Niue MP Wants Human Rights Law

Niue MP Wants Human Rights Law

By Sarah E. Treptow
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

WELLINGTON, New Zealand– Terry Coe, a Niue MP, says his country will need to put human rights standards in place for all immigrants planning to live on the island nation.  Twelve Indian men were taken to Niue over two years ago after they were promised jobs and possibly land.  After reportedly paying a New Zealand Indian tens of thousands of dollars, the men were never given jobs and had to live in squalid conditions.  The New Zealand government payed for the airfare of nine of the Punjabi men being flown back to India because the Niue government could not afford it.

The New Zealand High Commissioner to Niue, Bryan Smythe, said New Zealand had no option but to pay the fares, “These nine had been left here in most unfortunate circumstances.  They had been misled when they were brought here and they were not facing good conditions at all in Niue, with an ongoing problem that needed to be resolved and this was the best way of sorting it out.”  Niue has been in free association with the government of New Zealand in 1974, with their constitution providing that New Zealand will provide necessary economic and administrative assistance.  The people of Niue are New Zealand citizens.

The Indian men had been denied transit through Auckland, which is the only airport with regular links with Niue. Mr. Smythe said three of the twelve men have remained on Niue.

Mr. Coe said that Niue signed the United Nations human rights convention and some areas need to be addressed, “We don’t have any legislation, but it’s probably necessary if you sign the UN document then you become part of that document.  And that keeps one standard throughout the world on human rights, which we should abide by.”

Toke Talagi, the Niue Premier, has said there will be greater scrutiny of any similar groups coming to the island in the future.

For more information, please see:

Pacific Islands Report – Niue Lawmaker Wants Human Rights Law – 25 December 2008

Radio New Zealand International – Niue MP says country will need to implement human rights standards – 23 December 2008

Pacific Islands Report – Nine Indians Stranded on Niue for Two Years – 19 December 2008

Government of Niue

Assault Against Palestinian Detainees

By Yasmine S. Hakimian
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RAMALLAH, West Bank – On December 20, dozens of Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) prison guards entered the Oufar detention facility to conduct a security search during which many detainees were abused. The prison guards broke into rooms of detainees. IOF guards were accompanied by administrators of the Oufar detention facility. Nearly 400 prisoners were targeted in the operation.

The IOF searched Department B of the prison and violently beat a number of detainees. The detainees refused to be searched and clashes erupted in the prison compound. Administrators at the facility used open hot water cannons, sound bombs and tear gas against the detainees. The prisoners tried to defend themselves and threw anything in their possession at the soldiers. Prison guards fired at the detainees as they attempted to confront the raid using soap pieces and shoes. A fire commenced in nine tents during the attacks.

To punish the detainees, the IOF prison guards confiscated many of their belongings. In addition, the prison guards removed groceries and television sets.

Eight detainees were injured. Some of the injuries included very serious trauma to the head. According to Oufar detainees, several of the injured prisoners were suffering from chronic diseases such as diabetes, asthma and heart ailment.

Oufar detainees declared a hunger strike and refused to have lunch and dinner after the security search. The detainees are demanding better food, treatment for the sick and to allow detained brothers to be in the same room. They are also seeking the right to hot water for showers, sanitary toilets and installing umbrellas for visitors.

Since the clash, prison administration has revoked all visitations. Many family members believe the ban on visitation is an attempt to prevent visitors from witnessing the injuries incurred by the prisoners during the clashes.

Lawyers and physicians have traveled to the facility to provide medical treatment and legal consultation, but the administration has not allowed them to enter the prison compound. The administration has declared the prison as a closed military zone and cannot be visited.

Approximately 1,200 Palestinians are currently detained in Oufar. Most of the detainees involved in the clash were Fatah members, the movement associated with Abbas and the ruling Palestinian Authority (PA) in the Occupied West Bank. Some belonged to smaller Palestinian resistance groups such as the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, stated the Israeli attack on the unarmed Palestinian prisoners reflected “Zionist terrorism and fanaticism.”

