Posts Tagged ‘Human Rights Defenders’
Threats against women’s rights advocate Denis Mukwege in DRC mobilize medical community
October 30, 2012Defamation campaign and threats against human rights defender Tolekan Ismailova
October 26, 2012
On 14 October 2012, TV channel LTR broadcast a program in which human rights defender Ms Tolekan Ismailova was depicted as spreading propaganda for homosexuality in Kyrgyzstan and being destructive to Kyrgyz values. Similar accusations were published in several Kyrgyz-language newspapers. Ms Tolekan Ismailova is the director of Human Rights Centre ‘Citizens Against Corruption’. These accusations refer to the documentary ‘I Am Gay and Muslim’, which was part of the human rights film festival Bir Duyno – Kyrgyzstan (One World Kyrgyzstan), organised annually in Bishkek. The documentary was scheduled to be shown on 28 September 2012 in Bishkek. The film explores the problematic issue of gay rights in the Islamic world, taking the example of Moroccan young men who speak about their sexual and religious identity.
On 26 September 2012, the organisers of the festival had received phone calls and text messages threatening them with physical harm while the director of the cinema was threatened that the building would be set on fire unless the film’s screening was cancelled. Dublin-based Front Line Defenders condemns the smear campaign and threats against Ms Tolekan Ismailova and the other organisers of the human rights festival, and is concerned for their physical and psychological integrity and security.
For actions see: https://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/20249/action
This information was received through the International Secretariat of Women Human Rights Defenders International Coalition.
Are Political Islamists in the UAE Human Rights Defenders?
October 26, 2012
The article itself has some strong language:
“For almost two years, the UAE’s political Islamists have been referred to in the West as human rights activists. No doubt, they are indeed activists with an agenda but there is also no doubt that they are not our version of Nelson Mandela, nor is their vision for the country that of the Magna Carta. I have been following their rhetoric — in Arabic — over the past few months on social media with great concern. I have found it to be xenophobic; anti-Semitic; sectarian; exclusionary; racist toward Asians, Africans and other Arabs and overall repugnant.
………………………
Nothing exposes the ignorance of non-Arabic-speaking writers than when they comment on the current events in the UAE without taking the time to read what is written. Referring to the political Islamists as “human rights defenders” is an insult to human rights activists all over the world and the equivalent of calling Greece’s Golden Dawn, Holland’s Freedom Party led by Geert Wilders or Hungary’s Jobbik Party as human rights platforms. If outsiders want to champion the UAE’s political Islamists, they should at the very least refer to them as they truly are: right-wing, exclusionary political movements. Vote for Geert Wilders if you like, just don’t call him a human rights defender.“
see full piece: UAE Political Islamists Are Not Human Rights Defenders – Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East.
CIVICUS Letter to the Special Rapporteur on HRDs in Pakistan
October 26, 2012CIVICUS (a worldwide civil society alliance) wrote on 17 October 2012 a letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, Mrs. Margaret Sekaggya. Triggered by the recent shooting of the girl Malala Yousafzai, the letter details other such attacks on women HRDs in Pakistan.
for the full text go to:
CIVICUS Letter to the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders.
“Only washed wounds will heal”: HRDs from 39 countries discuss Transitional Justice in Latin America
October 24, 2012Event at the Resistance Memorial, the site where political prisoners were held and tortured during the dictatorship. It was the stage of a debate attended by almost 100 activists and academics from around the world on October 18, 2012

More than 60 human rights defenders from 39 countries gathered at the Resistance Memorial, in São Paulo, to discuss issues related to “Transitional Justice” – in reference to the processes of transition from dictatorship to democracy. The debate was part of the 12th International Human Rights Colloquium, organized by Conectas and being held in São Paulo since Monday.
Two specialists on the subject – Paulo Vanucchi, former Brazilian Human Rights Minister under the Lula da Silva administration, and Gáston Chillier, of the Argentine organization CELS (Center for Legal and Social Studies), presented an overview of how Argentina and Brazil reached the stage of Transitional Justice.
