Special Features

European Parliament Passes Resolutions Addressing Human Rights Abuses in China, Sudan, and Tajikistan

By: Neha Chhablani

Visiting Impunity Watch News Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On January 18, 2024, the European Parliament adopted three resolutions regarding recent human rights violations in China, Sudan, and Tajikistan. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) condemned the repression of religious freedom in China, the ongoing conflict and resulting food insecurity in Sudan, and Tajikistan’s crackdown on independent media.

 
Members of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France. | Photo courtesy of the European Federation of Journalists.
 

According to the European Parliament’s resolution, China has engaged in systematic persecution of the religious group Falun Gong since 1999. This includes frequent unwarranted detainment and reported exposure to psychological abuse, physical torture, and organ harvesting.

On May 12, 2023, Falun Gong practitioners Ding Yuande and his wife Ma Ruimei were arrested without a warrant. While Ma Ruimei was released on bail, Ding Yuande remained incarcerated for eight months before being sentenced to three years in prison. The European Parliament’s resolution called for the unconditional release of Ding Yuande and all wrongfully detained Falun Gong and the end of persecution of all religious minorities in China, including the Falun Gong, Uyghurs, and Tibetans. It implored EU member states to pursue punitive measures for entities contributing to religious repression in China. This included banishment from EU territories, imposing sanctions, refusing visas, freezing assets, and suspending extradition treaties.

Additionally, MEPs called for an immediate ceasefire between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, as their conflict continues to be the primary driver of food insecurity and other human rights abuses in the country. In Sudan, over 5 million people suffer from emergency levels of hunger and 7.5 million are internally displaced. Recent increases in attacks on Sudan’s Masalit community have raised the risk of ethnic cleansing.

In its resolution, MEPs strongly deplored the continuous attacks on humanitarian workers and civilians and the use of sexual violence in the conflict. MEPs asked international actors contributing to the war to refrain from interference. The resolution then called on the UN to expand their arms embargo on Dafar to the rest of Iran due to the use of alleged Iranian-supplied weapons in the war.

Finally, the European Parliament adopted a resolution addressing the declining role of independent media in Tajikistan, stating that “Tajikistan’s media are in their worst state since independence in 1991.” In the last two years, Tajikistan’s authorities have incarcerated several journalists for reporting on human rights abuses in the country. The two primary independent media outlets regularly face threats by government authorities, while other independent media sources are consistently shut down.

The European Parliament condemned Tajikistan’s regulation of its media, including the closure of websites, persecution of journalists, and politically motivated sentencing of government critics, human rights activists, and independent lawyers. The resolution called for the fair treatment of the prisoners, investigations into the conditions of their detainment, release for those wrongfully detained, a safe environment for independent media outlets, increased international support for independent media sources in Tajikistan, and increased monitoring of media repression in Tajikistan by international organizations.

European Union citizens directly elect MEPs, so the Parliament represents the general opinion of EU Member States. All three resolutions passed by a majority vote, underscoring the EU’s continued commitment to protecting global human rights. The Parliament instructed its President to forward the resolutions to the other EU institutions.

For further information, please see:

Aljazeera – US claims seizure of Iranian weapons bound for Yemen’s Houthis – 16 Jan. 2024

European Commission Press Corner – Sudan: EU commits €190 million in additional humanitarian and development aid – 19 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – Tajikistan: state repression against the independent media – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – The ongoing persecution of Falun Gong in China, notably the case of Mr Ding Yuande – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – The threat of famine following the spread of conflict in Sudan – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament Press Room – Human rights breaches in China, Sudan and Tajikistan – 18 Jan. 2024

European Parliament – Welcome to the European Parliament – 3 Mar. 2024

NPR – In South Sudan, People Are Dying Of Hunger As Civil War Continues – 21 Feb. 2017

U.K. Government Responds to British Supreme Court Decision on Migrant Policy with New Treaty

By: Christina Bradic

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 UNITED KINGDOM – On December 5, 2023, the government of the United Kingdom responded to a November Supreme Court decision, declaring the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership unlawful. They signed a new treaty that will relocate migrants arriving in the United Kingdom to Rwanda for asylum processing and thereby barring their return to the United Kingdom.

 
Migrants claiming to be from Darfur, Sudan cross the English Channel in an inflatable boat near Dover, Britain, 8/4/21 | Photo courtesy of Reuters.
 

According to The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, approximately 46,000 people crossed the English Channel in 2022 in small boats, with over 90 percent of those people making claims for asylum. In response to the large number of migrants crossing the English Channel, the British Government proposed a plan in April 2022 that would deport migrants arriving in the United Kingdom to the country of Rwanda for asylum processing and relocation. There, Rwandan officials would oversee Asylum conditions and decisions. Under the UK and Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership, the United Kingdom would provide Rwanda up to £120 million ($152 million USD) over five years.

