AI report on Omar Khadr, a Canadian minor in Guantánamo

Amnistía Internacional publicou onte un breve informe sobre Omar Khadr, que foi detido polos estadounidenses en Afganistán cando tiña 15 anos. Logo foi trasladado a Guantánamo e agora enfróntase ás “comisións militares” que xulgan sen a independencia e sen as garantías dun auténtico tribunal. De feito o xuíz militar Peter Brownback, que levaba este caso, foi destituído por solicitar documentos sobre a detención e o interrogatorio do acusado…

O informe leva por título “USA / Canada: Omar Khadr is ‘salvageable’, military commissions are not”. Copio un extracto do seu contido:

The US government has variously portrayed the nearly 800 foreign nationals it has held in its naval base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba over the past six and a half years as the “worst of the worst”, as “killers”, “terrorists” and “bad people”, even those it has subsequently released without charge, trial or any evidence of wrongdoing. Along with this official commentary of presumed “guilt”, detainees have been stripped of their right to habeas corpus, subjected to conditions of confinement and interrogation techniques that violate the international prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and been left to languish in indefinite detention with little or no idea of when, if ever, they will be released from the confines of this island prison camp. A few face trial before military commissions, second-class discriminatory tribunals to which no US citizen would be subjected.

Even children have been among the targets of a US detention policy that has systematically violated international law. One such person is Mohammed el Gharani, a Chadian national who has been in detention since being arrested in Pakistan when he was 14 years old and handed over to US forces. His treatment in Guantánamo, where he has been held for over six years, has included being subjected to sleep deprivation and disruption as an interrogation technique, and being left for hours “short-shackled” during which time he urinated on himself. Another such detainee is Mohamed Jawad, an Afghan national taken into custody at the age of 16 or 17. He, like el Gharani, was apparently subjected to the technique known as the “frequent flyer program”, whereby the detainee is moved from cell to cell every few hours to disorient him and deprive him of sleep. He is now facing a “war crimes” trial by a military commission the procedures of which do not comply with international fair trial standards and contain no juvenile justice provisions. So too is Omar Khadr, a Canadian national, who was taken into custody in Afghanistan in July 2002 at the age of 15. Instead of his status as a minor being recognized and being treated accordingly, Omar Khadr was designated – along with hundreds of other detainees, including the other children – as an “enemy combatant”, a status, with the legal consequences ascribed to it by the USA, unrecognized in international law. [...]

Over the past year, a different picture has emerged as US military lawyers have had access to him and discovered another version of Omar Khadr’s capture. In this version, Omar Khadr, already injured in multiple US airstrikes conducted against the compound he was in, was apparently then the near victim of a summary execution after being shot twice in the back by a member of an US army assault team. Taken to Bagram air base in Afghanistan, he was interrogated while still hospitalized with life-threatening injuries. Exploitation of his pain appears to have been one of the techniques used to seek his “co-operation”. Further ill-treatment allegedly followed in Bagram and in Guantánamo. [...]

Omar is almost entirely blind in his left eye, something that is obvious given how it now looks. He is concerned that it is getting worse, however, and that his exposure to constant light is causing his vision to get blurrier, which in turn is causing him more frequent and more painful headaches. He explained to me that he never sees darkness as the lights are on all through the night [...]

More than 100 nations sign cluster bomb ban treaty

Dicía eu a semana pasada:

Agora mesmo hai en Dublín unha conferencia internacional para asinar un tratado que poña fin á fabricación, ó almacenamento, ó comercio e sobre todo ó uso das bombas de fragmentación, chamadas en inglés cluster bombs e en español bombas de racimo.

O texto base, coñecido como declaración de Wellington, foi subscrito por 116 países, pero enfróntase a ausencias significativas como as de Brasil, China, Estados Unidos, India, Israel, Pakistán e Rusia, e a resistencias de países que, a pesar de subscibiren a declaración, piden que se exceptúen certas armas do tratado final ou que se establezan longos prazos de moratoria antes da súa entrada en vigor efectiva.

Resultou que as presións “diplomáticas” deixaron un tratado que non prohibirá tódalas bombas de fragmentación e, pior aínda, o escandaloso artigo 21 permitirá ós países asinantes participar en accións armadas nas que outros países non asinantes usen estas bombas.