…….Vanucchi defended punishing the military, while pointing out that punishment does not necessarily mean a prison sentence. Vannuchi ended with an expression borrowed from the Chilean President Michelle Bachelet: “Only washed wounds will heal”.
Norway’s Efforts to Support Human Rights Defenders in word and image
October 23, 2012In 2010, Norway adopted a new set of guidelines with a view to intensifying its efforts in supporting human rights defenders.
In June 2012, the NGO Protection International met with Ms Claire Hubert, First Secretary of the Permanent Mission of Norway in Geneva, during the round table on National Policies for the Protection on HRDs.
The event was organized by PI in cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders Margareth Sekaggya.
In a short video message on VIMEO (http://vimeo.com/51596610) Claire Hubert, explains how protecting human rights defenders is a priority in Norway’s human rights policy.
She encourages defenders to reach out to diplomats, so that the latter know the defenders and adequately assist them whenever they need protection. The English version of Norway policy paper can be found on:
regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/Menneskerettigheter/Menneskerettighetsforkjaempere/VeiledningMRforkjengelskFIN.pdf
There Are Absolutely No Political Executions in Iran ………..
October 23, 2012In this excellent blog post, R0ya Boroumand shows the statement by Sadeq Larijani – Head of the Judiciary and Iran official spokesperson on human rights – to be nonsense. Even more she reflects how the death of her own father (stabbed to death in Paris in 1991) has motivated her to continue documenting human rights violations in Iran. And she draws the conclusion that it must have helped:
“Perhaps Larijani’s denial of political executions is not meant for the Iranian people or the human rights community, but rather for a poorly informed and supportive constituency outside Iran that is too willing to accept the Islamic Republic’s habit of blaming others for its shortcomings. But we should appreciate Larijani’s unease, even if it is expressed in the form of a blatant lie. The fact that the number of reported executions in Iran has been trending downward — from 817 in 2010 and 652 in 2011 to 385 so far in 2012 — may well have to do with the active presence and reporting of the UN special rapporteurs and others who are focused on safeguarding human rights.
Through my work toward documenting the stories of all the Islamic Republic’s victims, I have found the best answers I can to the questions that obsessed in 1991. I have also found some relief from the consuming anguish and frustration that decades of untold stories and anonymous suffering by thousands of victims and victims’ loved ones have brought in their train.
The painstaking task of documenting thousands of executions to which my colleagues and I have devoted our lives for the past ten years, added to the efforts of other human rights organizations, has helped to protect people who dare to speak up. Perhaps, and in spite of the limited means at our disposal, we have made the regime worry that if it kills them they will not be forgotten, and so stayed the executioner’s hand. Larijani’s absurd claim that “there are absolutely no political executions in Iran” did not make me smile, but it did reinforce my conviction that truth telling is the most effective tool we have to make tyrants uneasy and slower to unleash their violence.”
How bad is it in the Gambia? Freedom Radio has some disturbing quotes
October 19, 2012I just read the following piece (“A Vote of No Confidence on President Jammeh’s Appalling Human Rights Record”) by Alagi Yorro Jallow, who is a journalist and founding managing editor of the banned Independent newspaper in Gambia. He lives in the United States.He is a Nieman fellow at Harvard University. I copy it in full but draw especially attention to the underlined parts re HRDs. Would anybody really say this aloud? IF he stated this, how come there is so little reaction?
The Gambia today is neither complete dictatorship nor democracy, neither paradise nor complete hell; we are at a crossroad between “sembocracy” and “massala.” Under the leadership of President Yahya Jammeh and his APRC, the Gambia has descended into chaos. Its citizens live in fear of reprisal and harassment by government lackeys, its economy is in tatters, its media have been muzzled, and the social fabric of this once peaceful land is in danger of disintegration.
