“Indonesia: Jailed for waving a flag. Prisoners of Conscience in Maluku” (AI report)
Amnistía Internacional publicou esta semana un informe sobre Indonesia, centrado nos casos de varios presos de conciencia, torturados e encarcerados por mostraren unha bandeira nun acto público. O informe leva por título “Indonesia: Jailed for waving a flag. Prisoners of Conscience in Maluku”. Copio un extracto da súa introducción:
On 29 June 2007, at least 23 men performed the ‘Cakalele’ dance (a traditional Maluku war dance) in front of Indonesia’s President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in Ambon, Maluku province, Eastern Indonesia (See map of Indonesia and Maluku province, p.34-35). At the end of their performance, the Moluccan dancers displayed the ‘Benang Raja’ flag, symbol of South Maluku independence, before central government, foreign and provincial officials. Indonesian law forbids the display of regional logos or flags which are symbols of separatist movements.
Police immediately arrested 22 of them, who are for the most part farmers. While transporting them to local police stations they beat some of them. Most of the men were stripped naked, beaten with sticks, electric cables and rifles, and repeatedly thrown into the sea and dragged out again by police while they were bleeding. Police denied all 22 Cakalele dancers access to their families, friends and lawyers immediately following the arrests and during the first 11 days of their pre-trial detention. All have now been convicted of ‘rebellion’ against the state (makar) under Articles 106 and 110 of Indonesia’s Criminal Code (KUHP, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana) and sentenced to between seven and 20 years’ imprisonment. Moreover, their trials failed to meet international standards of fairness.
The Indonesian government has the duty and the right to protect life and to maintain public order within its jurisdiction. This is particularly relevant in a province like the Maluku, the setting of an inter-communal conflict between Christian and Muslim groups between 1999 and 2002, and sporadic violent clashes thereafter (see section 2. on historical background).
However the authorities’ response should differentiate between armed groups and peaceful political activists, in line with its obligation to uphold international human rights standards. In particular the Indonesian authorities should respect the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly, and ensure that any restrictions on these rights are no more than is permitted under international human rights law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a state party.
Further, the Indonesian government should abide by its international human rights legal obligations at all times. These include ensuring that torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (other ill-treatment) are prohibited and that this prohibition is enforced in practice; that any officials who commit such violations are held accountable; that trial procedures comply with international standards; and that no one is imprisoned for the peaceful advocacy of their political views.
In the case of the 22 dancers, the response from the authorities was in clear violation of the international human rights standards set out in the ICCPR. The flag-raising event was peaceful and did not advocate or incite violence; and the force deployed by police was unnecessary and excessive. Moreover, not only were these 22 peaceful political activists arbitrarily arrested and detained, but the courts sentenced them to long term imprisonment after unfair trials. In addition, according to a variety of credible sources, police subjected them to torture and other ill-treatment during arrest and detention.
Amnesty International has long campaigned for the right to freedom of expression and assembly to be respected worldwide. Peaceful political activists, including those who support independence, have the right to express their political views. The organization considers the 22 Cakalele dancers to be prisoners of conscience imprisoned solely for peacefully expressing their political views. As such they should be released immediately and unconditionally.
The arrest of these 22 men occurs within a broader context of crackdowns on people who the government claims have taken part in pro-independence or separatist activities in Maluku and elsewhere in Indonesia. At least 72 people in total have been arrested and detained between April 2007 and July 2008 for such activities in Maluku province. Amnesty International believes that many of these people are possible prisoners of conscience, as they may have been arrested and imprisoned solely for their peaceful political protests. Moreover sources indicate that police have tortured and ill-treated some of these political activists during their arrest and detention. Amnesty International urges the Indonesian government to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into these reports. Those found responsible should be held to account as a matter of priority. Victims should be granted reparations in accordance with international standards.
The findings of this briefing are based on a wide variety of first-hand and other sources. The report provides information about the conditions of arrest, detention and/or sentencing of 72 people arrested between April 2007 and July 2008 in Maluku, and highlights some of the human rights violations these individuals were subjected to including arbitrary arrests, torture and other ill-treatment, incommunicado detention, inadequate medical care in detention, and denial of the right to appeal. It also includes recommendations to the Indonesian government, which, if implemented would improve the human rights situation in Maluku province. [...]
