Schlagwort: Amnesty International

Human rights education (HRE) is something I keep coming back to over and over again in my career. When I embarked in human rights 27 years ago, my colleagues and I wanted to feel and understand the values we were seeking to promote, which is why we organized practical activities for human rights for ourselves and teachers from the United Nations ABC’s of human rights [1] and Council of Europe materials [2]. Now, as I work for Amnesty International, HRE is an integral part of our country and thematic work and an important tool to reach out to young people, build membership and complement our research and campaigning.

The old story of human rights goes something like this: human rights were born out of the ashes of World War II to prevent war, genocide and dictatorship. Unfortunately, for many this story no longer has any traction, as World War II is considered to be ancient history, something largely irrelevant to contemporary concerns. In many countries, especially in Europe, people no longer fear war, genocide or dictatorship.  More often, they fear economic uncertainty, bad health care, migration, terrorism, and increasingly, climate change. We need a new story that addresses the yearning for social and economic rights, for predictability in an age of rapid change. We need a story that is not so intertwined with World War II.

Many are trying to weave this new story, but it remains an ongoing challenge. My take at the moment is as follows: human rights guarantee that you can be you, they shield the weak from the strong; they are an insurance policy against having the rug pulled out from under us by globalization, bad government or greedy corporations. I encourage you all to try to retell the story of human rights in ways that are relevant in your local context.  

We need to retell the story and link it to broader regional and global concerns. In other words, we need to localize, nationalize, regionalize and universalize human rights. Regarding localization, nobody said it better than Eleanor Roosevelt: 

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.[3]

I have sought to localize human rights at various points in my career. I remember organizing a human rights seminar with educators in a small village in Latvia. We talked about who were the most vulnerable – lone pensioners, women and kids subject to domestic violence by drunk fathers, persons with disabilities, but we also touched on regional and global concerns. I remember when I was Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights from 2012 to 2018. Every week I travelled to one of the 47 member states. At a certain point, I remember talking to my team, and asking “what about human rights in Strasbourg?” So we visited a migrant detention centre, met with local NGOs, then met with the local government prefect. We visited Roma squats on the outskirts of town and a municipal facility. My point is that it is important to look around you, not just to faraway places.

I have been most comfortable not at the local, national or global level, but at the regional level. My work as member and chair of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, as Commissioner, and as director of the Europe Regional Office at Amnesty all attest to this. I get a bit bored working only in one country, I am interested in regional trends and believe that regional human rights mechanisms can be put to good work. Moreover, the regional level is manageable in terms of knowledge and understanding the landscape, whereas I find the global level a bit daunting.  

However, we in Europe have a special responsibility globally – because of the history of colonialism, because of our wealth, because of our interconnectedness with the rest of the world through climate change, migration and other processes. Colleagues in Amnesty push me to look beyond Europe almost every day. When I joined Amnesty I was told by colleagues from the global South that one of my tasks was to continue the decolonization of the organization with regard to North-South funding, decision-making, etc. But Europe’s externalization of migration to neighbouring countries and vaccine nationalism also require us to look to the effects of our actions beyond the continent. Our past involvement in Afghanistan implicates us heavily in the current woes of this country and its people.

When trying to work globally, however, we face many risks, including that of facilitating homogenization and replicating old patterns of paternalism. In a book on Amnesty’s history, I found a harsh quote attributed to an Indian human rights activist who told a senior Amnesty staffer:

You, Amnesty, you are the McDonalds of human rights. You are the face of globalization in human rights terms. You come in here, you build your prefabricated restaurants, you displace local cuisine and local activism.[4]

While being sensitive to the risks, we need to universalize human rights to cover all people, because there are many who are ignored by the mainstream. I encourage you to ask yourself who lacks legitimacy in your space? Who is it socially acceptable to discriminate against?  Is it indigenous people? Persons with intellectual and psycho-social disabilities? Ethnic and/or religious minorities? LGBTI persons?

In the European space it is first and foremost migrants – otherwise the mainstream would never tolerate the mass scale and violent nature of pushbacks all around the European Union’s external border. It is also Muslims, especially Muslim women, who are the only religious minority that has been targeted numerous times by specific legislation in a number of European countries. And in many parts of Europe it is Roma, Europe’s most marginalized, excluded minority.  

We need to keep retelling the story of human rights. We need to move back and forth between local, regional and global levels. We need to actively search for those who are invisible, those whom it is socially acceptable to ostracize and to discriminate against. And we need to fight back.  HRE is an excellent weapon in our arsenal.

