EU Court Finds UK Provision of Anti-Terrorism Statute In Violation of Human Rights Convention

EU Court Finds UK Provision of Anti-Terrorism Statute In Violation of Human Rights Convention

By David Sophrin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights ruled last week that a provision of a United Kingdom anti-terrorism law violated an article of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Court ruled that sections 44-47 of the United Kingdom’s Terrorism Act 2000, which gave police the authority to ‘stop and search’ any person without ‘reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing,’ violated a section of the Convention that ensures privacy for the individual and the family.  Under those sections, the police have been able to require an individual to remove certain articles of clothing and all objects from their pockets, as long that the officer believed that person may have objects that could potentially be used in a terrorist act.  Failure to adhere to such a request requested possibly in a fine or possible imprisonment.  In striking down this authority, the Court noted that rather than providing an objective test for which the police could use to determine when the search authority, the power could be applied based on the “‘professional intuition’ of the police officer.”

The case decided by the ECHR was brought In 2003 by British citizens Kevin Gillian and Pennie Quinton, who were stopped and searched by London police while traveling to an arms demonstration protest.  Both Gillian and Quinton sought judicial review in the UK legal system, appealing their claim to the nation’s high court, the Law Lords, but their claims was eventually dismissed.  Following the Court’s decision, Quinton indicated that he was pleased with the court’s ruling.  “There has to be a balance between private life and security.”  He also noted that “the Court has shown that section 44 is an invasion of people’s right to liberty and privacy.  Hopefully the government will have to put a fairer law in place to protect us.”

Until the court ruling earlier this month, the use of the authority by police in the United Kingdom had become more common.  While approximately 33,177 people were stopped in 2004, the police had used the authority 117,200 times in 2008.  Prior to the ruling, the Metropolitan Police had already indicated that the use of the authority would be reduced as a result of its growing controversial nature.

The Court noted that “the absence of any obligation on the part of the officer to show a reasonable suspicion made it almost impossible to prove that the power had been improperly exercised.”  Additionally, there lacked any safeguards against abuse of the authority.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has indicated that the government was disappointed with the Human Rights Court’s ruling.  “We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal.”

For more information, please see:

IRISH TIMES – Strasbourg court rules against UK ‘stop and search’ powers – 25 January 2010

CNN – Britain to fight ruling on police searches – 13 January 2010

BBC – Stop-and-search powers ruled illegal by European court – 12 January 2010

THE GUARDIAN – Stop and search powers illegal, European court rules – 12 January 2010

Taiwan Attempts to Combat Discrimination

By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

TAIPEI, Taiwan – Despite Taiwan’s status as one of the world’s freest countries, the 2010 report by Freedom House, a Washington-based human rights watchdog, downgraded Taiwan’s score on civil liberties.

For example, Tu Sheng-hsiung, an owner of a hot pot restaurant in Taiwan, hung up a sign prohibiting Korean customers from eating at his restaurant.  This move was sparked by Tu’s anger and disapproval of a Korean athlete’s behavior at the recent East Asian Games held in Hong Kong where a Taiwanese taekwondo player was knocked unconscious due to South Korean player’s illegal action.

Although Tu argues that his move has gained wide support, Taiwanese lawmakers have been pushing for an anti-discrimination legislation which, if ratified, would make Tu’s act punishable.

Taiwan’s legislators are attempting to combat discrimination based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, mental or physical disabilities, and gender or sexual orientation.

Under this anti-discrimination bill drafted by the Chinese Nationalist Party, employers will be required to provide equal salary package for all employees and business owners will not be allowed to discriminate against customers.

The draft rules also forbid use of discriminatory words, such as “pigs” or “Taiwan dogs,” between Taiwanese and those from mainland China.

Although the bill’s intent is laudable, many have voiced concerns, especially because civic groups have been excluded in terms of enforcing the law if the bill is implemented.

Taiwan’s Labor Rights Association Director Wang Chuan-ping opined that enforcing this bill would be difficult.  She reasoned, “It would be hard to define what ‘discrimination’ is at work because employers can always come up with an excuse to avoid being charged after firing or refusing to hire someone based on ethnicity or sex.”

Wu Jia-zhen, director of a Taiwanese NGO, commented that several anti-discrimination clauses already exist in other laws, such as Taiwan’s Immigration Act and the Act for Gender Equality in Employment.

She pointed out that having the specific anti-discrimination clause in these laws have had little effect in combating inequality.  Wu blamed the attitudes of public servants for the ineffectiveness of anti-discriminatory laws adding that such laws can only be effective if people’s attitudes change.

Nevertheless, the drafters of the bill claim that the “new law will enhance…broader protection of equal rights.”

