Western Leaders Invited to Inspect Zimbabwe’s “Blood Diamond” Fields

By Tara Pistorese
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

HARARE, Zimbabwe—Zimbabwean authorities, including security forces and the national army, have recently been accused of beating, torturing, and killing diamond miners in the Marange fields, approximately 250 miles east of Harare.

Young boys selling rough diamonds. (Photo Courtesy of Time Magazine)

Four diamond companies are currently operating in Marange. One such company, Marange Resources, says it can produce a minimum of 200,000 carats per month between its three plants. This further supports an expert theory that Marange may be the largest diamond discovery in generations.

One of the most heavily criticized companies, Anjin, maintains a 50-50 partnership with DMC, another diamond company. Military and police officers make up a large portion of Anjin’s leadership board.

According to Global Witness (GW), one of the first non-governmental organizations to expose the international trade in blood diamonds, Anjin’s internal structure creates opportunities for “off-budget funding of the security sector” and “a real risk of these revenues being used to finance violence during a future election.”

After reports surfaced that diamond companies in the area may be assisting President Mugabe to suppress political opponents, the United States, Great Britain, and other countries imposed sanctions.

“It was actually quite shocking that sanctions would be slapped on us even though we are fully compliant by the Kimberley Process,” said Ramzi Malik, project manager for DMC. “So for us we just continue doing our business and doing our thing, and that is the end of it.”

The “Kimberley Process” (KP), an agreement between the UN, the EU, the World Diamond Council, and seventy-five countries and interest groups, requires the close supervision of rough stones in order to ensure legitimate mining and sales activities.

Lately, KP’s failure to implement a system for independent verification has initiated controversy over the system’s effectiveness. Pursuant to this perceived gap, members are still unsure where the diamonds originated or whether the proceeds are used to finance violence or abusive regimes.

As a result, GW has pulled out of KP; however, China and India’s participation in the diamond market has remedied any would-be surplus of diamonds.

President Mugabe and his allies are pushing to have the sanctions lifted. In an effort to put human rights abuse reports to rest, the Zimbabwean government has invited Western ambassadors to tour the controversial fields. The two-day mission will begin on Tuesday.

 

For further information, please see:

All Africa—Zimbabwe: EU Diplomats Set to Visit Marange Diamond Fields—24 June 2012

Voice of America—Zimbabwe Diamond Policy Won’t Improve Accountability in Marange—22 June 2012

Voice of America—Diplomats to Tour Controversial Zimbabwe Fields—19 June 2012

Human Rights Watch—Zimbabwe: Diamond Abuses Show Need for Reforms—4 June 2012

World Press—Blood Diamonds—15 April 2012

CNN—Inside Zimbabwe’s Controversial Marange Diamond Field—16 March 2012

Supreme Court Split on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — The Supreme Court issued a split decision Monday on the controversial Arizona law aimed at deterring illegal immigration.

Reporters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters)

The court differed on three key provisions of the law.  In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said those other portions of the Arizona law could not be enforced due to the federal government’s broad powers in setting immigration policy.

“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Kennedy wrote.  “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process (of the federal government figuring out how to best carry out its immigration power) continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

Specifically, the three provisions required immigrants to always carry immigration papers, banned illegal immigrants from trying to get work in public places, and allowed police to arrest immigrants without warrants, so long as the officers believed the immigrants were committing crimes that would deport them.  The votes on these provisions were either 5-3 or 6-2 in favor of declaring them unconstitutional, with the more conservative justices dissenting.

The justices unanimously upheld, however, the so-called “show me your papers” provision at the core of the law.  It requires local law enforcement authorities to determine the immigration status of anyone who’s stopped or arrested, so long as there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is illegally in the United States.

“There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced,” Kennedy wrote, emphasizing that state officials must obey all federal laws in checking a person’s immigration status or face additional constitutional challenges.

Opponents fear this portion of the law would lead to racial profiling.

“I know they will not be using that kind of tactic on people with the last name Roberts, Romney, or Brewer, but if your name is something like Gutierrez or Chung or Obama, watch out,” Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois told CNN.  He is a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.  “The express goal of the authors of Arizona’s [immigration law] is to make life miserable for immigrants so that they will leave, and a key tool in that effort was upheld by the court.”