---

[1] See, e.g., OHCHR, ABC: Teaching Human Rights – Practical Activities for primary and secondary schools (United Nations: New York and Geneva, 2004).

[2] See, e.g., Rui Gomes, ed., Compass: Manual for Human Rights Education with Young People (Council of Europe: Strasbourg, 2012).

[3] https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/10-inspiring-eleanor-roosevelt-quotes/.

[4] Stephen Hopgood, Keepers of the Flame: Understanding Amnesty International (Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London, 2006), pp. 174-5.

The post Universalizing Human Rights appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to the news that Iranian authorities have transferred Farhad Salehi Jabehdar, a 30-year-old man sentenced to death for the rape of a child, to solitary confinement in preparation for his execution on 29 September at dawn, Diana Eltahawy, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director at Amnesty International, said: 

“The Iranian authorities must immediately halt the planned execution of Farhad Salehi Jabehdar. Regardless of the crime, the death penalty is the ultimate cruel inhuman and degrading punishment and its use cannot be justified in any circumstance. Under international law, states that retain the death penalty must restrict its use to the most serious crimes involving intentional killings. Iran, the world’s second most prolific executioner, continues to cruelly violate the right to life with little regard to its obligations under international law.    

“In addressing horrendous sexual and gender-based violence, Iran’s authorities should improve access to justice and reparations for victims and survivors, including by adopting and implementing adequate prevention measures and protection mechanisms, and pursuing effective criminal investigations instead of perpetuating the cycle of violence by resorting to yet another execution. 

“There is no credible evidence that the death penalty has a greater deterrence effect on crimes than prison terms, and justice is never served by taking a life. We urge the Iranian authorities to halt the execution of Farhad Salehi Jabehdar, and to set a moratorium on the death penalty pending its complete abolition.” 

Background 

Farhad Salehi Jabehdar was arrested on 10 June 2018 over the sexual assault of a 10-year-old child in 2017. He was convicted of “forced male-male intercourse” (lavat-e be-onf) and sentenced to death by Criminal Court One of Alborz Province on 12 March 2019. The conviction and sentence were upheld by the Supreme Court. 

The father of the child formally requested that the authorities not impose the death penalty on Farhad Salehi Jabehdar in November 2019. His lawyer appealed to President Ebrahim Raisi in his former capacity as head of the judiciary to stop the execution, and order a review of the case, but Ebrahim Raisi did not accept the request. Multiple requests for judicial review to the Supreme Court have also been rejected. A number of religious opinions from several high-profile Shia clerics have also been submitted in support of legal efforts to halt his execution. His execution, which had previously been scheduled for April 2021, was postponed following domestic and international interventions.  

There is no credible evidence that the death penalty has a greater deterrence effect on crimes than prison terms, and justice is never served by taking a life.

Diana Eltahawy, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director

In 2020, Iran carried out 246 recorded executions, making it the world’s second top executioner. Executions were carried out following convictions and death sentences in grossly unfair trials marred by claims of torture-tainted “confessions”, as well as following convictions for crimes that do not meet the threshold of most serious crimes involving intentional killing.  

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception, regardless of the nature or circumstances of the crime; guilt, innocence or other characteristics of the individual; or the method used by the state to carry out the execution. 

The post Iran: Stop imminent execution of Farhad Salehi Jabehdar appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to a decision by Lebanese authorities to suspend the investigation into the 2020 Beirut port blast, following complaints filed by two MPs summoned for interrogation accusing the leading investigative judge of bias, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, Lynn Maalouf, said:

“This decision is just the latest evidence that the political leadership have had one aim since day one of this investigation – to stop it. And it is yet another illustration of their callous disregard for the rights of the victims, survivors and their families.

This decision is just the latest evidence that the political leadership have had one aim since day one of this investigation – to stop it

Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International

“Every stage of this investigation has been hampered by the Lebanese authorities’ efforts to shield politicians and officials from scrutiny. They dismissed the first judge on the case and suspended the work of the second, refused to lift immunity for MPs, and failed to appear for questioning when summoned.

“The suspension of the investigation is yet another reminder of the urgent need for the UN Human Rights Council, which is currently in session, to establish a fact-finding mechanism, and heed the calls made by dozens of organizations, victims’ families, including recommendations from the EU and UN human rights experts.”

Over the past 13 months, the Lebanese authorities have repeatedly obstructed the course of the investigation into the port blast taking all possible steps to shield politicians and officials implicated in the blast from questioning or prosecution.