BBC News publicaba onte, entre outras, esta información:

Cluster bomb ban treaty is signed

More than 100 nations, including the UK, have signed a treaty to ban current designs of cluster bombs.

Diplomats have agreed to back an international ban on the manufacture, use or stockpiling of the munitions, following 12 days of talks in Dublin.

Some 111 countries including the US, Russia and China have been urged to reconsider boycotting the treaty.

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called the treaty a “big step forward to make the world a safer place”.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon welcomed the landmark charter and encouraged all nations to sign up.

In his closing address to the conference, Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Micheal Martin said: “Rarely have we seen such single-minded determination to conclude a convention with such high humanitarian goals in such a concentrated period of time.”

‘Work together’

Mr Martin said he ultimately wanted to see the treaty ratified by all member states of the United Nations.

“We must work together to explain and argue for its provisions with those who are not here,” he said.

Mr Ban said: “I place the full facilities of the UN at the disposal of member nations to help them secure a speedy ratification.”

The draft treaty will be signed by world leaders in Oslo on 3 December and then individually ratified by each nation.

Cluster bombs have been used in countries including Cambodia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

They are made up of a big container that opens in mid-air, dropping hundreds of smaller individual sub-munitions, or “bomblets”, across a wide area.

Countries like the US, India, Pakistan and Israel claim such munitions are highly useful on the battlefield, but opponents say that where the bomblets fail to explode they leave a deadly legacy for civilians.

When details of the treaty were announced on Wednesday, the US said it would not alter its policy.

A statement from the Pentagon said: “While the United States shares the humanitarian concerns of those in Dublin, cluster munitions have demonstrated military utility, and their elimination from US stockpiles would put the lives of our soldiers and those of our coalition partners at risk.”

The stockpile of cluster munitions the US military keeps at bases in the UK is one issue which has to be addressed.

The British representative at the talks in Dublin, John Duncan, said the UK would work with Washington to find a solution to the issue.

During the conference, delegates heard from survivors of cluster bomb attacks.

International Committee of the Red Cross official Peter Henby said: “It is sad that it took so long to get here and much more time and energy to implement it. But we have taken a momentous step forward.”

Cluster Munitions Coalition spokesman Steve Goose said even nations who had not signed up would now be under pressure not to use the weapons.

He said: “We’re certain that nations thinking of using the munitions won’t want to face the international condemnation that will rain down upon them because the weapons have been stigmatised now.” [...]

O diario madrileño El País publicaba onte, entre outras, estas informacións:

Más de cien países acuerdan formalmente prohibir las bombas de racimo

[...] El texto pactado deja fuera de la prohibición bombas de racimo superinteligentes, que contengan menos de 10 submuniciones -hay modelos en el mercado que llevan más de 600-, que se autoactivan si alcanzan el suelo sin explotar.

Además, el impacto del acuerdo se ha visto suavizado por una cláusula, conocida como Artículo 21, que permite a las tropas de un Estado firmante cooperar con un aliado que utilice estas armas, como Estados Unidos. “Otros han calificado el Artículo 21 como una laguna jurídica”, explicó Earl Turcotte, portavoz de la delegación canadiense. “Nosotros lo consideramos un elemento esencial de protección legal para acomodar situaciones en operaciones conjuntas que podrían estar más allá de nuestro control”, ha indicado durante la conferencia.

Un tratado casi perfecto

[...] El texto pactado deja fuera de la prohibición bombas de racimo superinteligentes, que contengan menos de 10 submuniciones -hay modelos en el mercado que llevan más de 600-, que se autodesactiven si alcanzan el suelo sin explotar y que satisfagan otras condiciones. Estos criterios permitirán el uso del modelo Smart 155, armas de fabricación alemana que contienen dos submuniciones. Pero son más estrictos que los que en Dublín habían propuesto varios países, incluida España. Los modelos fabricados por empresas españolas se convertirán en ilegales bajo la vigencia del tratado, que se firmará en diciembre, y entrará en vigor seis meses después de que lo hayan ratificado al menos 30 países. [...]

