs] against this unacceptable treatment.”
According to Rights and Livelihood Watch, on April 15 in the evening, approximately seven police officers came to Yu Wensheng and Xu Yan’s home, and they orally read a criminal detention notice to the couple’s son, who had just turned 18 years old. The pair were criminally detained on the charge of “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” Police would not allow the son to take photos, nor would they give him the criminal detention notice. Also, even though no warrant was presented, police proceeded to search the home and carried off many items.
On April 16, two lawyers, Song Yusheng and Peng Jian, paid a visit to Yu and Xu’s son to bring him fruit, and fill out paperwork to obtain legal status to represent Yu and Xu. There were two people guarding the door of Yu and Xu’s home. Lawyer Song knocked on the door, and it was answered by the son, but the lawyer saw that in the home there were also two officers inside, one plainclothes and one wearing a uniform. The plainclothes officer, who said his name was Lu Kai, asked what they wanted. The lawyers said that they were there to visit the son and have him sign an agreement (委托书) to entrust them as lawyers. However, the plainclothes police officers said that Yu Wensheng told them that he “doesn’t want to have lawyers at this stage” and that Xu Yan had already found two lawyers.
Yu Wensheng’s detention may also be related to his condemnation of the sentencing of Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, two prominent pro-democracy figures. On April 12, Yu Wensheng wrote on Twitter that he had been visited at his home by Shijingshan police for a tweet he had sent out on April 9 that said, “[I] strongly condemn the Chinese authorities heavy sentence of scholar Xu Zhiyong to 14 years and of Lawyer Ding Jiaxi to 12 years! I pay my respects to Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, who have worked hard in the struggle for freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I believe that one day the Dream of a Beautiful China will be realized.”
In March 2022, Yu Wensheng was released from prison after serving four years and three months on the charge of “inciting subversion of state power.” Yu was taken away by police in 2018 the day after he released an open letter recommending changes to China’s Constitution, including a call for elections and the creation of an oversight system for the Chinese Communist Party.
The Chinese government has put heightened pressure on human rights award winners. Yu Wensheng was the recipient of the prestigious Martin Ennals Award in 2021 [see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/laureates/69fc7057-b583-40c3-b6fa-b8603531248e] and the winner of the Franco-German Prize for Human Rights and the Rule of Law in 2018. Previous winners of awards have been subjected to extra-legal abuse. While Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Liu Xiaobo was at one point granted “medical parole,” he was not allowed the freedom of movement to seek medical treatment outside of China and died in de facto state custody. Likewise, Hu Jia, a prominent human rights defender and winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 2008, was prevented from seeing his dying father in his final days. Hu Jia was deprived of his liberty and “forcibly traveled” starting from March 4 of this year. Being “traveled” is a common tactic used by state security officers to ensure journalists at the annual March Two Sessions meetings or other “sensitive” political events do not talk to dissidents. Hu Jia’s father passed away from pancreatic cancer on March 9, 2023.
The Chinese government is preventing defendants in sensitive cases from having lawyers of their own choice and instead mandating government-approved lawyers in order to prevent real legal defense. On February 10, 2023, digital rights activist Ruan Xiaohuan was sentenced to seven years in prison on the charge of “inciting subversion of state power.” His wife, Ms. Bei, wanted to hire an experienced lawyer for the appeals stage, and so she went to Beijing to talk with Shang Baojun. However, upon landing in Beijing, she was taken away by eight Shanghai police. Meanwhile lawyer Shang Baojun tried to visit Ruan at the Yangpu Detention Center in Shanghai, but staff there would not allow for the visit since they claimed that Ruan already had two legal aid lawyers.
On 11 April 2023 10 NGOs demanded the dropping of charges against journalist Nguyen Lan Thang and a fair trial by admitting observation.
Dear President Võ Văn Thưởng,
We are writing to express our concern about the ongoing persecution of Mr Nguyen Lan Thang, a journalist, and we demand that he be released immediately, and all charges dropped against him. Mr Nguyen Lan Thang is a victim of persecution by the Vietnamese government and has been criminally charged due to his work as a journalist. Mr Nguyen Lan Thang is one of many journalists and activists throughout the country who is facing ongoing persecution for reporting of the government of Viet Nam in a critical manner.
On 5 July 2022, Mr. Thang was arrested for “making, storing, distributing, or disseminating information, documents, and items against the State” under article 117 of the 2015 Criminal Code. He has been held in incommunicado detention in Hanoi’s Detention Centre No. 1 for more than seven months, during which time he was prohibited from meeting with his family members and legal counsel. After being arrested in July 2022, he did not meet his lawyer for the first time until 16 February 2023.