The sooner the African Commission gets out of the Gambia and dispenses with the inconveniences of history of how the Banjul Charter was developed, the better for practical human rights advocacy on the continent. The relocation of the African Commission would be a vote of no confidence in Jammeh’s administration of bad governance and human rights violation—one that I have long supported. Jammeh’s continued human rights abuses and poor governance portray that he feels that the Gambia and Gambians belong to him, and the presence of the Commission may seem to him and to some others as a supposed kernel of human rights promotion and protection in the Gambia. During the 64th session of the UN general assembly in New York, Jammeh explicitly threatened to kill human rights workers in the Gambia, including those visiting from elsewhere and people who cooperate with them. In a televised address, he stated:
“I will kill anyone who wants to destabilize this country. If you think that you can collaborate with so-called human rights defenders, and yet get away with it, you must be living in a dream world. I will kill you, and nothing will come out of it. We are not going to condone people, posing as human rights defenders to the detriment of the country. If you are affiliated with any human rights group, rest assured that your security and personal safety would not be guaranteed by my government. We are ready to kill saboteurs.”
The Gambia had previously recognized the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is a member of the African Union, whose charter adopts universally accepted human rights including the rights to life and personal integrity, as well as freedom from cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. The African Union created the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, with headquarters in Banjul, as the institution to promote and protect the human rights of individual and collective rights of peoples throughout Africa.
Unlike at the United Nations general assembly in America where America’s sworn enemies can fly in and challenge the United States on its shores, discussing the Gambia’s human rights record during meetings of the African Commission is strictly taboo.Thus, prominent human rights activists have been declared personae non grata for daring to shine a light on the Gambia’s poor human rights record. Many activists will simply not go to Gambia for fear of committing the ignominious sin of self-censorship, lest they risk being deported, when the voiceless suffer under the might of the powerful. Because of these human rights breaches, the continued presence of the headquarters of the African Commission in the Gambia is tantamount to condoning and even bankrolling a dictatorship.
Jammeh’s government look forward to the tourism revenue that the African Commission’s jamboree brings each year, which is used to finance flamboyant lifestyles and shield Gambians from worse repressions. In this way, the African Commission’s presence in Gambia legitimizes Jammeh’s acts of insanity.
Jammeh’s views have always been extreme, ever since he began to strive for power in Gambia, and recently they have only gotten worse. Below is an early statement made by Jammeh towards human rights defenders and journalists, where he accused some journalists and newspapers of printing half-truths and falsehoods which could create confusion and cause dissension in the society. He warned that the military would not tolerate instigation and innuendo calculated to create confusion for the Gambian people. In a show of his true feelings toward press freedom, even back then, he described journalists as the “illegitimate sons of Africa.” Below are the exact words of then Chairman of AFPRC Yahya Jammeh in a public rally in 1994:
“The enemies of African progress, the illegitimate sons of this country disguise themselves in the form of journalists, in the form of freedom fighters, in the form of human rights activists BUT they are all illegitimate sons of Africa. Get rid of them. The so called journalists, they are very vulnerable. You can send them into the streets begging when you don’t buy their newspapers; they won’t function; they depend on you. Don’t allow the mosquito to suck your blood, father tell you no lie. One day I was looking at a something you call newspaper, and I saw a big headline: DETAINEES STILL DETAINED HERE. When I looked at the headline I said, Yeah, they are still detained here; what can you do about it? They talk about Human Rights, an issue they don’t even understand. And I will tell you what Human Rights stand for: it is an illusion, a fallacy that is non existent anywhere in this world; it is a western machination to manipulate Africa, and I will tell you each letter of Human Rights what it stands for. The H stands for Hoodwink. You all know what hoodwink is, to blindfold people! The U stands for the Universe. M stands for Manipulate! A stands for Africa, and N stands for African Nations! They hoodwink the universe, manipulate the African nations. The R stands for to rip you off; they rip you off of your gold. After hoodwinking the universe and manipulating African nations, they rip you off of ideals, so that Africans will have no ideals but will follow their exported ideology that is meant to create wars in Africa, famine and starvation. We will never accept that, to turn