Desde o Centre d’Estudis per la Pau J.M.Delàs (Justícia i Pau) ofrecen esta información:

Més de cent països aproven la prohibició de les bombes de dispersió

Éxit dels moviments socials i les ONG en la campanya per la prohibició de la fabricació de bombes de dispersió. Dos membres del Centre Delàs de Justícia i Pau (Jordi Calvo i Alejandro Pozo) van participar a Dublín en les activitats de lobby al govern espanyol.

Més de 100 Governs han donat a Dublín un pas històric aprovant el text d’un Tractat Internacional de prohibició de les bombes de dispersió. El document, aprovat per consens, prohibeix aquest tipus d’armament de forma categòrica i fa il·legal, a partir de la seva entrada en vigor, la fabricació, ús, possessió o venda de bombes de dispersió, per ser armes que causen danys inacceptables a la població civil.

Totes les bombes de dispersió que es van usar de Laos a Líban, passant per Cambotja, l’Iraq i Kosovo, seran prohibides. El Tractat s’obrirà a la signatura dels Estats el pròxim mes de desembre a Oslo, i només serà necessari que 30 Estats ho ratifiquin perquè entri en vigor. A pesar de les reticències d’alguns països, no s’han inclòs períodes de transició que permetrien seguir utilitzant aquestes armes durant un cert temps. Tampoc existeix la possibilitat que algun país expressi reserves sobre algunes de les disposicions del Tractat, ja que aquest ho prohibeix de manera expressa.

El Tractat estableix mesures i terminis de destrucció d’arsenals: ha de ser com més aviat millor, i mai després de vuit anys després de la seva ratificació. Qualsevol possible retard ha de ser justificat amb informació exhaustiva davant Nacions Unides. El seu Secretari General serà el dipositari del Tractat. L’apartat d’assistència a les víctimes –un dels punts menys forts del Tractat d’Ottawa, que va prohibir les mines antipersonal- és en aquesta ocasió reforçat. S’estableix l’obligació de proporcionar assistència mèdica, rehabilitació i suport psicològic, i de tenir en compte les consideracions de sexe i edat. Cada Estat part ha de desenvolupar per a això un pla nacional, calendaris i pressupost, així com recaptar si és necessari ajuda internacional.

Els Estats part contreuen obligacions clares en matèria de cooperació i assistència internacional cap a les víctimes i els països afectats. Aquesta ajuda pot ser bilateral o estar canalitzada a través del sistema de l’ONU, i organitzacions nacionals, regionals i internacionals.

Potser un dels apartats més ambiciosos és el què es refereix a mesures de transparència. Cada Estat membre ha de lliurar, en un termini màxim de 180 dies des de la ratificació del Tractat, un informe de situació al Secretari General de l’ONU. En ell ha de detallar el nombre de bombes de dispersió que posseeix i les seves característiques tècniques; els programes de reconversió o desmantellament de les seves instal·lacions i fàbriques; els progressos realitzats en la destrucció, etc. Aquest informe ha de ser actualitzat anualment.

Un dels aspectes més controvertits fins al final de les negociacions va ser la interoperatibilitat, és a dir, les accions militars conjuntes entre Estats membres del Tractat i els quals no ho són (un tema sensible especialment pel que fa als EUA i les seves aliances militars). En aquest assumpte no va ser possible assolir tots els avanços desitjats a causa de la forta pressió rebuda per part d’aquest país que ni tan sols estava present en aquesta Conferència, ni en cap de les de tot el procés.

La societat civil, que estava present a Dublín amb més de 200 organitzacions de tot el món, ha valorat aquest text i la pròpia Conferència com un moment històric per acabar amb el sofriment que durant més de 40 anys ha causat aquest tipus d’armes. Al Tractat s’han sumat finalment grans països productors com el Regne Unit, Alemanya o França, entre altres europeus, a més de més de 100 països d’Amèrica Llatina, Àfrica i Àsia. L’ampli suport rebut fa que signifiqui no només la prohibició, sinó l’estigmatització d’aquest tipus d’armament, el que condicionarà també el comportament d’aquells que no ho signin. Espanya també ha assegurat que li donarà suport. Quan això ocorri, les dues bombes que es fabriquen a Espanya (la BME-330 d’Expal, i la MAT-120 d’Instalaza) quedaran prohibides, i l’exèrcit haurà de desfer-se dels seus arsenals.

