Thai Military Declares Coup with Nationwide Curfew

By Hojin Choi

Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BANGKOK, Thailand – Thailand’s army chief, General Prayut Chan-Ocha, announced Thursday in a televised statement that the military will take control of the government. The coup includes a suspension of the constitution and imposition of a nationwide curfew. This is the 12th coup since 1932.

The coup was announced two days after martial law was imposed. As  negotiations between the military, political groups, and members of the election commission broke down, General Chan-Ocha announced “it is necessary for the Peace and Order Maintaining Command to take control of governing the country.”

The military interference is the outcome of months of political chaos and violence. The dispute arose between the “Red Shirts,” a pro-government group, and the anti-government opposition known as “Yellow Shirts.” The Red Shirts have held ongoing demonstrations in support of former Prime Minister Thaksin and his political influence.  Thaksin was removed in a previous coup in 2006.  Thailand’s most recent Prime Minister, Yingluck, Thaksin’s sister, was removed on May 7 for alleged constitutional violations.

Thai army soldiers stand guard at the main entrance of the pro-government ”Red Shirts” rally site after they shut it down and cleared protesters from the site, May 22, 2014. (AFP/Nicolas Asfouri)

The military imposed the nationwide curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. and ordered schools to be closed between Friday and Sunday. All television broadcasting has been suspended, except for the signal of the military’s television channel. The military also banned more than 150 political figures from leaving the country while summoning and detaining prominent politicians and their families, including Yingluck.  “Political gatherings” of more than five citizens have been prohibited, and protesters were ordered to return home immediately.

World leaders and organizations expressed concern about democracy, detentions, and the media shutdown of Thailand.

Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said “I am very concerned by the restrictions on fundamental freedoms.” He stressed prompt restoration of the rule of law in the country. Pillay particularly emphasized that freedom of expression and freedom of assembly were essential to the effective resolution of political differences and disputes. In addition, the military power to resolve the conflict should be temporary and limited.

Foreign Secretary of the U.K., William Hague, said he was “extremely concerned” by the coup. According to Hague, “the U.K. urges the restoration of a civilian government that has been democratically elected, serves the interests of its people and fulfills its human rights obligations.”.

“There is no justification for this military coup,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced. Kerry anticipated “negative implications” and impacts on the U.S. and Thai relationship, especially with the Thai military. He stated that the U.S. would review its “military and other assistance,” including suspension of $10 million in aid to Thailand.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki announced in USA Today that “U.S. law prohibits the government to assist countries where elected officials are deposed by the military.”

 

For more information please see:

Aljazeera – Thailand under curfew after army takeover – 22 May 2014

CNN – Thai military tightens grip, bans more than 150 from leaving country – 23 May 2014

USA Today – Thai military declares coup, detains party leaders – 22 May 2014

BBC News – Thailand military seizes power in coup – 22 May 2014

The Washington Post – US, other nations express concerns over Thai coup – 23 May 2014

 

State Media Announces Crackdown on Terrorism in China after Deadly Market Attack

By Kathryn Maureen Ryan
Impunity Watch Managing Editor

 

BEIJING, China – In response to a serious of explosions targeting an open-aired market in western China the Chinese government has launched a crackdown on terrorism, Xinhua, state media, said Friday. The report said authorities had started a “one-year crackdown on violent terrorist activities” in the region after the attacks were carried out in the heavily policed city of Urumqi, the regional capital of Xinjiang. the attacks killed  39 people and wounded more than 90. State media reported Friday that five perpetrators where reasonable for the attacks; four were killed in the blasts and the fifth was arrested Thursday.

Chinese officials announce crackdown on terrorism following a deadly attack blamed on Uyghurs separatists. The attack came just days before the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 (Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera)

Thursday’s attack was carried out before 6 a.m. during a time when many of the city’s residents were headed to the market to buy fresh food for the day. State media reported that two SUVs came careening through the street and their occupants hurled explosives through the vehicle’s windows. At least one of the vehicles exploded. The owner of a liquor and cigarette store in the market, said he was still in bed when he heard a loud noise that he first though was thunder outside his door. He said; “I saw smoke and fire, people lying on the ground and blood everywhere.”

