Schlagwort: Amnesty International

Responding to today’s decision by Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal to sentence former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal to death after convicting them in absentia of crimes against humanity, Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard, said: 

“Those individually responsible for the egregious violations and allegations of crimes against humanity that took place during the student-led protests in July and August 2024 must be investigated and prosecuted in fair trials. However, this trial and sentence is neither fair nor just. Victims need justice and accountability, yet the death penalty simply compounds human rights violations. It’s the ultimate cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment and has no place in any justice process. 

“More than 1,400 people were killed and thousands injured between July and August 2024. Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted. Instead, this trial has been conducted before a court that Amnesty International has long criticized for its lack of independence and history of unfair proceedings. Further, the unprecedented speed of this trial in absentia and verdict raises significant fair trial concerns for a case of this scale and complexity. Although Sheikh Hasina was represented by a court-appointed lawyer, the time to prepare a defence was manifestly inadequate. Such unfair trial indicators are compounded by reports that defence cross examination of evidence deemed to be contradictory was not allowed. 

Justice for survivors and victims demands that fiercely independent and impartial proceedings, which meet international human rights standards are conducted

Amnesty International’s Secretary General, Agnès Callamard

“This was not a fair trial. The victims of July 2024 deserve far better. Bangladesh needs a justice process that is scrupulously fair and fully impartial beyond all suspicion of bias and does not resort to order further human rights violations through the death penalty. Only then can genuine and meaningful truth, justice and reparations be delivered.” 

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.  

Background 

Mass protests erupted in July 2024 in response to the reinstatement of a 30% quota in government jobs for the children of freedom fighters, which the protesters felt favoured supporters of the ruling party. The protests intensified after Bangladeshi authorities used unlawful violence against largely peaceful protesters, and calls mounted for the resignation of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government. Hasina fled Bangladesh following the deadly violence and prosecutors filed charges against her, other members of government and security forces before the International Crimes Tribunal in June. 

Last year, Amnesty International  documented the violence and repression in Bangladesh in response to the students-led quota-reform protests across the country. We published a video verification series documenting evidence of the unlawful use of both lethal and less-lethal force against student protesters. 

Chowdhury Abdullah Al-Mamun, the former police chief who turned into a state witness, was sentenced to five years in prison. He plead guilty, and was tried in-person. 

Amnesty International has repeatedly criticized Bangladesh’s International Crimes Tribunal for politically influenced trials and systemic fair trial violations, including pressure for death sentences and contempt proceedings against critics (2013 statement, 2014 statement). 

The post Bangladesh: Justice for victims of 2024 massacre not served by death sentence against Sheikh Hasina appeared first on Amnesty International.

Moldova’s diverse and multi-lingual media face multiple challenges, including restrictions based on vague national legislation, penalties that are unwarranted and fail to follow due process, harassment, as well as direct reporting restrictions in Russian-occupied Transnistria, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.

The report, Media freedom in Moldova: Fragility, undue restrictions and self-censorship in the face of polarized politics, documents the risks to media due to measures taken by the Moldovan authorities, including the introduction and abuse of emergency powers, particularly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. It shows how the authorities have resorted to the suspension of broadcasting licenses without transparency or judicial oversight to counter the spread of Russia-originated disinformation and misinformation and alleged Russian attempts to illegally sway Moldova’s politics, underlined by the Russian war of aggression in neighbouring Ukraine.

“The Moldovan authorities argue that such measures are a necessary response to the country’s security needs. Yet, this response to external threats fails to comply with the requirements of legality, necessity and proportionality. It puts independent journalism and freedom of expression itself at risk,” said Veaceslav Tofan, Executive Director of Amnesty International Moldova.

“In government-controlled Moldova, these emergency measures alongside a lack of protection against harassment and vague legislation, have led to self-censorship even among some pro-European media. Elsewhere, the situation is plainly dire. The authorities must not put fundamental freedoms at risk.

“Moldova’s authorities must protect media freedom and develop media regulations in consultation with media and civil society, not seek to control the country’s information space through controversial legislation and extrajudicial punitive measures.”

Moldova’s authorities must protect media freedom and develop media regulations in consultation with media and civil society, not seek to control the country’s information space through controversial legislation and extrajudicial punitive measures

Veaceslav Tofan, Executive Director of Amnesty International Moldova

Introduction of new controversial legislation and sanctions for media

Following the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Moldova’s parliament imposed a new state of emergency which granted the Commission for Exceptional Situations (CES), a non-judicial authority, the powers to introduce new media regulations and impose sanctions on media for breaking them. Before the state of emergency expired, the CES suspended the broadcasting licenses of 12 TV channels, and blocked access to dozens of websites, in response to alleged media-related threats from Russia.