Després de Dublín, la societat civil continuarà treballant per a assegurar que el Tractat s’aplica de forma rigorosa i exigent. El Centre Delàs de Justícia i Pau, amb el seu treball en la CMC Barcelona i amb el recolzament a l’Estat espanyol de Greenpeace, seguirà dedicant esforços per aconseguir aquest objectiu. El Procés d’Oslo ha demostrat una vegada més que una pressió conjunta i concertada per part de la societat civil pot moure voluntats i assolir avanços polítics importants.

Enlaces sobre minas e bombas de fragmentación:

• Cluster Munition Coalition
• Handicap International
• International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL)
• Landmine Action
• Mines Advisory Group (MAG)
• United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)
• Pere Ortega: “El 11-M y Unión Española de Explosivos” (Centre d’Estudis per la Pau “J. M. Delàs”, IV - 2004).

HRW report: “The Netherlands: Discrimination in the Name of Integration”

Human Rights Watch publicou onte un informe de 45 páxinas sobre a discriminación na política migratoria dos Países Baixos. Segundo HRW, a proba que deben superar aqueles que pretenden un reagrupamento familiar está dirixida explicitamente a evitar que entren os turcos e os marroquís. A proba custa 350 euros e están exentos da mesma os cidadáns da Unión Europea e doutros países “desenvolvidos” como Noruega, Islandia, Suíza, Liechtenstein, Estados Unidos, Canadá, Australia, Nova Zelanda, Xapón e Corea do Sur.

O informe leva por título “The Netherlands: Discrimination in the Name of Integration. Migrants’ Rights under the Integration Abroad Act”. Copio un extracto da súa introducción:

In the past three years the authorities in the Netherlands have introduced a series of measures with the stated aim of better integrating its migrant population. The two key measures are integration tests: one administered in the Netherlands that most foreign residents must take, and another that must be passed by would-be family migrants from some countries before they can join spouses or family members in the Netherlands.

The policies were adopted during a period of heightened public concern about the impact that migrant communities have on social cohesion, with a particular criticism of the supposed lack of integration among Moroccan and Turkish migrant communities.

It is the second policy –the overseas integration test in force since 2006– that raises the greatest human rights concerns. Unlike the integration test in the Netherlands, introduced in 2007 and which most foreign nationals must pass in order to obtain long-term residence, the overseas integration test applies only to nationals of some countries wishing to join family members or spouses in the Netherlands. (The test also applies to family members of Dutch citizens). Citizens of European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA) states and Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States (US) are not required to take the test.

In practice, the overseas integration test targets would-be family migrants from the countries of origin of two of the three largest migrant communities in the Netherlands –Moroccans and Turks– as government documents published when the draft measure was presented to parliament make clear. (Migrants from the former Dutch colony Suriname, the other large migrant community, are partially exempt from the provisions, if they have completed of primary education in Dutch language, as Dutch is the official language and is the teaching language in schools).

The test is an additional requirement on top of financial restrictions on family formation and reunification introduced in 2004, the latter of which apply also to Dutch and to some extent EU citizens and residents wishing to bring non-Dutch family members, including spouses, to the Netherlands. In addition to the fees and other costs related to the test and application for family migration, family members in the Netherlands must demonstrate that they earn sufficient income to support themselves and their family member backed by a longer-term employment, (while self-employed persons have to prove sufficient profit for the current and immediately preceding financial years).

The introduction of the overseas integration test led to a significant reduction in the number of applications for family migration in the first year. Applications from Turkey and Morocco in particular have fallen significantly. Current plans by the government to make the overseas integration test harder are likely to delay or discourage applications further, since the cost of the test is €350 (each time the test is taken). [...]

Canada: Inappropriate and excessive use of tasers

Os “taser” (TASER é o acrónimo de “Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle”) son armas de electrochoque usadas en moitos Estados polos corpos de policía para reducir a persoas violentas. Os fabricantes destas armas din que salvan vidas, porque evitan o uso de armas de fogo. Pero Amnistía Internacional documenta casos como os recentemente ocorridos en Canadá, onde morren persoas ás que, xa reducidas ou desarmadas, seguen a aplicarlles estes electrochoques.