The first flight to deport migrants to Rwanda was scheduled for June 14, 2022. However, on the morning that the flight was scheduled to depart for Kigali, the European Court for Human Rights issued an injunction against the United Kingdom, prohibiting the flight until there was further investigation into the legality of the policy.

On December 19, 2022, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that the policy was legal and did not breach Britain’s obligations under the U.N. Refugee Convention or other international agreements. On June 29, 2023, a Court of Appeals of England and Wales overruled the lower court decision, declaring the deportation plan as unlawful and violating the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This decision was unanimously upheld by the U.K. Supreme Court on Nov. 15, 2023.

At the heart of the decision is not whether relocation to a third country is lawful; the Supreme court has affirmed that sending migrants to a safe third country is not illegal in itself. However, the European Court for Human Rights has declared that when asylum applicants can arguably claim that there is no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the authorities in the third country, and that there could be a possible violation of Article 3 of the U.N. Refugee Convention, that relocation is unlawful. This is the stance the U.K. Supreme court has taken regarding Rwanda.

The U.K. Supreme Court ruled that current Rwandan policy risks violations of Section 3 of the United Kingdom’s Immigration Act of 1971. The Act states that a country is only considered a “safe third country” if there is not a policy of refoulment. The act of returning asylum seekers to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is risk of inhumane torture or treatment. The court also stated the policy was at risk of violating Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 requiring asylum claims to be properly determined under human rights law.

The court cited political repression in Rwanda, political killings, Rwanda’s total rejection of all asylum applications from Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen between 2020 and 2022.

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, on December 5, the British Home Secretary, James Cleverly, and the Rwandan Foreign Minister, Vincent Biruta, signed a migration treaty that is binding under international law. The treaty addresses concerns raised by the U.K. Supreme Court, including prohibiting refoulment, setting up an independent monitoring committee and an Appeal Body, comprised of judges with humanitarian protection expertise, representing multiple nationalities. Cleverly stated, “Rwanda cares deeply about the rights of refugees.”

Critics say that the treaty is the British government’s plan to circumvent a human rights ruling of the Supreme Court, making it discreditable and susceptible to being overturned.

For further information, please see:

Aljazeera – UK home secretary signs new asylum treaty in Rwanda – 5 Dec. 2023

Associated Press – UK top court says a plan to send migrants to Rwanda is illegal. The government still wants to do it – 15 Nov. 2023

Barron’s –The UK’s Rwanda Migration Policy: A Timeline – 5 Dec. 2023

BBC News – Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful – 15 Nov. 2023

BBC News – What is the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda? – 5 Dec. 2023

CNN – UK’s Rwanda deportation plan ‘unlawful,’ court of appeal rules – 29 Jun. 2023

European Court of Human Rights – Guide on case-law of the European Convention of Human Rights-Immigration – 31 Aug. 2022

GOV.UK – Treaty signed to strengthen UK-Rwanda Migration Partnership – 5 Dec. 2023

Royal Courts of Justice – AA-v-SSHD judgment – 29 Jun. 2023

The Guardian – What is the ECHR and how did it intervene in UK’s Rwanda flight plans? – 15 Jun. 2022

The Migration Observatory – People crossing the English Channel in small boats – 21 Jul. 2023

United Kingdom Supreme Court – R (on the application of AAA (Syria) and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – 15 Nov. 2023

Chile to Vote on Whether to Adopt New Constitution with Right to Life Provision

By: Carlos Dominguez Scheid

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

SANTIAGO, Chile – On November 7, 2023, the Chilean Constitutional Council presented President Gabriel Boric with a proposal of a new constitution that includes a right to life provision and outlaws the death penalty.

 
President Gabriel Boric is presented with the proposal of the New Constitution by Beatriz Hevia, President of the Constitutional Council | Photo courtesy of the Associated Press
 

The current Chilean Constitution, in effect since 1981 and approved by referendum in 1980 during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship, has been a point of contention due to its undemocratic origins despite undergoing significant reforms in 1989 and 2005. In response to major social unrest in October 2019, political parties agreed to initiate the process of drafting a new constitution, seeking to address the popular demands for improvements in the quality of life. In a 2020 referendum, with a 50.95% turnout, 78.28% of voters supported the creation of a new constitution and endorsed the establishment of a new, independent body, distinct from Congress, tasked with drafting it. The election for the 155 members of the Constitutional Convention was held in May 2021, and the results yielded a supermajority for the left and far left. In the September 2022 referendum, the people rejected their drafted Constitution, with 62% voting against it. The referendum had a historic 85.86% turnout.