HRW report: Israel’s unlawful use of white phosphorus in Gaza
Human Rights Watch publicou esta semana un informe sobre o uso deliberado e indiscriminado que o exército de Israel fixo do fósforo branco como axente químico incendiario nos ataques a Gaza (decembro do 2008 e xaneiro do 2009). O informe leva por título “Rain of Fire: Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza”. Copio un extracto da súa introducción:
This report documents Israel’s extensive use of white phosphorus munitions during its 22-day military operations in Gaza, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, named Operation Cast Lead. Based on in-depth investigations in Gaza, the report concludes that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital.
White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza – many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire – but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks.
The unlawful use of white phosphorus was neither incidental nor accidental. It was repeated over time and in different locations, with the IDF “air-bursting” the munition in populated areas up to the last days of its military operation. Even if intended as an obscurant rather than as a weapon, the IDF’s repeated firing of air-burst white phosphorus shells from 155mm artillery into densely populated areas was indiscriminate and indicates the commission of war crimes.
The dangers posed by white phosphorus to civilians were well-known to Israeli commanders, who have used the munition for many years. According to a medical report prepared during the hostilities by the ministry of health, “[w]hite phosphorus can cause serious injury and death when it comes into contact with the skin, is inhaled or is swallowed.” The report states that burns on less than 10 percent of the body can be fatal because of damage to the liver, kidneys and heart.
When it wanted an obscurant for its forces, the IDF had a readily available and non-lethal alternative to white phosphorus-smoke shells produced by an Israeli company. The IDF could have used those shells to the same effect and dramatically reduced the harm to civilians.
Using white phosphorus in densely populated areas as a weapon is even more problematic. Human Rights Watch found no evidence that Israeli forces fired ground-burst white phosphorous at hardened military targets, such as Palestinian fighters in bunkers, but it may have air-burst white phosphorous for its incendiary effect. Fired from artillery and air-burst to maximize the area of impact, white phosphorous munitions will not have the same lethal effect as high-explosive shells, but will be just as indiscriminate.
The IDF’s deliberate or reckless use of white phosphorus munitions is evidenced in five ways. First, to Human Rights Watch’s knowledge, the IDF never used its white phosphorus munitions in Gaza before, despite numerous incursions with personnel and armor. Second, the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus in populated areas until the last days of the operation reveals a pattern or policy of conduct rather than incidental or accidental usage. Third, the IDF was well aware of the effects white phosphorus has and the dangers it can pose to civilians. Fourth, if the IDF used white phosphorus as an obscurant, it failed to use available alternatives, namely smoke munitions, which would have held similar tactical advantages without endangering the civilian population. Fifth, in one of the cases documented in this report – the January 15 strike on the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) headquarters in Gaza City – the IDF kept firing white phosphorus despite repeated warnings from UN personnel about the danger to civilians. Under international humanitarian law, these circumstances demand the independent investigation of the use of white phosphorus and, if warranted, the prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes.
The IDF at first denied using white phosphorus in Gaza, and then said it was using all weapons in compliance with international law. It now says it is conducting an investigation, reportedly run by a colonel, into the use of white phosphorus. Given the IDF’s record on previous internal investigations, and the relatively low rank of the reported investigation leader, the inquiry’s objectivity remains in doubt. [...]
AI report on Somaliland’s Human Rights challenges
Amnistía Internacional publicou esta semana un informe sobre as violacións dos Direitos Humanos na autodeclarada república de Somalilandia, onde están previstas eleccións proximamente. O informe leva por título “Human Rights challenges: Somaliland facing elections”. Copio un extracto do seu contido:
[...] Clan elders and leaders of the northern Somali National Movement (SNM) unilaterally declared Somaliland’s independence from Somalia on 18 May 1991, after the SNM and other armed groups toppled the government of then-President Siad Barre.
Somaliland (the former British Protectorate of Somaliland) had united with southern Somalia (former Italian Somaliland) to form the Somali Republic in 1960. After a military coup that overthrew the elected government in 1969, widespread human rights violations took place against the people of Somalia, carried out by Siad Barre’s Somali National Army (SNA) and other security forces, particularly in the northwest of the country. These violations laid the foundation for the re-separation of Somaliland along former colonial borders in May 1991, when local leaders declared Somaliland independent, claiming the people’s right to selfdetermination. While Somalia descended into nearly two decades of political and criminal violence, Somaliland established a new government in the north. The self-declared independence of Somaliland has to date not been recognized by any government or international body.