some Africans into stooges so that they can always continue to manipulate us. We the AFPRC are saying that we will die but we will never let them suck our blood again. Tell me any country where there is so called human rights and people are not executed; tell me in most of the so-called western types of human rights, those who uphold the so-called principle of democracy, when you go to their jails, Africans form the majority of all the inmates. What types of rights are they talking about? So you see the fallacy in human rights? We will never accept it. I told you I will not talk about traitors because they continue to hang themselves. They will run but they will never hide. Their days are numbered and they know about it. Anybody under the AFPRC who steals even a single dime, you can go to wherever you think you can be free, you will never sleep, and you will come home either dead or alive, but you will never enjoy this world and in the next world you will burn. And I will tell you, this is what the so-called champions of human rights, of course they are champions of human rights, because they are enemies of Africa. But I will tell you what your rights are: Your rights are to live in peace, equality and prosperity. Anything that belongs to the nation, belongs to all of us. We have a right to development As far as we are concerned, you are free as long as your freedom does not encroach upon the rights of others. If you encroach upon the rights of others, you can never be free and we can never respect you. The law is to deal with you. We are running a state. We are not running a financial company We are not running a cowboy camp. We are not running a hippy camp. What we are running is a nation of human beings, where people are equal. If you think that you are going to use outside ideology to disturb us, what you are going to face will be worse than death. Gambians, this is a warning to all Gambians. We are Africans, we are Gambians, we are soldiers. Any patriotic Gambian is a soldier because you defend this country against injustice. We have passed the stage of appealing to people. If you want to be a donkey, we will treat you like a double donkey. If you want to be a human being, we will treat you like a human being. There is no compromise, and no nation outside The Gambia can do anything about it. If you want to be free, don’t steal. If you want to be free, don’t be a crook. If you want to be a free man don’t advocate for violence. Because when violence comes your bones would be in the air. People think they can use pressure to force us into elections? We can tell you, if we don’t want election in the next thousand years there will be no election. And those who want election, we will makesure that you go six feet deep, and there is nothing anybody can do about it!”
Last year, Jammeh’s pseudo-electoral process, which confirmed him for his fourth consecutive term in office, was dismissed by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as not free and fair because of the high level of “intimidation, unacceptable level of control of the electronic media by his ruling party, the lack of neutrality of state and parastatal institutions, and an opposition and electorate cowed by repression and intimidation.” One of the sad things about the Gambia is that there is little room for alternative views and leadership to emerge as long as this dictatorial regime continues to lead the country. Ironically, in the Gambia the topic of human rights is discussed only when there is an African Commission on Human Rights in the Gambia but not if it were on the rest of the continent. The Gambia government does not give a damn about the commission and it has been reported that the Gambia government has not submitted its State party report for the past six years, even though it’s a basic treaty obligation. Again, though not respecting its obligation on human rights procedures, Gambia government has always been happy to offer the commission a traditional welcome banquet as part of its good will in hosting the body.
Before the military takeover by Jammeh, the Gambia was known as the “smiling coast,” a place of sunshine, hospitality and generosity. It was the custodian of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights, where the country’s position as an advocate for human rights was on display. Soon afterward, the government brazenly contradicted its position through extrajudicial executions in a tragic betrayal of the Gambia’s obligations to freedom and human rights. Despite its many challenges and critics, the significance of the role played by the commission in the protection of human rights particularly through its interpretation and enforcement of the African Charter cannot be denied. It also remains indisputable as the main and most relevant human rights oversight body on the continent and the only one that provides direct access to an individual after he or she has exhausted all local remedies.
At the time, the African Commission was hosted in Gambia not only because the African Charter had been adopted in Banjul and headquartered there but because the Gambia’s adherence to international political and human rights norms was seen at the time as exemplary. It was thought that this commitment to human rights would ensure the Gambia as a good place to serve as headquarters to both the charter and commission.