Raids in detention facilities by “Matsada” and “Nahshon” military units of the Israeli prison authority have escalated in the past year, especially since Bini Kaniac became director of the authority.

For more information, please see:

Sumoud – Israel Revokes Visitation Rights to Palestinian Detainees in Ofer Prison – 25 December 2008

Palestinian Centre for Human Rights – PCHR Strongly Condemns Assault Against Palestinian Detainees in Oufar Detention Center – 21 December 2008

Palestinian Information Center – Ofer Prison Guards Assault Palestinian Prisoners, Many Injured – 20 December 2008

Daily Star – Israel Still Abusing Palestinian Prisoners, Say Recently Released Detainees – 19 December 2008

International Community Call For Release of A Prominent Human Rights Activist in China

By Ariel Lin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BEIJING, China – More than 150 international scholars, human-rights activists and Nobel Prize laureates calling for the release of a prominent human rights activist, Liu Xiaobo. In an open letter to the Chinese President Hu, they expressed their “deep concern” with the ongoing “arbitrary detention” of Mr. Liu.  “The presumption is that Mr. Liu has been arrested solely for exercising his right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed under China’s constitution and international law,” the letter said.  The letter also asked Hu to ensure the civil rights of citizens and stand by the “rule of law” that the leadership says governs China.

According to human-rights groups, Mr. Liu, a former university professor, was arrested earlier this month for signing a petition called “Charter 08” earlier this month. “Charter 08”  is an open petition call for human rights and democracy and demand for an end to the dominance of the Communist Party in China.  Mr. Liu previously was jailed 20 months for participating in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests.

Mo Shaoping, a lawyer who is representing Mr. Liu, said Mr. Liu’s wife had asked police about her husband but they refused to give her any information. Jiang Qisheng, another prominent Chinese activist who also signed Charter 08,  says that under Chinese law, authorities must tell family members where a person is being kept and the reason for their detention within 24 hours. Jiang said he welcomed the letter, “This will help, at what degree it’s difficult to say,” he told AFP.  The European Union and the United States have also expressed their concern over Liu’s detention.

In response, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that he did not know the specifics of Mr. Liu’s case, but that China would not tolerate interference in its internal affairs. “I can tell you that China runs the country according to law and will handle the relevant issue according to law,” Qin Gang said.

For more information, please see:

AP – Scholars, lawyers call for release of China critic – 23 December 2008

BBC – China urged to release dissident – 23 December 2008

International Herald Tribune – Petition over detained Chinese writer goes international – 23 December 2008

Wall Street Journal – Activists Demand Release of Leading Chinese Dissident – 24 December 2008

Disagreement Regarding Iranian Resistance Group’s Fate

By Laura Zuber
Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, Middle East

BAGHDAD, IRAQ – On December 21, Iraq’s National Security Adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, traveled to Camp Ashraf, in Diyala Province, and met with leaders of the People’s Mujahideen of Iran (PMOI).  According to a statement from Rubaie, he told PMOI that “the government has plans to close the camp and deport its inhabitants to their native country, or voluntarily to a third country, and that staying in Iraq was not an option.”

The PMOI was founded in 1965 with the aim of replacing first the shah and then the clerical regime in Iran.  In the 1980s, the group was expelled from Iran and found refuge in Camp Ashraf, in Iraq.  It was financed by Saddam Hussein to carry out attacks against the regime in Tehran.  However, following the US invasion in 2003, the group has been disarmed.  

Despite being disarmed, the group remains designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU, as well as the Iraqi government.  However, PMOI has been under U.S. military protection following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.  

The Iraqi government informed the group that it would soon assume responsibility for security at Camp Ashraf and that residents would be repatriated unless they find a third country willing to take them.  It is assumed that the statement means that once the UN mandate in Iraq expires, the Iraqi government will forcibly expel the PMOI members living in Camp Ashraf.  Currently, there are 3,500 residents at the camp.

PMOI have criticized the Iraqi government’s attempt to expel its members.  According to the PMOI, it members at Camp Ashraf are protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention.  In addition, PMOI claims that its members will be executed if they are forced to return to Iran. Additionally, PMOI claims that its members are protected as refugees.