In response to the attacks China’s highest-level government official in Xinjiang has called for all forces to be mobilized in order to find the perpetrators of Thursday’s deadly terrorist attacks vowing to “crush the swollen arrogance of terrorists.” President Xi also pledged on Thursday that those responsible for the attack would be caught and punished.

So far in Urumqi, authorities have tightened security checks at entry ports in an attempt to prevent weapons smuggling. Security efforts include inspections of individuals, luggage, transport facilities and postal deliveries at land border crossings.

Chinese officials have linked a mass knife attack that killed 29 people at a terrain station in the southwestern city of Kunming in March to Islamic separatists from Xinjiang.

State officials also blamed separatists for an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square last October in which a car rammed into a pedestrian bridge killed two tourists as well as the three occupants of the vehicle.

According to state media; the perpetrators of both attacks were identified as Uyghurs separatists, members of a Turkic-speaking, predominantly Muslim ethnic group from Xinjiang. Tensions between Uyghurs and Han Chinese populations who have migrated to resource-rich Xinjiang in recent years, have repeatedly boiled over into deadly clashes with authorities in recent years.

Some Uyghurs have grown to resent the Chinese government because of the harsh treatment they have been subjected to from Chinese Security forces and because Han migrants to their homelands have been given better economic opportunity in the resources rich region. Overall the Han are the largest ethnic group in China, making up more than 90% of the state’s total population.

Much like the Tibetan people, the Uyghurs have felt disenfranchised by the discriminatory policies enforced by the Chinese government. Many argue that they are treated like second-class citizens. China has labeled the group “separatist militants” and blames Uyghurs for inciting ethnic violence. On Tuesday, the local government officials in Xinjiang arrested 39 Uyghurs for several crimes including organizing and leading terrorist groups.

For more information please see:

ABC News – Dozens Dead After ‘Thunder-Like’ Blasts Rock China Market – 22 May 2014

CNN International – Q&A: Xinjiang and Tensions in China’s Restive Far West – 23 May 2014

CNN International – China Launches Terrorism Crackdown after Xinjiang Region Attack – 23 May 2014

Al Jazeera – China to Mobilise ‘All Forces’ After Attack – 23 May 2014

Syria Justice and Accountability Center: Eight Questions about the ICC

(Image: UN Security Council adopts resolution on Syria, 27 September 2013. Source: United Nations Information Centres)

 

French initiatives to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court (ICC) have prompted questions about the ICC, its procedures, and its efficacy. This post aims to demystify the ICC and explore its role in the Syrian crisis.

Why can’t the ICC prosecute now?

At present, the ICC does not have jurisdiction over Syria. Syria, like 71 UN Member states, is not a party to the Rome Statute—the ICC’s foundational document. As such, there are only three ways in which the ICC can gain jurisdiction in Syria: (1) via UN Security Council referral, (2) if Syria voluntarily submits to ICC jurisdiction on an ad hoc basis (for a particular situation only), or (3) if Syria joins the ICC by acceding to the Rome Statute. Options two and three are very unlikely because the Assad government has little incentive to join the ICC. The Syrian opposition cannot accept ICC jurisdiction on behalf of Syria because it has not achieved the status of government of the Syrian state.

Another method by which the ICC sometimes gains jurisdiction is (4) the ICC Prosecutor’s initiation of a proprio motu investigation (which means “on [the Prosecutor’s] own initiative”), but this option is unavailable in Syria unless it becomes a party to the Rome Statute or accepts the ICC’s ad hoc jurisdiction.

 What could a referral do?

If the referral succeeds, the ICC will investigate whether international crimes have been perpetrated in Syria. A UN Security Council referral to the ICC obligates the ICC to undertake an “investigation”—a pre-trial process which determines whether there is adequate evidence to pursue prosecutions. Though it prosecutes individuals, the ICC investigates “situations.”  Thus, rather than investigating Bashar al-Assad, for example, the ICC would investigate the entire Syrian situation, looking for evidence of international crimes committed by anyparties.

If the investigation finds evidence of crimes under ICC jurisdiction – which aregenocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes – the ICC Prosecutor will initiate trials of those individuals who bear the greatest responsibility for these crimes.

Who could be prosecuted?