The CES’s non-judicial powers expired at the same time as the state of emergency, on 30 December 2023, only to be transferred to the Council for the Promotion of Investment Projects of National Importance (CPIPNI), under swiftly passed legislation which, absurdly, purported to ensure “integrity and functionality of the electricity market.” The CPIPNI has de-licensed without due process guarantees, permanently or temporarily, at least 18 TV and radio channels, for either belonging to physical and legal persons of interest to the security services or merely suspected of belonging to such persons due to opaque ownership arrangements.

Apart from swiftly passing controversial new laws, the government continues to rely on earlier, overly restrictive and vaguely worded legislation, which prohibits dissemination of disinformation, without clearly defining the term, and retransmission of “audiovisual television and radio programmes with informative, informative-analytical, military and political content” produced outside of a limited list of countries, which manifestly excludes Russia.

Journalists from the affected media outlets complained to Amnesty International that the authorities disallowed coverage of certain topics, like the Russian authorities’ position on the Russian war against Ukraine, from an alternative – that the authorities would understand as pro-Russian – point of view.

A high-ranking Moldovan official argued that de-licensing media outlets outside of a judicial process was a “war-time measure” needed in response to media-related threats posed by Russia, compounded by the challenges posed by the “dysfunctionality” and slowness of the courts in Moldova.

For affected media, the only option is to challenge the penalties after they are applied. Six of the TV channels delicensed by the CES challenged the decision in court. The judge upheld the penalty in a ruling based solely on a review of procedural compliance, and not the lawfulness of the CES’s decision with regards to its compliance with Moldova’s international human rights obligations.

“When the government decides it can bypass judicial oversight when applying penalties as severe as media de-licensing, and rushes through legislation which ‘legalizes’ this approach, it harms all Moldova’s media and undermines human rights. It leads to self-censorship, stifles free expression and obstructs access to legal remedies. Such measures directly contravene international human rights law, and must be promptly reversed,” said Veaceslav Tofan.

When the government decides it can bypass judicial oversight when applying penalties as severe as media de-licensing, and rushes through legislation which ‘legalizes’ this approach, it harms all Moldova’s media and undermines human rights

Veaceslav Tofan, Executive Director of Amnesty International Moldova

Harassment of journalists in Gagauzia and suppression of freedom of expression in Transnistria

The challenges faced by media are even more visible in Moldova’s regions. In the autonomous region of Gagauzia, journalists from media outlets that criticize regional authorities complain of harassment and obstruction. A journalist who worked for the regional public broadcaster felt compelled to resign from her job after publishing an article presenting an alternative view to that of local leaders on gas supplies from Russia.

In the Russian-occupied region of Transnistria, freedom of expression is virtually non-existent, with local legislation criminalizing the “insult” of officials, criticism or “distortion” of “the positive peacekeeping role” of Russian troops, as well as “rehabilitation of Nazism” and “dissemination of deliberately false information” about the USSR’s activities during World War II. Journalists from the government-controlled territory of Moldova are regarded as “foreign,” and cannot work freely in Transnistria.

Amnesty International calls on the Moldovan authorities to revise all media-related legislation in line with international standards, end the misuse of legislation against journalists and broadcasters, and ensure that all restrictions and sanctions against media are subject to independent judicial review. The organisation also urges the authorities to protect journalists from harassment and violence, including online threats, and to guarantee the human right to freedom of expression across the entire territory of Moldova, including Gagauzia and Transnistria.

The post Moldova: Fragile media challenged by vague laws, undue sanctions and harassment appeared first on Amnesty International.

Military courts continue to investigate possible human rights violations and crimes under international law committed by members of the Colombian security forces, despite express prohibitions in national and international standards, Amnesty International said today in a new report.

The report Insist, persist, resist and never give up? Impact of the use of military criminal justice on impunity for human rights violations in Colombia shows that use of the military criminal justice system (JPM) prevents access to justice, violates the rights of victims and exacerbates the damage caused by impunity.

“The use of military criminal justice in possible human rights violations is not a technical error: it is a structural obstacle that contributes to impunity,” said Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International.

The use of military criminal justice in possible human rights violations is not a technical error: it is a structural obstacle that contributes to impunity.” 

Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International.

Undue intervention

According to international human rights standards, military judges should never preside over trials involving civilians, possible human rights violations or crimes under international law. The report points out the contradiction inherent in the fact that the National Police in Colombia is defined as a civilian body, yet its members are investigated and subjected to trial by the JPM. Amnesty International believes that this issue can only be permanently resolved through constitutional reform.

Despite two decades of legal and constitutional reforms to criminal law and military jurisdiction, plus a wealth of case law from the Constitutional Court and international position statements, military justice continues to act in cases involving possible human rights violations and crimes under international law committed by members of the military and police forces, especially crimes against life and personal integrity. “This prevents Colombia from adequately guaranteeing access to justice for the victims,” said Ana Piquer.

A decades-old problem

The report analyses the enforced disappearances in the 1980s of Luis Fernando Lalinde and Nydia Erika Bautista at the hands of the Colombian military; at the time, investigation into these cases was taken on by courts comprised by these same military forces, with impunity prevailing to this day, four decades on.

The situation of protesters injured or killed by members of the National Police in the context of protests occurring over the last two decades is also analysed. Although Colombian case law is consistent in pointing out that these cases must be subject to the ordinary courts, judges and prosecutors from both military and ordinary courts continue to wrongly assign them to the JPM, hindering the judicial process.

The report is based on information provided to Amnesty International by the Attorney General’s Office, the JPM and the Constitutional Court, and includes a systematic review of 398 cases of conflicts of jurisdiction referred to the Constitutional Court for resolution between February 2021 and October 2024.

Demanding justice for human rights violations or crimes under international law allegedly committed by members of the military or the National Police usually takes years and is a process that requires addressing institutional barriers that favour impunity. “The jurisdiction of the military criminal justice system must be strictly limited to crimes committed by active duty military personnel. It cannot be extended to human rights violations or civilians, in accordance with international standards,” concluded Ana Piquer.

The jurisdiction of the military criminal justice system must be strictly limited to crimes committed by active duty military personnel. It cannot be extended to human rights violations or civilians, in accordance with international standards”.

Ana Piquer, Americas director at Amnesty International.

Amnesty International recommendations

Amnesty International calls on the Colombian state to: 

• Constitutionally exclude the National Police from the scope of jurisdiction of the JPM.
• Approve legislative reforms to specify that the jurisdiction of the JPM does not extend to possible human rights violations or crimes under international law.
• Adopt preventive measures to ensure that investigations into such crimes cannot be opened under the JPM, and that any that may already have been opened are transferred to the ordinary criminal justice system.
• Provide mandatory and comprehensive training to JPM and ordinary justice operators on applicable international standards and constitutional jurisprudence.

For further information or to arrange an interview, please contact press@amnesty.org

The post Colombia: The military criminal justice system should not act in cases of human rights violations appeared first on Amnesty International.

By Agnès Callamard, Secretary General at Amnesty International

South Africa has played a leading role in international efforts to prevent, stop and punish Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza. Now, as the nation prepares to host the first G20 Leaders’ Summit on African soil, it has an important opportunity to step up that pressure and fill the alarming void that has emerged in the international order.

While superpowers are undermining multilateralism through inaction and double standards, or actively attacking the international justice system, we look to states like South Africa to show principled leadership and champion a global vision that upholds and protects human rights universally.

The international community’s complicity or inaction in the face of Israel’s livestreamed genocide has been shameful and indefensible. World leaders’ collective failure to put a stop to Israel’s crimes under international law will stain their reputations for generations to come. Sadly, this was not for the first time. They have far too often allowed international law to be trampled on, betraying the legacy of the global consensus who said “never again” to the horrors of the Holocaust and the Second World War.

It has been particularly disconcerting to see the architects of the rules-based order take a sledgehammer at the values, principles or institutions underpinning it, from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the United States’ military support to Israel and its shameless sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the Palestinian NGOs al-Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights.

The G20 summit in Johannesburg comes after the African Union became a permanent member in 2023, affording the group and its members enhanced influence on the international stage. Amid the global leadership vacuum and the Trump administration’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s government must seize this opportunity to reinvigorate multilateralism and forge a new order truly committed to upholding international law and equality.