For more information, please see:

The China Post – Lawmakers push for law to combat discrimination – 4 January 2010

Taipei Times – Groups question discrimination bill – 23 January 2010

Taiwan News – Freedom House downgrades Taiwan’s civil liberties rating – 13 January 2010

Brazil Extradites “Operation Condor” Suspect

By Sovereign Hager

Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil-Brazil extradited a former Uruguayan army officer on Saturday to Argentina for the 1976 disappearance of an Argentine citizen. The extradition of Manuel Juan Cordero Piacentini, ordered on Tuesday, was delayed until Saturday because the officer’s lawyers argued that he needed to remain hospitalized due to poor health.

Cordero is thought to be involved in the disappearance of Argentine and Uruguayan citizens as a part of Operation Condor. Operation Condor was a collaboration between military dictatorships that ruled many countries in South America in the 1970s and 1980s. South American military regimes secretly cooperated in the torture and disappearances of each others’ citizens with CIA assistance.

Cordero was arrested in February of 2007 in Brazil near the border with Uruguay, where authorities believe he had been living since 2004. Since February, Cordero has been living under house arrest at that location, where he has a home. Cordero tried to avoid extradition by arguing that he was protected under a law in Brazil granting amnesty to Brazilian soldiers acting under that country’s military government.

Argentina, however has no amnesty law. Cordero is specifically suspected of being responsible for the disappearance of Adalberto Soba in Argentina. Uruguay unsuccessfully sought extradition, but because the crimes were committed in Argentina, Brazil only agreed to extradite Cordero to Argentina.

The head of a Brazilian organization called Justice and Human Rights said Cordero was believed to be third in command of a unit charged with “disappearances, torture, and murders.”

For more information, please see:

AFP-Operation Condor Suspect Extradited to Argentina-24 January 2010

BBC News-Brazil Returns Operation Condor Suspect to Argentina-24 January 2010

Washington Post-Brazil Extradites Uruguay Officer in Condor Case-23 January 2010

Position Open at the Public International Law & Policy Group for Chief of Party, Uganda

The Public International Law & Policy Group (PILPG), a 2005 Nobel Peace Prize nominee, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, which operates as a global pro bono law firm providing free legal assistance to states and governments involved in conflicts. To facilitate the utilization of this legal assistance, PILPG also provides policy formulation advice and training on matters related to conflict resolution. To date, PILPG has advised over two dozen states and governments on the legal aspects of peace negotiations and post-conflict constitution drafting, and over two dozen states and War Crimes Tribunals in Europe, Asia and Africa concerning the protection of human rights, self-determination, and the prosecution of war crimes.

PILPG’s Uganda project is designed to build the capacity the Government of Uganda to draft legislation that supports the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms and creates a sustainable domestic War Crimes Division that meets international fair trial standards.  As part of this effort, PILPG is training the judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys for the War Crimes Division, providing assistance to the Ugandan government officials on the creation of an International Criminal Court (ICC) Liaison Office to effectively manage communication with the ICC, preparations for the ICC Review Conference in Kampala, and the design of a national strategy for dissemination of information regarding the creation of transitional justice mechanisms.  PILPG’s legal assistance is intended to support the implementation of the Juba Peace Accords, in particular the establishment of a special division within the Ugandan High Court to try top Lord’s Resistance Army commanders for war crimes, thus meeting the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) regime of complementarity.

PILPG is working with Ugandan government officials, members of the judiciary, and legislators, as well as civil society to draft legal memoranda on key issues, engage in consultations and roundtables with officials, and facilitate capacity building and technical assistance workshops to support the development and implementation of key aspects of the Juba agreements on Accountability and Reconciliation.

Role of the Chief of Party

PILPG is seeking a professional with seven to ten years experience in the field of international law, with particular expertise in international criminal law, transitional justice, and rule of law, to serve as the Chief of Party for its Uganda project.  The Chief of Party is based in Kampala, Uganda and works under the supervision of the Project Director of the Uganda project.

Program Responsibilities

  • Build and maintain relationships with PILPG clients, including Uganda government officials, parliamentarians, judges, and civil society leaders.
  • Maintain relationships and respond to requests made by USAID Mission personnel.
  • Assist in the facilitation of workshops and trainings on war crimes prosecution and justice and reconciliation mechanisms.
  • Direct, manage, and undertake international criminal law and transitional justice research.
  • Oversee the drafting of legal memoranda for PILPG’s Ugandan clients.
  • Supervise the work of pro bono law firms and research associates providing legal assistance on the Uganda project.
  • Coordinate closely with PILPG’s Washington, DC office on the overall strategy and development of the project.
  • Develop and maintain strong partnerships with civil society, NGOs, and INGOs and other development organizations operating in the region.
  • Provide regular briefings to PILPG’s Washington, DC office on political developments and implementation of the program.