The new resolution stands apart from others because it explicitly encourages investigation of parties on all sides of the conflict, including Syrian authorities, pro-regime militias, and non-State armed groups. Nonetheless, as noted above, the ICC investigates situations (rather than specific individuals or groups), and accordingly this resolution refers “the situation in the Syrian Arab Republic” to the ICC.

If the ICC Prosecutor finds evidence that a person has committed genocide, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes, the Court may indict (bring charges against) that person and then issue a summons or an arrest warrant to bring that person before the Court. However, confirmation of charges and trial can only proceed once the accused persons are in custody.

What are the punishments available and what are typical ICC sentences?

The ICC maximum sentence is 30 years imprisonment, although it can issue life sentences in extreme circumstances. The ICC can also extract fines from perpetrators and seize money, property, and other assets. The ICC does not issue the death penalty.

To date, 21 cases from 8 situations have been brought before the ICC. The ICC has accused 36 people of crimes.  In its 12-year history, the ICC has convicted  two individuals—one convicted of war crimes was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, and the other will be sentenced in late May, 2014. Several trials are currently ongoing, whereas many other trials cannot proceed because the accused are still at-large.

How long does the process generally take?

The process takes years. There are multiple phases, including pre-trial investigations and the trial itself. Pre-trial investigations generally range from one month to four years. Trials generally take six or more years. The ICC issued its first and only sentence after a ten-year investigation and trial. The ICC’s forthcoming sentence will be delivered after similar timespan.

Although the complexity and challenging context of ICC trials require a lengthy process, the ICC is a young court and is striving to speed up its procedures (without compromising accuracy or effectiveness).[1]

What could ordinary Syrians get out of this?

In the short-term, Syrians are unlikely to receive tangible benefits from ICC action. ICC investigation can, however, offer symbolic significance: a successful referral and subsequent investigations would demonstrate that the international community takes Syrian’s plight seriously and is committed to accountability. Already, the resolution has gained support: 58 countries and over one hundred civil society groups from around the world have called on the UN Security Council to refer Syria to the ICC. The referral is unlikely to succeed, but international attention to the debate could pressure the international community to act differently in Syria. Though debatable, an ICC referral could also possibly have a deterrent effect on those perpetrating atrocity crimes.

In the long-term, an ICC trial could result in imprisoning and/or fining perpetrators.  Syrians could also be eligible financial reparations as a result of the ICC process. Lastly, on a more symbolic level, an ICC trial could authenticate truths about the conflict via extensive research and substantiation, publicized internationally.

Why hasn’t this happened already?

The last three referral attempts failed due to Russia’s veto. Any permanent member of the UN Security Council has the capacity to veto a proposal, and the veto cannot be overruled. (UN resolution 377 has been used in the past to enable General Assembly-backed actions after a Security Council veto, but,under ICC law, the General Assembly does not have the capacity to refer a situation to the ICC.)

Will the referral happen?

The referral is unlikely to succeed. The U.S. has voiced support for this initiative—unlike those prior—but Russia has made its opposition clear. Recently, Russia’s Ambassador to the UN asserted, “our position has not changed,” and on May 20 vowed to veto the resolution if it comes to vote.

France hopes the Security Council will consider the proposed resolution on Thursday.

[1] Richard Goldstone, ABA-ICC Project Event: “International Criminal Justice: Mass Atrocities, the International Criminal Court, and the Role of States.” 10 April 2014.

Russian Interior Ministry Produces False Information to Assist one Officer in Attempt to Get Off of New U.S. Magnitsky List

Russian Interior Ministry Produces False Information to Assist one Officer in Attempt to Get Off of NewU.S. Magnitsky List

Press Release
For immediate distribution 

Russian Interior Ministry Produces False Information to Assist one Officer in Attempt to Get Off of NewU.S. Magnitsky List

23 May 2014 – Yesterday, the Moscow branch of the Russian Interior Ministry responded to the inclusion of its official Andrei Krechetov in the U.S. Magnitsky List with a statement claiming that he did not have direct role in the Magnitsky’s case.

On 20 May 2014, the U.S. Treasury published an addition to the Magnitsky List, which included 10 Russians with personal involvement in the Magnitsky case, including the Interior Ministry official Andrei Krechetov.

On 22 May 2014, the Russian Interior Ministry’s branch in Moscow responded by making a statement to Russian news agency Interfax that officer Krechetov “did not have a direct relationship” towards investigating the Magnitsky case, and “only performed separate orders”.