Subsequently, a new political agreement led to a different process, involving a Commission of Constitutional Experts appointed by Congress to prepare a draft constitution. This was to be reviewed and voted on by the Constitutional Council, a 50-member body elected in May 2023. With a supermajority held by the right and center-right, the Council is poised to introduce changes to the proposed constitution.

Article 4.1 of American Convention of Human Rights (About the Right to Life), from 1969, states that:

“Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

In Chile, the current Constitution states that:

“The Constitution ensures to all persons the right to life and to the physical and mental integrity of the person. The law protects the life of the one about to be born. The death penalty may only be instituted for a crime established in a law approved by a qualified quorum.” (Article 19 N° 1)

The Commission of Constitutional Experts proposed the following change:

“The Constitution ensures to all people the right to life. The death penalty is prohibited.”

The Constitutional Council’s final proposal, which will be voted on in the December 17th Referendum, states:

“The Constitution ensures to all people the right to life. The law protects the life of the one who is to be born. The death penalty is prohibited.” (Article 16 N° 1)

This constitution is the first in Chile’s history to prohibit the death penalty. If approved, it would close the debate on this issue. Although the death penalty was abolished in the Penal Code in 2001, it remains in effect for military crimes during wartime. This has allowed for legislative proposals to reintroduce it in the Penal Code, arguing that Chile has not fully abolished it and therefore is not bound by Article 4.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

The issue about the protection of the right to life of the unborn was subject to a strong debate. In Chile, abortion is governed by the Penal Code and the Sanitary Code. A total ban on abortion was implemented in 1989, during the last year of the dictatorship, through an amendment to the Sanitary Code. It was only in 2017 that abortion was legalized again, but strictly under three distinct situations: if the woman’s life is at risk, if the fetus is diagnosed with a condition that renders it nonviable outside the uterus, or in cases where the pregnancy has occurred due to rape, with the gestation period capped at twelve weeks (fourteen weeks for those under 14 years of age). This legislative change, stemming from a constitutional mandate ​to protect ‘the life of​ the one about to be born,’ was hotly debated. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court upheld the legality of this limited decriminalization of abortion in a 6-4 decision.

The right and center-right dominated Council proposed a key change to the current constitution and to the draft of the Commission of Constitutional Experts, focusing on enhancing the protection of the unborn. In the debate, ​Article 4.1 of the American​ ​Convention on Human Rights​ was referenced. The distinction between ‘the law protects the life of the one about to be born’ and ‘the law protects the life of the one ​who is about to be born​’, while subtle, underscores crucial legal and ethical interpretations regarding the protection of the nasciturus. The use of ‘who’ suggests personhood, advocating for the recognition of the unborn as individuals with rights from conception. This implies a broader scope of protection, viewing the fetus as an individual entity, rather than an extension of the pregnant woman.

A referendum was announced for December 17, 2023, where Chileans will vote on whether to adopt the new constitution.

For further information, please see:

Reuters – Chile voters sour on right-wing constitution as abortion clause stirs debate – 6 Oct. 2023

Bloomberg – Chile’s Right Takes Aim at Abortion, Gender in Amendments to Constitution Draft – 18 Jul 2023

Le Monde – Chile’s draft constitution calls into question right to abortion – 24 Sept 2023

The Guardian – Chile’s right wing presents draft conservative constitution – 7 Nov 2023

AP News – Chile president calls for referendum on new constitution proposal drafted by conservative councilors – 7 Nov 2023

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights – The Death Penalty in the Inter‐American Human Rights System: From Restrictions To Abolition – 31 Dec 2011

Rodrigo Delaveau Swett – Constitution of Chile – 2021

 

Brazil Criminalizes Use of Homophobic Slurs

By: Molly Osinoff

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

BRAZIL – In August 2023, Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court held, by a 9-1 vote, that homophobic slurs are punishable by prison. The Brazilian Association of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transvestites, Transsexuals and Intersexes (ABGLT), an organization dedicated to protecting LGBTQ people’s citizenship and human rights, brought the case to the Supreme Court.

People marching holding a large rainbow flag | Photo Courtesy of Getty Images

In 2019, Brazil’s highest court ruled that homophobia was a crime. The decision made homophobia, as applied to the LGBTQ+ community, a crime. The recent court ruling, however, applies to attacks directed at specific individuals.

In Brazil, there is a difference between racism, which punishes discriminatory offenses against a group of people, and making a racial insult, which is a crime that penalizes a person for using race to offend another person’s dignity. ABGLT argued that a distinction between homophobia and using homophobic slurs should be made to provide broader protection to Brazil’s LGBTQ community. ABGLT advocated for a law against homophobic insults, mirroring the law prohibiting racial insults. The recent court decision effectively equates homophobia to racism.