Administration

  • Draft materials on the Uganda project for PILPG’s website and annual reports at the request of senior staff.
  • Coordinate closely with the Project Director on the preparation of legal memoranda and other documents required to implement activities.
  • Assist in maintaining PILPG’s financial books related to the Uganda project in accordance with PILPG’s financial policies and procedures manual.
  • Develop quarterly project reports that detail project activities and measure and evaluate project results.
  • Maintain regular communication with the Project Director, as well as the research team, including conducting weekly Skype calls and drafting bi-weekly updates on project activities.
  • Coordinate closely with other PILPG field offices located in Nepal, Kenya, Somaliland, Tanzania, South Sudan on overlapping technical issues.

Educational and Professional Qualifications

  • A law degree.
  • Demonstrated knowledge of public international law, including international humanitarian law, international criminal law, and international human rights law.
  • A minimum of seven to ten years work experience in international law, including experience with international criminal law, post-conflict rule of law, and/or transitional justice.
  • Knowledge of East Africa and the Uganda conflict in particular is highly desirable.
  • Prior overseas field work is preferable.

Communication and Organizational Skills

  • Excellent political judgment and the proven ability to develop and carry out program strategy.
  • Strong analytic and organizational skills.
  • Fluent in English with proven legal writing and editing skills.
  • Excellent interpersonal and communication skills and able to work closely with multiple team members located across the globe.
  • Ability to manage effectively multiple activities in a fast-paced environment.
  • Responsive, a self-starter, and able to solve problems independently.

How to Apply:

Send resumes, cover letter, and writing sample to brutherford@pilpg.org by Friday, January 29, 2010.  Include in the subject line: Application: Uganda Chief of Party

The Public International Law & Policy Group is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

War Crimes Prosecution Watch is prepared by the International Justice Practice of the Public International Law & Policy Group and the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center of Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

Revealing Sri Lanka’s War Crimes

By Michael E. Sanchez
Impunity Watch Reporter, AsiaKOTTE, Sri Lanka- Sri Lanka officials have been unable to dismiss a shocking mobile phone video from last January showing Sri Lankan soldiers executing naked and bound captives.  The government has claimed the video is fake, without providing any evidence that the scene was staged or the footage tampered with.

Phillip Alston, the top United Nations envoy responsible for investigating extralegal executions worldwide has added his voice to those who believe the tape is real.  After commissioning experts in forensic pathology, video analysis, and firearms to review the tape, Mr. Alston said ” You cannot fake the precise sort of reaction which the human body makes when shot at close range by such a weapon.”

Sri Lanka’s public relations team denounced the “bias” of the UN expert, suggesting that he was on a “personal crusade” to force a war crimes investigation over the allegations.  The Sri Lankan authorities possess a list of “biased” organizations that includes anyone who reported critically on the final months of the fighting against Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in which over 7,000 civilians died.  Some of these biased organizations include Human Rights Watch, other international human rights and humanitarian groups, the European Union, the BBC and many other media outlets.  The situation for Sri Lankan human rights journalists has been grave, where many have fled the country fearing for their lives.

However the Sri Lankan spin is beginning to fray.  General Sareth Fonseka, who was in charge of last year’s offensive said that the orders to execute surrendering Tamil Tiger leaders in the final days of the war had come directly from the defense secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaska, the brother of President Mahinda Rajapaska.  He later claimed to have misspoken.

The execution captured in the video was an all-too-common occurrence during the 26-year civil war.  Government forces and the Tamil Tigers have been responsible for summary executions and targeted killings for which no one has been punished.

The government’s record of investigating allegations of war crimes by either government forces or the Tamil Tigers has been minimal.  Human Rights Watch and others have reported incidents of indiscriminate shelling of civilians, and the blocking of humanitarian assistance to the trapped population in the war zone. One reason the government locked nearly 300,000 civilians from fleeing the fighting in closed camps was to keep their stories from coming out.

Although the Sri Lankan government still believe that denial is the best policy, their loss in credibility is rising. The European Union is considering ending textile trade benefits to Sri Lanka over its human rights record, while the International Monetary Fund took the step of delaying an emergency loan for months.

For more information, please see:

Guardian.co.uk-  Uncovering Sri Lanka’s War Crimes– 21 January 2010

BBC News- Sri Lanka Rejects UN Execution Video Claims– 8 January 2010

The Times of India- Lanka Execution Video Authentic, Says UN– 8 January 2010