South Africa has set a strong example and shown much-needed leadership in protecting Palestinian rights, including through the case it brought against Israel under the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice in December 2023, and in co-founding the Hague Group, a coalition of nations determined to hold Israel accountable, including through the ICC. This is an encouraging start, but the gravity of the situation around the world, with international law set aside in favour of the principle that “might is right”, means South Africa must help build a bigger tent by forging larger and stronger international alliances to press powerful states and their regional proxies into abiding by international law.

To be a credible advocate at global level, South Africa must show greater consistency in its own human rights record.

South Africa must use all its leverage to compel Israeli authorities to lift their 18-year-long illegal blockade and allow unimpeded access to humanitarian aid to civilians in the entire Gaza Strip. All parties must respect the cessation of hostilities and ensure international law and respect for human rights are adhered to. South Africa, like other states, must press Israel to end its unlawful occupation of the Palestinian Territory and dismantle its cruel system of apartheid against Palestinians.

Elsewhere, South Africa should leverage its influence over Russia to press for an end to its crimes and human rights violations in Ukraine and step up its international advocacy work around the overlooked conflicts in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It must throw its full diplomatic weight behind regional and international accountability efforts and ensure the African Union urgently presses the Sudanese and DRC governments and forces such as the RSF and M23 to end their human rights abuses.

The world is also facing growing economic inequality both within and between countries. Much of this is a continuing legacy of colonialism and racial injustice, which South Africa itself still wrestles with, and is compounded by new and perpetuated inequalities driven by the response to human-induced climate change. African countries, including South Africa, have been instrumental in progressing a UN Tax Treaty to replace the current OECD-dominated one to ensure a fairer global tax system and address the billions lost every year to tax abuse. Yet there is still much to do, including a similar process and treaty on debt to tackle the unsustainable amounts owed by low-income countries, which are crippling their ability to deliver better and more climate-resilient economic and social rights enjoyment for their people. At 80 years old, the Bretton Woods financial system is clearly unfit for purpose and remains dominated by high-income countries who set the rules with often catastrophic consequences for lower-income nations. As a powerful voice for the global south, South Africa must ensure the G20 does not continue to neglect these vital issues but grasps the nettle and pushes for radical reform.

That said, to be a credible advocate at global level, South Africa must show greater consistency in its own human rights record. The Ramaphosa administration should address domestic issues, including mounting concern over corruption and impunity, and access to essential services such as water, sanitation and adequate housing. It must reassert its commitment to the ICC, which it had threatened to leave. And it should ensure it does not exhibit the double standards that are destroying universal values and the credibility of international law, by denouncing violations committed by its allies and using its influence to ensure these abuses are stopped and remedied.

From Gaza to Sudan, the DRC, Ukraine and Myanmar, to the planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, the world is crying out for principled global leadership to help deliver justice, stability and accountability. South Africa should heed those calls, lead or support principled, collective and robust international action, and step up for humanity.

---

This article was originally published by The Daily Maverick

The post South Africa must seize opportunity to show principled global leadership appeared first on Amnesty International.

Ahead of an expected vote in Slovenia’s parliament on hastily proposed sweeping changes which would significantly expand police powers, restrict welfare rights and weaken key safeguards, Esther Major Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Research in Europe, said:

“This draconian bill risks stripping all people in Slovenia of an array of vital human rights protections as well as posing a specific risk to a Roma population that already faces daily discrimination, exclusion and poverty.

“Under the guise of providing security these unjustified and disproportionate measures would significantly expand police and judicial powers, removing internationally recognized and crucial procedural safeguards.

“While not explicitly aimed at the Roma population, the vitriolic rhetoric used by the government to justify these measures raises serious fears that they would be deployed arbitrarily and discriminatorily against the Roma population. Coupled with the security crackdown, punitive restrictions on social benefits could further penalize the most marginalized families.

Under the guise of providing security these unjustified and disproportionate measures would significantly expand police and judicial powers

“Slovenian MPs must reject these harmful measures due to the dangerous consequences they could have for all Slovenians, particularly Roma people, placing them at heightened risk of human rights violations”

Background

The vote is expected on 17 November.

The draft Act on Urgent Measures to Ensure Public Security (dubbed the ‘Sutar Law’) was introduced by the Slovenian government on 6 November 2025, two weeks after a fatal incident in Novo Mesto involving a member of the Roma community.

The government has justified the proposed measures as necessary to restore public confidence in security institutions and to prevent future incidents of serious violence.

If adopted, the draft law would amend eight existing acts.

The post Slovenia: MPs must reject draconian ‘security’ bill which puts rights at risk and targets Roma community appeared first on Amnesty International.