In accepting the invitation to host the African Commission, the Gambian government agreed to guarantee the conditions and sustain an environment that would enable the norms and values of human rights and democracy to flourish. However, they have not kept this pledge.
Consequently, there have recently been more and more voices for the relocation of the commission’s headquarters from Banjul to a more suitable place, since many are again questioning the wisdom of keeping the commission in Gambia given the country’s appalling human rights record (including the recent executions and the government’s defiance of the commission’s recommendations).
President Jammeh is Africa’s forgotten dictator, and since he took power illegally in 1994 he has never considered giving it back. Although the Gambia has been relatively stable under Jammeh’s iron-fisted rule, poverty and human rights abuses remain high. According to 2010 World Bank figures, the Gambia’s gross national income per capita was only $450.
The real question is, how and for how long can the Gambian people continue to live under Jammeh’s “Tangal Cheeb” administration? Because as of yet we have no answer to this question, and because there is no immediate hope for the improvement of Gambian human rights in sight, relocation of the African Commission would be best not only for the country (because of the pressure it might put on the Gambian government to stop impeding human rights) but for the African continent as a whole.
Observatory for HRDs makes statement to 52nd session of African Commission on Human Rights
October 18, 2012In a recent document (18 October 2012) the FIDH and the OMCT, in the framework of their joint Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, express their renewed concern about the situation of human rights defenders in Africa.
Since the last session of the African Commission in May 2012, the Observatory has not recorded any improvement of their situation on the continent. Quite on the contrary, human rights violations against defenders have continued, in particular judicial harassment, threats, intimidations, arbitrary detentions and unjustified condemnations. The situation of human rights defenders has even become alarming in situations of internal conflicts, such as for instance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. For the full statement see:
Judicial crackdown on human rights defenders continues in Bahrain
October 18, 2012The situation in Bahrain continues to deteriorate and judicial harassment goes on unabated:
On 16 October 2012, human rights defender and president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights Mohamed Al-Masktai has been summoned for interrogation at Al-Naem police station. On 17 Oct 2012 he was released. Human rights defender Mohamed Al-Masktai has been active in documenting and reporting the violations committed by the Bahraini authorities in recent months. In September 2012 he has been subjected to intimidation campaign as he received more than a dozen anonymous phone calls threatening his life and the safety of his family, which followed an oral intervention he delivered at the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva, during a panel discussion focused on intimidations and reprisals, where he informed the (HRC) about the massive intimidation campaign against him.
On 16 October 2012, human rights defender Nader Abdulemam was summoned for interrogation at the public prosecution office. At the time of writing this appeal (17 Oct) Nader Abdulemam has not appeared at the public prosecution office as yet.
In addition to her previous 13 plus lawsuits, activist and human rights defender Zainab Al-Khawaja was summoned again for a new case that includes the charge of “insulting a police officer”. The case goes back to 6 May 2012, however it has been activated just now and a trial was scheduled on 17 October 2012, but postponed to 2 November 2012 in order to summon Al-Khawaja. Al-Khawaja was recently released on 3 October 2012 after she spent two months imprisonment sentence on the charge of “ripping photo of king of Bahrain”. She is expecting verdicts on several cases in the coming weeks.
On 16 October 2012, the court refused to release leading human rights defender Nabeel Rajab; during a session of his appeal trial against 3 year imprisonment sentence which has he received on charges of “participating in illegal gatherings” and “calling for gatherings over social media”.
In addition, the court refused to provide assistance to allow foreigner witnesses to enter Bahrain and testify on behalf of Rajab. On 15 October 2012, Stephanie David, a representative from FIDH has been denied entry to Bahrain to testify for Rajab, as she was required to provide an authorization from the court.
Bahrain: Judicial crackdown continues on human rights defenders and activists.