In fact, officer Krechetov was a member of the investigative team on the case against Sergei Magnitsky, he personally performedthe search of Magnitsky’s home and detained him, and signed false reports used to justify Magnitsky’s arrest and continued detention.

The evidence of his involvement in the Magnitsky case include a 14 November 2008 report signed by officer Krechetov claimingthat he delivered a summons to Magnitsky, when such summons was never issued or delivered. (http://followmydata.net/SMRULE/D1251.pdf). Officer Krechetov signed a similar report on 17 November 2008.

A 24 November 2008 search on Magnitsky’s home where officer Krechetov took part in the search and where Magnitsky was detained is another record of his direct involvement in Magnitsky’s case (see Krechetov’s name in the copy of the search protocol).

In the summer of 2009, following the discovery of false reports signed by officer Krechetov, Magnitsky’s lawyers demanded that officer Krechetov be removed from the case, but their request was denied by senior officials of the Russian Interior Ministry.

In Sergei Magnitsky’s testimony given one month before his murder in Matrosskaya Tishina detention center, he highlighted the role of Interior Ministry officers, including officer Krechetov, in fabricating reports against him as part of his persecution. Magnitsky stated that his persecution was organised in revenge for his role in exposing the criminal group (which involved officer Krechetov), that stole Hermitage Fund’s Russian companies and $230 million.

Mr Krechetov’s colleagues in the Interior Ministry who took part with him in the persecution of Magnitsky – Artem Kuznetsov, Dmitry Tolchinksy and Aleksei Droganov – were sanctioned by the US government last year under the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act.

“The continued cover up in Russia necessitates that all countries who respect human rights adopt targeted sanctions on Russian officials involved in Magnitsky case, similar to the ones implemented by the US government, with no delay,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.

 

For more information, please contact:

Hermitage Capital
Justice for Sergei Magnitsky program

+44 207 440 1777
info@lawandorderinrussia.org
http://lawandorderinrussia.org

Magnitsky List published by the U.S. Treasury on 20 May 2014:
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20140520.aspx

North Carolina Bill To Make Revealing Fracking Secrets a Felony

Brandon R. Cottrell
Senior Desk Officer, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America – A proposed bill in North Carolina, the Energy Modernization Act, if passed, would charge any individual (with an exception for emergency first responders) with a felony if they publicly disclosed trade secret protected information regarding fracking chemicals.

A proposed North Carolina bill would make the non-authorized disclosure of fracking trade secrets a felony (Photo Courtesy News Week).

Fracking is a procedure where fractures are created in rock formations by injecting high-pressure mixtures of chemicals and fluid; once the fractures are opened, natural gas can then be extracted.  Though not currently legal in North Carolina, legislation aims to legalize the process next year.

Environmental groups claim that the mixture of chemicals and fluid are potentially hazardous and could thus contaminate groundwater and wells serving nearby homes and farms.  Much is still unknown about the health effects, but according to a report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, at least four individuals that worked at fracking sites have died due to “acute chemical exposure.”

However, proponents have refuted such claims and tout fracking as an environmentally sound alternative.  Additionally, proponents have stated that fracking will create jobs and provide cheap and reliable energy.

According to Hannah Wiseman, a Florida State University law professor who studies fracking laws, “the felony provision is far stricter than most states’ provisions in terms of the penalty for violating trade secrets.”  Depending on the offender’s prior criminal history, a violation of this law would be punishable by up to a year in prison or community service.

Derb Carter, the director for the Southern Environmental Law Center believes that the proposed law is “intended to protect polluters and keep neighbors in the dark.”  Carter has additionally stated that the “[real] crime should be allowing corporations to pump toxic chemicals underground without public disclosure of those chemicals.”

 

For further information, please see the following:

Business Week – NC Legislative Committees Ok Gas Fracking Bill – 21-May-2014

Huffington Post – North Carolina Legislators Advance Fracking Bill That Would Block Chemical Disclosure – 21-May-2014

MSNBC – North Carolina Could Make Disclosing Fracking Chemicals A Felony -21-May-2014

News Week – North Carolina Bill Would Make Revealing Fracking Secrets a Felony – 20-May-2014