The first administration of Somaliland, under its first President Abdurahman Ahmed Ali Tuur, ran from 1991-1993 and attempted to establish a power-sharing system among the northern clans. In 1992 and from 1994 to 1996 Somaliland endured its own internal armed conflicts, based on unresolved clan rivalries and problems with power-sharing. But beginning in 1993, under the administration of President Mohamed Ibrahim Egal, a series of traditional gatherings were held to build reconciliation, security, state formation, and a constitution. Somaliland has since established an executive and judiciary, and a bicameral parliament divided between a House of Elders, known as the Guurti, and an elected Lower House, combining democratic and traditional means of governance.
Increased stability has encouraged the gradual return to Somaliland of upwards of 100,000 refugees who fled during the Somali civil war (1988-91) and the two subsequent conflicts in Somaliland. However, on 29 October 2008 three suicide bomb attacks were carried out in Hargeisa, simultaneous with an attack in Bossaso in the Somali region of Puntland. In Hargeisa more than 20 civilians were killed and more than 30 injured when three separate cars drove into compounds housing the president’s residence, UN Development Programme offices, and the Ethiopian trade mission, with the last location suffering the worst damage and the greatest number of casualties. The October attacks have been widely interpreted both as spill-over from armed attacks by extremist opposition groups that characterize conditions in Somalia, and reaction to Somaliland’s economic and diplomatic relationship with Ethiopia and western governments.
The current president, Dahir Riyale Kahin, assumed office when President Egal died suddenly in 2002. President Riyale was then elected in 2003 by a slim margin in an election regarded by international observers, including the European Union, as largely free and fair. The next presidential elections are scheduled for late March 2009, with wide expectation that they could be further delayed in part due to delays in the voter registration process. Local elections are currently slated to follow the presidential election in late 2009.
Amnesty International has been monitoring, reporting on and promoting Human Rights in Somaliland since 1991, with an emphasis on minority rights, prisoners of conscience, and capacity-building among emerging civil society organizations in the capital Hargeisa and other parts of Somaliland.
In mid 2007, Amnesty International began receiving reports that space for civil society activity in Somaliland was shrinking—due in part to inappropriate government involvement in a dispute between members of the formerly prominent Somaliland Human Rights Organization Network (SHURO-Net), and in part to government actions to curtail the activities of the political association known as Qaran (“the nation”), which at that time sought to become a fourth political party.
In the words of one human rights defender, “the government succeeded in its strategy of ‘you are either with me or against me.” This puts civil society organizations in an awkward position in which they fear that if they voice their concerns the government would close the organizations.”
The ongoing use of the National Security Committee and Regional Security Committees, exercising extra-judicial powers, has diminished the rule of law as carried out by an already weak, under-resourced and multi-level judicial system. It has been reported that these committees have authorized the unlawful arrest and detention of some individuals, including several journalists in 2007. They have also ordered the arrest of others held without trial in incommunicado detention on national security grounds. [...]
USA: New Mexico abolishes the death penalty
Amnesty International‘s press release: “USA: New Mexico abolishes the death penalty” (19 March 2009)
“From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue.” (Governor Bill Richardson, New Mexico, 18 March 2009)
On the evening of 18 March 2009, the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, signed into law a bill abolishing the death penalty in his state. New Mexico becomes the 15th abolitionist state in the USA. (1)
Amnesty International applauds New Mexico’s decision to end its use of the death penalty, and urges government officials and legislators in other jurisdictions in the USA to reflect upon and follow New Mexico’s example. The death penalty is a cruel, destructive, unnecessary and outdated punishment that should be eradicated from the statute books and permanently confined to the history books.
In a statement, Governor Richardson explained that throughout his adult life he had been a supporter of the death penalty, but that in recent years he had come to the conclusion that its irrevocable nature rendered it an untenable punishment in an imperfect justice system:
“I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong. But the reality is the system is not perfect – far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proved that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country. Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can’t be 100-per cent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes. Evidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants”
New Mexico’s abolitionist bill, replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, had passed the state Senate on 13 March 2009 by a vote of 24-18. The lower House of Representatives had earlier passed the legislation by 40 votes to 28. The Governor then had until the end of 18 March to sign or veto the bill.