A statement from the group’s political wing, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), condemned the Iraqi government decision, saying it was a “blatant violation” of international law.  The NCRI condemned the Iraqi government statements, saying the closure of Camp Ashraf “sets the stage for war crimes, crimes against humanity and is a blatant violation of international laws and conventions.”

On December 22, the AFP reported that the US has received assurances from Baghdad regarding the Iranian rebel group.  According to White House spokesman, Benjamin Chang, Iraqi government had promised Washington in writing that members of the PMOI at a camp north of Baghdad would be treated humanely.

“What the (Iraqi) government has said is that no one will be forcibly transferred to a country where they fear persecution on account of political or religious beliefs or (where) they might face torture,” Chang said.

The Iraqi government is under considerable pressure from the Iranian government to expel the group.  During the Iran-Iraq War, PMOI was believed to be involved in cross border raids into Iran.

For more information, please see:

Middle East Times – Iranian Reform Groups Urge Action in Iraq – 23 December 2008

AFP – US has Assurances from Iraq on Iranian Rebels: Officials – 22 December 2008

Middle East Times – Iranian Resistance Slams Iraqi Exile Order – 22 December 2008

NY Times – Iranian Resistance Group Criticizes Iraq’s Efforts to Expel It – 22 December 2008

Washington Post – Iraq Threatens to Expel Iranian Rebels – 22 December 2008

BBC – Iraq says Iran Exiles Must Leave – 21 December 2008

Saudi Court Refuses to Grant 8-Year-Old Girl a Divorce

By Lauren Mellinger
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – On December 20, a Saudi Arabian court rejected a plea to grant a divorce to an eight-year-old girl from an arranged marriage with a man 50 years her senior.

The girl’s father had agreed to marry her off in exchange for a dowry of 30,000 riyals (US $7,500), paid to the girl’s father in advance of the marriage.  At the time the agreement was reached the girl’s father was experiencing financial difficulty.  The money he obtained from the marriage contract would be sufficient to erase all of his debt.

According to relatives of the girl, the marriage has not been consummated and the girl continues to live with her mother, at least until the case is heard on appeal.  The terms of the marriage contract arranged between the girl’s father and the groom stipulate that the marriage is not to be consummated for another 10 years, until the girl reaches the age of 18.  As of now, the girl has not been informed that she is married.

The girl’s husband considers the marriage to have been entered into legally and refuses to divorce her.  The girl’s father was present in court but continues to support the marriage contract he entered into on behalf of his daughter.

The case was brought before the court in Unayzah by the girl’s mother in August, shortly after the marriage contract had been signed by the girls father and the groom.  At the time the case was filed the girl had not yet reached the age of puberty and under Saudi law could not file a claim on her behalf. According to the presiding judge Sheikh Habib al-Habib, the girl could file the case herself when she reaches puberty.  Currently a lawyer for the girl’s mother is appealing the verdict to the Court of Cassation – the Supreme Court of Saudi Arabia.  However, the Court of Cassation applies Sharia law, and arranged marriages, including those involving pre-adolescents are common in Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the population observes the strict Wahabi interpretation of Sunni Islam.

The girls’ lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, is urging the government to use this opportunity to improve regulations for marriage procedures throughout the country.  In this case, the 58-year-old groom was able to obtain a premarital health certification for the girl, despite the fact that she is only eight-years-old.  According to Al-Jutaili, the notaries who issue marriage contracts are a large part of the problem, as they often issue the certificates without first seeking the consent of the bride, and taking into account the reports of the health workers regarding the premarital tests.

For more information, please see: 

Arab News – Court Rejects Onaizah Girl’s Divorce Plea – 22 December 2008 

Gulf Daily News – Divorce Plea is Rejected – 22 December 2008

Sky News – No Divorce for Eight Year Old – 22 December 2008

AFP – Saudi Court Rejects Divorcing Eight-Year-Old Girl – 20 December 2008

Sydney Morning Herald – Delay on Divorce Running for Girl, 8 – 20 December 2008