Despite transphobia’s classification as a crime in Brazil for the past three years, Brazil is the country with the highest number of transgender and queer people murdered in the world. A report published by Transgender Europe, a network of organizations that collects and analyzes data regarding transphobia, stated that 70 percent of murders of transgender people globally have occurred in South America and Central America. Thirty-three percent of those murders occurred in Brazil.

The Court’s ruling, a recent achievement for the LGBTQ community, comes after the conclusion of President Jair Bolsonaro’s term. Bolsonaro has famously said: “”I would not be able to love a gay son. I would rather he die in an accident.” During Bolsonaro’s presidency, Brazil’s education ministry terminated its department dedicated to diversity and human rights, reversing much progress that has been made during the past ten years, including the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2013 and the legalization of name and gender changes in 2018.

The recent court decision is an important step forward in protecting Brazil’s LGBTQ community. According to the national LGBTI+ Alliance, a Brazilian LGBQT rights group, “Such a decision brings legal certainty and reinforces the court’s understanding with regard to the principle of equality and nondiscrimination.” Minister Edson Fachin called this decision “a constitutional imperative.” Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court has officially demonstrated its intent to hold individuals accountable for their homophobic language.

For further information, please see:

ABC News – Jair Bolsonaro: Controversial Far-Right Politician Elected as Brazil’s Next President, Beating Rival Fernando Haddad – 28, Oct. 2018.

Barron’s – Brazil High Court Rules Homophobia Punishable By Prison – 22, Aug. 2023.

Buenos Aires Times – Brazil High Court Rules Homophobia Punishable by Prison – 23, Aug. 2023.

Brazilian Association of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transvestites, Transsexuals and Intersexes (ABGLT).

Brasil de Fato – Brazil continues to be the country with the largest number of trans people killed – 23, Jan. 2022.

Transgender Europe – Trans Murder Monitoring Update – 11, Nov. 2021.

Washington Post – LGBT Rights Under Attack in New Far-Right President – 18, Feb. 2019.

Experts Present Principles for International Criminal Judges

By: Sarah Sandoval 

Impunity News Staff Writer 

The Hague, Netherlands – For the past eight months, the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature, and the Siracusa International Institute for Criminal Justice and Human Rights have been working on a project designed to unify a code of ethics for the international criminal justice system. This project, “Ethica – The path to a common code of ethics for international criminal judges,” is a result of the 2017 Paris Declaration on the Effectiveness of International Criminal Justice. 

 
Cover page of the Ethica pamphlet, which was created as part of the Ethica project | Photo Courtesy of the Nuremberg Academy
 

According to the Siracusa International Institute, the project “aims at identifying the ethical rules applicable to international criminal judges, based on concrete cases that [arose]before international criminal jurisdictions.” The principles that the project outlines have been established by a group of highly regarded international experts, who held two seminars for this purpose; one in Nuremberg on February 6, 2023, and the other in Paris on May 15, 2023. 

Though the official launch of the project is scheduled for later this month, the principles are available for viewing now on the International Criminal Court, International Nuremberg Principles Academy, and France Diplomacy websites. The pdf pamphlet outlines 25 principles in three different categories. The category of “Independence and Impartiality” includes tenets such as that “[International Criminal Judges] should exercise caution when interacting with State representatives and in particular when deciding whether to attend events organized, sponsored or cosponsored by States that may have an interest in a pending case or investigation or one likely to become so,” while one of the principles listed in the “Dignity, Integrity, and Probity” category advises International Criminal Judges to be aware of how they and their families present themselves on social media. The final category, “Career and Professional Conscience” includes a principle that states “ICJs should be physically and mentally fit to perform their functions throughout their mandate and should report any doubt about their ability to perform their judicial functions to the presidency of the tribunal.” 

The pamphlet also includes background information about how these principles should be interpreted. Specifically, it states that the ethical principles are a living document, designed to be interpreted within the broader context and “shaped by the evolution of society, technology and the needs of international criminal justice.” The principles will be presented within the next couple of months, first in Siracusa, Italy on October 13th, followed by New York, United States on October 24th, before the final presentation on November 15 in The Hague, Netherlands. 

For further information, please see: 

Ethica – Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – September 22, 2023

France Diplomacy – France supports the Ethica project on ethical issues in international criminal justice – September 2023

ICC – ICC President contributes to Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – September 26, 2023

INPA – New publication: Ethical Principles for International Criminal Judges – 

SII – “Ethica, towards a common code of ethics for international criminal judges” – May 2, 2023