Arizona’s immigration law, passed in 2010, was the first of half a dozen states to adopt laws aimed at removing illegal immigrants.  Reuters reports that three percent of the country’s illegal immigrants, or about 360,000, live in Arizona.  Nevertheless, most of the state’s two million Hispanics are legal residents.

According to CNN, neither the Arizona Department of Public Safety nor the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police was clear on whether authorities would begin checking drivers’ immigration status while enforcing other laws.  Questions were referred to the state’s attorney general’s office.

Despite the split ruling, both parties declared the Court’s ruling a win.  President Obama was “pleased” the justices struck down the three key provisions of the law, while Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called the decision “a victory for the rule of law.”  She also assured that police engaged in racial profiling would be punished.

Among those upset with the Court’s decision was Justice Antonin Scalia, who read an angry dissent from the bench.  He said he would have upheld the entire Arizona law.

“[T]o say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said in reference to Obama’s recent executive order stopping deportation for certain young people in the United States illegally.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she had worked on it as Obama’s solicitor general.

For further information, please see:

The Supreme Court — Opinion, Arizona v. United States — 25 June 2012

The Associated Press — Court Hampers Romney’s Plea to Hispanics — 25 June 2012

CNN — Supreme Court Mostly Rejects Arizona Immigration Law; Gov says ‘Heart’ Remains — 25 June 2012

The New York Times — Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow its Centerpiece — 25 June 2012

Reuters — Supreme Court Has Split Verdict on Arizona Immigration Law — 25 June 2012

Syrian Network for Human Rights: Violations Report 25 June 2012

A video showing the Joret Ash-Shayah neighborhood of Homs.  It has been completely destroyed due to attacks by the regime forces.

**WARNING: THE VIDEO BELOW CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES**

After a shelling and raid campaign residents of Inkhel took to the streets in anger for the 15 victims killed.  The regime’s army and security forces targeted the protestors, killing another 3 citizens.

Regime forces are placed all around towns in order to stifle the movement of citizens.

 

CASUALTY REPORT

70 confirmed casualties killed by the regime on Monday, 25 June 2012.

Hama: 17
Deir Ezzor: 11
Damascus and Rural Damascus: 11
Idleb: 9
Homs: 9
Daraa: 13
Latakia: 3
Al-Hasakah: 3
Aleppo: 3

90 confirmed casualties killed by the regime on Sunday, 24 June 2012.

Deir Ezzor: 28
Aleppo: 17
Idleb: 11
Daraa: 10
Homs: 10
Damascus and Rural Damascus: 9
Latakia: 5

102 confirmed casualties killed by the regime on Saturday, 23 June 2012.

Damascus and Rural Damascus: 27
Deir Ezzor 25
Homs: 19
Aleppo: 11
Hama: 9
Daraa: 8
Idelb: 2
Raqqa: 1

New President of Paraguay Fails to Receive Foreign Recognition

By Heba Girgis
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

ASUNCION, Paraguay — Paraguay’s now formerly ousted President Fernando Lugo has accused the country’s Congress of a “parliamentary coup d’etat” in order to force him out of power. Lugo, 61, said he would accept the decision in the name of peace but also made the following statement: “Lugo has not been dismissed; democracy has been dismissed. They have not respected the popular will.”

Newly Appointed President Fredrico Franco Sworn in on Friday. (Photo Courtesy of The Washington Post)

Friday, June 22, Fredrico Franco, the former vice president of Paraguay, was sworn in as the new president after the legislature voted to dismiss Lugo, who they said failed to fulfill his duties to maintain social harmony in the country. While Paraguay has long been ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in South America, Lugo was found to be indecisive in the face of the country’s challenges with corruption and drug trafficking.

Shortly before midnight on Sunday, June 24, Lugo made an appearance at a local demonstration where he told his supporters that his Presidency was targeted because he tried to offer support and aid to Paraguay’s poor majority.

Lugo’s impeachment and trial sparked after clashes during a recent land eviction resulted in 17 deaths of both police and land peasant farmers. Critics of the impeachment process in Paraguay argued, however, that Mr. Lugo’s lawyers only had a few hours to defend him in the Senate, after which Franco was quickly sworn in to the position.

When asked whether this decision thwarted the democratic setup of the government, new President Franco replied, “there was no break with democracy here. The transition of power through political trial is established in the national constitution.”