After the bill was passed by the legislature, Governor Richardson invited New Mexicans to contact his office with their views on the legislation. In a news release issued on 17 March, he revealed that he had received opinions from a total of 9,413 constituents, with 7,169 (76 per cent) for repeal of the death penalty and 2,244 (24 per cent) against. The news release did not provide information about appeals coming from outside New Mexico or the USA. It did reveal that the Governor had met with “more than 100 New Mexicans” in his office on 16 March, many of whom had concerns, either for or against, abolition of the death penalty. Those he met included the parents of a police officer killed in 2006. The man charged with the murder could have faced the death penalty.
In his statement explaining his decision to sign the abolitionist bill into law, Governor Richardson said that “I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty…”
There are two men on New Mexico’s death row, and the state has carried out one execution since judicial killing resumed in the USA in 1977. Terry Clark was put to death by lethal injection on 6 November 2001, in the state’s first and only execution since 1960. He had given up his appeals. (2)
New Mexico becomes the second state in the USA in the past two years to legislate to abolish the death penalty, following New Jersey in 2007 (which was the first US jurisdiction to pass such a bill into law since 1965). These moves can be seen as part of a general softening in support for the death penalty in the USA in recent years. An erosion of the public’s belief in the deterrence value of the death penalty, an increased awareness of the frequency of wrongful convictions in capital cases, and a greater confidence that public safety can be guaranteed by life prison terms rather than death sentences have all contributed to the waning of enthusiasm for capital punishment. (3)
In 2008, US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who has served on the Court since 1975, wrote in ruling on a capital case that his experience had led him to the conclusion that “the imposition of the death penalty represents the pointless and needless extinction of life with only marginal contributions to any discernible social or public purposes. A penalty with such negligible returns to the State is patently excessive and cruel and unusual punishment”. On the risk of wrongful conviction in capital cases, Justice Stevens pointed out that the risk of executing the innocent “can be entirely eliminated” by abolishing the death penalty. (4) More than 120 people have been released from death rows on grounds of innocence since 1975. They include four men sentenced to death in New Mexico in 1974 and exonerated two years later. Many others among the 120 had spent more than a decade on death row. In his statement, Governor Richardson said:
“In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings.”
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, unconditionally. To end the death penalty is to abandon a destructive, diversionary and divisive public policy that is not consistent with widely held values. It not only runs the risk of irrevocable error, it is also costly, in social and psychological terms as well as to the public purse (a fact which is drawing increasing public concern in the USA in the current economic climate). It has not been proved to have a special deterrent effect. It tends to be applied in a discriminatory way, on grounds of race and class (Governor Richardson said that “it bothers me greatly that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row”). It denies the possibility of reconciliation and rehabilitation. It promotes simplistic responses to complex human problems, rather than pursuing explanations that could inform positive strategies. It prolongs the suffering of the murder victim’s family, and extends that suffering to the loved ones of the condemned prisoner. It diverts human and financial resources that could be better used to work against violent crime and assist those affected by it. It is a symptom of a culture of violence, not a solution to it. It is an affront to human dignity.
There have been 1,156 executions in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977, including 20 executions in the USA so far in 2009. A majority of US executions occur in a small number of states. Texas alone accounts for 435 of the USA’s executions since 1977, four times as many as any other state. Texas, Virginia, and Oklahoma together account for more than half of the country’s executions since resumption.
Meanwhile, the global trend towards abolition of the death penalty is clear. Today, 138 countries are abolitionist in law or practice. Governor Richardson recognized the USA’s increasingly isolated position on this human rights issue:
“From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That’s not something to be proud of.”
Amnesty International calls on the US federal government and authorities in the 35 states in the USA which still have the death penalty to work against this punishment with a view to abolition. Pending abolition, the relevant authorities should prevent any further executions, in line with the UN General Assembly’s call for such a worldwide moratorium on executions.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED KINGDOM
(1) The other 14 are: Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia is also abolitionist. The remaining 35 states have the death penalty, as does the federal government and the US military.
(2) See Amnesty International Urgent Action, 4 October 2001, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/147/2001, and update, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/162/2001.
(3) See, for example, USA: The experiment that failed – A reflection on 30 years of executions (AI report, 16 January 2007).
(4) Baze v. Rees, US Supreme Court, 16 April 2008, Justice Stevens, concurring in judgment.