According to his lawyers, Mr. Thang will be tried on 12 April 2023 at a closed hearing at Hanoi’s People’s Court. Failing the dropping of charges and release of Mr Nguyen Lan Thang before the trial commences, we demand that his right to a fair trial be upheld, at least in part, by ensuring that media and the public may observe it, as is the obligation of the state of Viet Nam under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The right to a public trial is guaranteed under Article 14 of the ICCPR with few exceptions. We understand that Mr Nguyen Lan Thang has been denied this human right. According to Article 14 of the ICCPR:
“the press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (order public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.”
Paragraph 28 of General Comment No 32 of the Human Rights Committee clarifies that the importance of public hearings “ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large”. The Committee has made clear in paragraph 29 that the special circumstances that allow exclusion of the press and public from a trial are “exceptional circumstances”, and otherwise a trial must be open to ensure transparency and assist in guaranteeing the human right to a fair trial.
Despite efforts to obtain further information on the charges and the rationale the court has adopted in excluding the press and public from the trial of Mr Nguyen Lan Thang, there is no information that we possess that indicates any exceptional circumstances exist that would allow the closed nature of this trial under international human rights law.
Accordingly, we demand that the right to fair trial is respected and that members of the public, the press, the United Nations, and the diplomatic community be allowed to monitor the proceedings. We call on the government of Viet Nam, including its courts, to uphold their international obligations and ensure the human rights of those within the justice system.
Yours sincerely,
Access Now
Amnesty International
ARTICLE 19
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
On 12 April 2023 Human Rights Watch reported that United Arab Emirates are continuing to incarcerate at least 51 Emirati prisoners who completed their sentences between one month and nearly four years ago.
The prisoners are all part of the grossly unfair “UAE94” mass trial of 69 critics of the government, whose convictions violated their rights to free expression, association, and assembly. UAE authorities are using baseless counterterrorism justifications for continuing to hold them past their completed sentences.
“Prisoners in the UAE94 case have already suffered tremendously after years in prison following a grossly unfair trail,” said Joey Shea, United Arab Emirates researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Emirati authorities should free them immediately and finally put an end to this decade-long ordeal. Prominent UAE partners, including the United States and COP28 organizers, should press UAE authorities for their immediate release.”
The prisoners were among 94 people detained beginning in March 2012 in a wave of arbitrary arrests amid an unprecedented crackdown on dissent. The case had a chilling effect on freedom of expression, assembly, and association.
In July 2013, Abu Dhabi’s Federal Supreme Court convicted 69 of the defendants, sentencing 5 to 7 years in prison, 56 to 10 years, and 8 in absentia to 15 years, with 25 acquitted. The verdict could not be appealed, in violation of international law, because it was issued by the UAE’s highest court. As of March 2023, 51 had completed their sentences but remain imprisoned with no clear legal basis, according to Emirati activists and court documents. Some prisoners completed their sentences as early as July 2019.
At least four of the 51 received a Public Prosecution letter saying that they were on Munasaha during what was supposed to be their last three months in detention, activists and family members told Human Rights Watch. After three months, these detainees were taken in front of a judge, who determined they still held “terrorist thoughts” and ruled that they needed further “rehabilitation.”
Under article 48 of the counterterrorism law, the public prosecutor may place someone convicted of a terrorist offense in a counselling or Munasaha program in the prison where they were serving their sentence, under counselling center supervision.
The counterterrorism law sets no time limit for continued incarceration and instead requires the state security public prosecution to report to the court every three months. The court may order a person’s release if it finds that “his or her condition so allows.” It is not clear if the defendant has any right to attend the hearing or see or challenge the evidence used to justify their detention.
The decade of unjust imprisonment has had devastating consequences for the prisoners’ families. A family member said that the young child of one of the prisoners still does not understand why her father was in prison. “She asks me, we love our country and our leaders, why are they are doing this to my father?” the family member said.
Many prisoners are being held in the notorious al-Razeen prison, and many are alleged to be in solitary confinement. A family member said, “All the prisoners are suffering there, they don’t have their rights and it is very hard to visit them.” Another family member said: “Throughout the years, the conditions are getting worse.”
Visits are irregular and difficult to procure, the family members said. Families often drive for hours to the prison in the middle of the desert, only to be denied a visit with no explanation. Family members also said that phone conversations are often cut off mid-call with no explanation. Some prisoners have not been able to speak with their family members by phone for years.
Other family members said there have been months-long periods in which a prisoner, as one family member said, “totally disappeared” with “no calls, no nothing,” leading the family to believe that “maybe he is dead.” Prisoners are also often denied books and pictures.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in article 15 prohibits retroactive criminal punishment. The United Nations Human Rights Committee, in its general comment on article 9 of the ICCPR, said, “if, under the most exceptional circumstances, a present, direct and imperative threat is invoked to justify the detention of persons considered to present such a threat, the burden of proof lies on States parties to show that the individual poses such a threat and that it cannot be addressed by alternative measures, and that burden increases with the length of the detention.”
“By arbitrarily extending the unjust sentences of peaceful critics using bogus counterterrorism justifications without due process, the UAE again shows its total disregard for the rule of law,” Shea said.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 