Most recently, two MPs who had been summoned for interrogation in connection with the explosion, accused Judge Tarek Bitar, who is leading the investigation into the port blast, of political bias. He had previously sought to lift MPs’ immunity and to question former Prime Minister Hassan Diab as well as three former ministers – current MPs and senior members of the security forces. None appeared for questioning.

He is the second judge to be accused of bias by politicians or officials summoned for interrogation. The first, Judge Fadi Sawan was dismissed by the Court of Cassation after he summoned political figures for questioning and was accused of bias partially because his own home was damaged by the explosion.

The post Lebanon: Suspension of investigation into Beirut blast points to authorities’ brazen attempts to obstruct justice appeared first on Amnesty International.

Efficient, fair trial should hold 2009 stadium abusers accountable

(Conakry, September 27, 2021) – The trial of suspects in the massacre of more than 150 people and the rape of dozens of women in a Guinea stadium on 28 September 2009 should begin as soon as possible, six human rights groups said today.

Twelve years later, victims and their families should not have to wait any longer for justice to finally be delivered.

As Guinea embarks on a political transition process after the 5 September 2021 coup, the opening of this trial would send a strong signal that the authorities are willing to put respect for human rights and the fight against impunity at the center of their priorities.

The groups are the Association of Victims, Relatives and Friends of September 28, 2009 (AVIPA), Equal Rights for All (MDT), the Guinean Human Rights Organization (OGDH), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

Although 12 years have gone by, the need for justice remains as strong as ever for the survivors of the massacre and victims’ families. Just one year ago, the six groups had denounced the delays and time wasted in organizing the trial. The wait has become unbearable for the survivors and victims’ families, the groups said, given that the investigation phase concluded in late 2017.

The Guinean government has promised several times to begin the trial as soon as possible, and no later than June 2020. The organizations remain concerned by an evident lack of will to complete preparations for this trial in Guinea.

In recent months, the steering committee overseeing the preparations for the trial, made up of government officials and international partners, had resumed its work and adopted a road map. Construction had progressed at Conakry’s Court of Appeal, where the trial is to take place, and a training session for judges was planned by the French government. However, despite these efforts, no trial date has yet been set.

Given the deteriorating health of the survivors, we, together with the Association of Victims, Relatives and Friends of 28 September 2009, are calling for this year to be the last commemoration before justice is done.

Aissatou Diallo, a survivor of the 28 September events

“It is urgent for the trial to be held and reparations awarded before all the victims die.”

The investigation by Guinean judges began in February 2010. More than 13 suspects were charged, 11 of whom were sent for trial. Among them is Moussa Dadis Camara, the former leader of the National Council for Democracy and Development junta that ruled Guinea in September 2009, who is living in exile in Burkina Faso. Some of the suspects who have been charged held influential positions until the recent coup, including Moussa Tiegboro Camara, who was in charge of fighting drug trafficking and organized crime.

The organizations are closely following Guinea’s period of political transition after the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (Comité national du rassemblement et du développement, CNRD) took power on 5 September 2021, and reiterated their call for the respect of human rights and fundamental liberties of all Guineans.

As the CNRD leader, Mamady Doumbouya, stated that “justice will be the compass guiding every Guinean citizen,” the fight against impunity should be at the heart of the authorities’ actions, the groups said.

“It is more than urgent for Guinea to put an end to the cycle of impunity that has deeply marked the country’s history for more than 60 years,” the groups said.

“We remind the authorities that international law requires states to provide effective remedies to victims of human rights violations and that any lack of justice or the adoption of an amnesty for serious crimes is incompatible with these requirements.”

It is also essential for the new authorities to guarantee the protection of human rights defenders and activists who have suffered numerous violations of their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for years.

The groups added

“The new authorities should make justice a prerequisite of their actions.”

The International Criminal Court (ICC) opened a preliminary examination of the situation in Guinea in October 2009. Designed as a court of last resort for the most serious crimes, the ICC steps in when national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate and prosecute such cases.

In its latest report, the ICC had expressed its disappointment that “the trial has not yet started and no timeline or action plan for the opening of the trial has been communicated by the Government of Guinea.” The ICC had indicated that “the Guinean authorities must demonstrate, in the coming months, their will and ability to combat impunity and to prevent renewed cycles of violence.”