Related links:
HRW report on Women’s Health Care in USA Immigration Detention
Human Rights Watch publicou esta semana un informe sobre os centros de detención de inmigrantes nos Estados Unidos, destacando as graves carencias na asistencia médica ás mulleres alí detidas. O informe leva por título “Detained and Dismissed: Women’s Struggles to Obtain Health Care in United States Immigration Detention”. Copio un extracto da súa introducción:
[...] Most immigration detainees in the United States are held as a result of administrative, rather than criminal, infractions, but the medical treatment they receive can be worse than that of convicted criminals in the US prison system. The inspector general’s office at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued two reports in the past three years criticizing medical treatment at immigration detention facilities. Deaths in custody attributed to egregious failures of medical care have received prominent media attention and a University of Arizona study in January 2009 described failures of medical care for women detained at facilities in that state.
Underlying the individual stories of abuse and mistreatment is a system badly in need of repair, recent reforms notwithstanding. This report, based on interviews with women detainees, immigration officials, and visits to nine different facilities in three states, addresses one important component of the needed change: the medical care available to women detainees. As detailed below, we found that ICE [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] policies unduly deprive women of basic health services. And even services that are provided are often unconscionably delayed or otherwise seriously substandard.
Abuses documented in this report range from delays in medical treatment and testing in cases where symptoms indicate that women’s lives and well-being could be at risk, to the shackling of pregnant women during transport, to systematic failures in provision of routine care. [...]
While the immigration detention system’s flawed medical care affects both men and women, this report focuses on the situation of women detainees, roughly 10 percent of the overall immigration detainee population at any given time. These women include refugees fleeing persecution, survivors of sexual assault, pregnant women, nursing mothers separated from their children, patients detained amidst treatment for cancer, and many more women who have needs for basic medical care.
Many women in the United States continue to struggle with finding ways to access basic medical care. But for the thousands of women in immigration detention, there is only one way to get a Pap smear to detect cervical cancer, undergo a mammogram, receive pregnancy care, access care and counseling after sexual violence, or simply obtain a sufficient supply of sanitary pads: through ICE. In custody without other options, women receive care through ICE or are forced to go without.
In interviews with detained and recently detained immigrant women, Human Rights Watch documented dozens of instances where women’s health concerns went unaddressed by facility medical staff, or were addressed only after considerable delays.
- We met women who were denied gynecological care or obtained it only after many requests, including a woman who entered detention shortly after receiving news of an abnormal Pap smear. She told detention authorities that her doctor instructed her to get Pap smears every six months, but after 16 months in detention and many requests, she had still not gotten a Pap smear.
- We met women who were refused hormonal contraceptives during detention, including one who had inflamed ovaries and endured excruciating, heavy periods when the detention facility refused to provide her the birth control pills prescribed to manage her condition.
- We met women who, according to standards of medical practice in the United States, should have received mammograms, including one woman who had breast cancer surgery before detention and was instructed to get mammograms every six months. Due for her six-month check-up when she was detained, she waited four months for her first mammogram during detention, and did not receive another in her remaining 12 months there.
- We met women who complained of inadequate care during pregnancy, including one diagnosed with an ovarian cyst threatening her five-month pregnancy shortly before she was detained. Her doctor said the cyst should be monitored every two to three weeks, but during her stay in detention of more than four weeks, she was never able to see a doctor. The medical staff’s response to her last sick call request read, “be patient.”
- We met mothers who were nursing their babies prior to detention and were then denied breast pumps in the facilities, resulting in fever, pain, mastitis, and the inability to continue breastfeeding upon release.
- We met women who had to beg, plead, and in some cases work within the facility just to get enough sanitary pads not to bleed through their clothes, and one woman who sat on a toilet for hours when the facility would not give her the pads she needed.
[...] Official ICE policy, which focuses on emergency care and keeping the individuals in its custody in deportable condition, effectively discourages the routine provision of some basic women’s health services. ICE’s Division of Immigration Health Services (DIHS) has chief responsibility for the medical care provided to detained immigrants, whether it provides those services directly or through a contractor at a local facility. The DIHS Medical Dental Detainee Covered Services Package, which governs access to off-site specialists, says that requests for non-emergency care will be considered if going without treatment in custody would “cause deterioration of the detainee’s health or uncontrolled suffering affecting his/her deportation status.” Although, on occasion, officials have offered generous interpretations of this policy in its defense, the message about the scope of care provided remains clear. “We are in the deportation business… Obviously, our goal is to remove individuals ordered removed from our country,” ICE spokesperson Kelly Nantel told a reporter in June 2008. “We address their health care issues to make sure they are medically able to travel and medically able to return to their country.” [...]