The Inter-American Human Rights Commission addressed its own concerns with the ousting of former President Lugo. Santiago Canton, the commission’s executive secretary noted, “It’s a travesty of justice and a trampling on the rule of law to remove a president in 24 hours without guarantees of due process.”

Argentinian President, Cristina Kirchner, took a firm stand saying that her country “will not validate this coup d’etat,” while the Brazilian government took a similar view that Lugo’s impeachment was “a rupture of the democratic order in Paraguay” that “compromises a fundamental pillar of democracy, an essential condition for regional integration.” Germany is the only foreign government to recognize the new leadership in Paraguay.

In order to restore its full democratic order, Paraguay now looks to its powerful neighbors for support with its new internal reform.

 

For further information, please see:

EIN News – Neighbors Protest as Paraguay Impeaches President – 25 June 2012

The Washington Post – Paraguay’s Lugo Says Parallel Govt Seeks to Regain Power; New Leader Rejects Region’s Response – 25 June 2012

Merco Press – Franco: “No Coup, a Change of Leadership”; Germany Admits New Government – 24 June 2012

The Telegraph – Paraguay’s Ousted Leader Fernando Lugo Denounces ‘Coup’ – 24 June 2012

Notes From India: Rural Health Care Facilities

Courtney Schuster
Special Contributor, Blog Entry #3

My most recent adventure was being assigned to a fact-finding team that was given the assignment of inspecting rural health facilities.    We were sent to the very rural, and very poor state of Bihar to examine how health facilities complied with the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) standards.  The federal government instituted the NRHM in 2006.  It set the standards for care and operations at government health facilities.  Additionally, it established dozens of requirements for health facilities including: the number of staff that should be at a facility at any given time; drugs that should be present; the number of beds each facility should have; and basic medical hygiene that should be provided.

The fact-finding team spent a week in Bihar traveling to five districts and looking at twenty-five different health facilities.  The medical equipment and beds that these facilities had were mostly old and very rusted.  In every single facility we visited, there were numerous concerns that went far beyond the superficial issues like rusting bed frames.

The beds of the women's ward, where patients go after giving birth.

First, every facility had a layer of dirt on the floor.  Government facilities cannot afford to have air conditioning so they depend on windows and fans to cool the place.  Unfortunately, open doors and windows also mean that the dust and dirt get in and covers every surface.  There are no regular cleaning staff employed at any of the facilities, save the few large district hospitals; and even in those, the method of cleaning is simply sweeping with a grass broom, which is ineffective and unsanitary.

Second, poor cleanliness of supplies, bedding, and buildings is prevalent.  In every room, of every facility, the floors, and often times walls, were covered in old blood stains.  Sheets were also old and stained.  There were beds and operating tables without any sheets at all.  Medical supplies were not sterilized between uses.  Many of the larger health facilities had running water but none had the means to heat water or an autoclave.  A majority of the facilities we saw in rural areas did not even have running water.

A delivery room, in the yellow bucket is medical waste from a delivery a few hours earlier.

Third, unsafe medical waste disposal and poor garbage disposal was the norm.  Inside the facilities, used medical supplies littered the floors.  Medical waste, including blood and fluids, from births and operations were not disposed of in a proper or timely manner.  Most facilities threw delivery fluids, like after birth and the placenta, out the window.  At one center, a birth had taken place five hours before our arrival.  As we began our tour, that delivery room was still waiting to be cleaned.

The perimeter of each facility was much worse.  Every one we visited had garbage covering the lawns.  There were water drainage ditches outside buildings full of garbage, medical waste, and sometimes even human waste.  The more rural and remote health facilities had animal feces from cattle, goats, and sheep on the ground outside and on the steps leading into the building.   Old vials, used needles, blood soaked material, used gloves, and plastic packaging were littered everywhere.  Many facilities had people, including children, waiting outside right next to the medical waste.

Medical waste is tossed into an old cooler sitting outside one of the medical facilities.

I left Bihar stunned and dismayed at the unsanitary conditions and poor management of every health facility we visited.  None of them were consistent with the NRHM standards and it became clear to me why India continue to struggles with high maternal mortality rates.

 

Courtney Schuster is a third-year student at Syracuse University College of Law.  She is currently working as an intern in India for the summer.  She will be contributing personal blog entries throughout her internship, documenting the challenges of solving human rights issues in international settings.