Guinea’s partners, particularly the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the African Union, the European Union, the ICC, and the United Nations should pay increased attention to the current situation in the country and strengthen their actions and support, on the one hand, for the September 28 trial to be organized as soon as possible, and on the other, for the new authorities in Guinea to respect human rights.

Background

Shortly before noon on 28 September 2009, several hundred members of Guinea’s security forces opened fire on tens of thousands of people who had gathered peacefully at the 28 September stadium in Conakry for a march against Dadis Camara’s intention to run for president. The security forces also individually or gang raped more than 100 women and sexually assaulted some of them with objects such as batons or bayonets, during or soon after the events. The security forces killed more than 150 people and wounded hundreds of others.

The security forces then organized a cover-up operation, sealing off all the entrances to the stadium and morgues and removing the bodies to bury them in mass graves. Many of the graves have yet to be identified.

After the investigation was completed, in April 2018, the then-justice minister, Cheick Sako, set up a steering committee to organize the trial. It set Conakry’s Court of Appeal as the location.

In January 2020, justice minister Mohammed Lamine Fofana announced to the United Nations his government’s “unequivocal” support for opening the trial. Despite his announcement that proceedings would begin in June, following completion of construction on the courtroom facility, the trial did not move forward during this past year.

In June, Mory Doumbouya was appointed justice minister. Minister Doumbouya said that he supported the trial, but that the judiciary was responsible for organizing it.

The post Guinea: Coup further complicates massacre justice appeared first on Amnesty International.

Responding to the disbandment of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (Hong Kong Alliance), which has organized Hong Kong’s Tiananmen commemoration vigil for the past 30 years, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director Yamini Mishra said: 

“For 32 years, the Chinese government has sought to censor all mention of the Tiananmen crackdown on the mainland.  The effectively forced disbandment of the Hong Kong Alliance is the latest signal that authorities in Hong Kong are keen to do the same.

“The candlelight vigil organized by the Hong Kong Alliance has inspired generations of Hongkongers to denounce the horrific events of 4 June 1989. While the Beijing authorities punished those in the mainland who sought justice for Tiananmen victims, the Alliance tirelessly archived evidence of what really happened.

“But the pressure exerted on the group in the lead-up to its disbandment, including arrests of some of its leaders on various charges and a police investigation into its peaceful activities, show that such June Fourth-related activism will no longer be tolerated.

“After the recent demise of some of Hong Kong’s largest unions and the group organizing some of the city’s largest protests, it is clear the Hong Kong government is targeting civil society groups with broad support and the capacity to mobilize. Worryingly, the government’s crackdown on such organizations seems likely to continue.

“Without the Hong Kong Alliance, the future of the Hong Kong’s June Fourth vigil seems bleak. But the large numbers of people who chose to publicly remember Tiananmen for the past two years, despite the vigils being banned, shows that Hongkongers will not be forced to forget this dark chapter in China’s past.”

Background

For three decades, the Hong Kong Alliance organized the world’s biggest commemoration of the Tiananmen crackdown, which took place on the evening of 3–4 June 1989, when hundreds – possibly thousands – of people were killed in Beijing when troops opened fire on students and workers who had been peacefully calling for political and economic reforms as well as an end to corruption.

Every year on 4 June since 1990, tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of people joined a candlelight vigil in Hong Kong’s Victoria Park to remember those killed. They called on the Chinese authorities to reveal the truth about what happened and take accountability for the fatalities. For the past two years, the vigil was banned on Covid-19 grounds.

The Hong Kong Alliance announced its decision to disband on Saturday 25 September after coming under increasing pressure since the enactment of Hong Kong’s national security law in June 2020.

Last month, the group received a letter from the Hong Kong police’s national security unit accusing it of “collusion with foreign forces” and requesting information about its membership, finances and activities.

Group leaders Lee Cheuk Yan, Albert Ho and Chow Hang-tung were subsequently charged with “inciting subversion” under the national security law and face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Their trial begins on 28 October.

The Hong Kong Alliance is the latest organization to fold in the city, following the recent disbandment of two other civic groups who were being targeted either by the authorities or pro-Beijing media. 

The Civil Human Rights Front, the umbrella group behind many of Hong Kong’s largest protests, disbanded on 13 August. Three days earlier, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union (HKPTU) said it was breaking up after the government ceased working with the it and police warned of further action.

Earlier this week, the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) said it will also disband due to threats to the safety of its members.

The post Hong Kong: Demise of vigil group shows marking Tiananmen crackdown will not be tolerated appeared first on Amnesty International.