A noticia máis recente está na nota de prensa “Canada: Amnesty International reiterates call to suspend police use of tasers following airport death”, na que se fala da morte de Robert Dziekanski. Este suceso tivo lugar no aeroporto de Vancouver, o pasado 14 de outubro.

Hai un informe de AI, publicado no mes de maio, onde se documentan outros casos similares: “Canada: Inappropriate and excessive use of tasers”. Copio e pego un extracto da introducción:

[...] Six people died after being shot with tasers in 2005 and 2006 in Canada. All were subjected to multiple cycles of the taser, with one man in Niagara receiving 12 shocks in three minutes. This is despite warnings in a report commissioned by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police in 2005 that “police officers need to be aware of the adverse effects of multiple, consecutive cycles” of a “Conductive Energy Device” (CED).

Amnesty International acknowledges that it is important that police departments extend their use of non-lethal weapons in order to avoid deaths or injury from more lethal force; an increasing number of police departments in Canada now have tasers in their arsenals. However, the use of tasers raises a number of concerns regarding their safety and potential for abuse. This report updates Amnesty International’s November 2004 report which first highlighted the organization’s concerns regarding police use of tasers in Canada.

While all weapons have the capacity to be abused when not strictly controlled, Amnesty International believes electro-shock weapons are particularly easy to abuse as they are portable, simple to deploy and have the capacity to inflict severe pain at the push of a button, often without leaving marks. The cases included in this report indicate that tasers are being used too readily by law enforcement officers where less force was necessary.

International standards, including the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. They also require that force be used only as a last resort and that the amount of force be proportionate to the threat encountered and designed to minimize damage and injury. [...]

HRW report: Exploitation and Abuse of Girl Domestic Workers in Guinea

Human Rights Watch acaba de publicar un informe con máis de cen páxinas sobre o abuso e a explotación que sofren as nenas empregadas no traballo doméstico en Guinea (cando non se especifica outra cousa, Guinea é a república con capital en Conakry): “Bottom of the Ladder: Exploitation and Abuse of Girl Domestic Workers in Guinea”. O informe pode lerse tamén en francés. Copio e pego uns parágrafos do principio do informe:

Domestic work is the largest employment category for children worldwide. In Guinea tens of thousands of girls work as child domestic workers. While other children in the family often attend school, these girls spend their childhood and adolescence doing “women’s” house work, such as cleaning, washing and taking care of small children. Many of them work up to 18 hours a day. The large majority are not paid; a few others receive payments, often irregular, of usually less than US$5 a month. Many child domestic workers receive no help when they are sick and go hungry as they are excluded from family meals. They are often shunned, insulted and mocked. They may also suffer beatings, sexual harassment and rape. Despite these conditions, leaving their employer family is difficult for many child domestic workers who cannot reach their parents and have nowhere else to go. Such girls live in conditions akin to slavery. [...]

West Africa is one of the poorest regions of the world and includes all five of the world’s poorest five countries. The Human Development Index ranks 177 countries, with 177 being the lowest position. Mali is ranked 175th, and Guinea is 160th. The whole region is economically dependent on a few export products. While most countries in the region are endowed with vast natural resources, governments of West Africa have largely failed to use their mineral wealth to improve the lives of their citizens.

Within West Africa, Guinea in particular is replete with natural riches, including bauxite, iron, diamonds and gold. However ordinary Guineans appear to reap little benefit from this wealth. Indeed most of these are mined by foreign companies from Russia, Canada, and the United States among others. The government has failed to use Guinea’s vast mineral wealth to improve the lives of ordinary Guineans. The economic situation has been particularly difficult over the last five years. The rule of President Lansana Conté who came to power in a military coup in 1984, has been characterized by repression, corruption and poor governance. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), in 2000, offered to drop US$545 million of Guinea’s debt under its Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, but so far the country has not met IMF criteria regarding financial management and transparency. Transparency International, in 2006, ranked Guinea 160 out of 163 countries, making it the country that is perceived to be most corrupt in Africa.