Guatemalan Judges, Cops, Polticians, and Business Bankrolled by Organized Crime

Guatemalan Judges, Cops, Polticians, and Business Bankrolled by Organized Crime

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch reporter – North America desk

GUATEMALA CITY, Guatemala – U.N.-sponsored International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (Cicig) reported that government officials and business people are bankrolled by Guatemala’s powerful criminal organizations.  The corruption of judges, prosecutors, police, lawmakers and business executives puts organized crime above the law

Carlos Castresana, jurist in charged of Cicig, stated, “Let’s not fool ourselves: there are judges who are on the payrolls, there are business owners, there are politicians, there are legislators who work for these groups,” and added “Each has his sectors of interest and his groups to protect.”

The success of Cicig and the newly implemented Attorney General’s Office in identifying organized criminals, including recent arrests of high-ranking police officers and former President Alfonso Portillo, gave organized crime something to be concerned.  Castresana said “The bad guys don’t know what we have, but as we translate that information into evidence and we bring it before the courts, our cards will be revealed as we put them on the table.”

Castresana also points to an attempt to discredit Cicig as a counter reaction by organized crime, such as press reports criticizing Cicig work.  He commented “We knew this was going to happen. We’re not particularly scared or alarmed, naturally the falsehoods we are seeing published bother us,”

“The press was outraged when, a year ago, I said that (the criminal organizations) are also in the media, and they asked for names: well, there they are, there you have them,” Castresana said.

For more information, please see:

Latin American Herald Tribune – Judges, Cops and Politicians on Mob Payrolls in Guatemala – 12 April 2010

La Prensa – Judges, cops and pols on mob payrolls in Guatemala – 12 April 2010

NATO Troops Kill Civilians in Kandahar

By Michael E. Sanchez
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan- On Monday four civilians were killed and 18 others were wounded  when US troops fired on a bus in a Afghanistan, sparking protests and an expression of regret from the military alliance.

The bus was traveling from Kandahar to western Herat province, provincal officials said.  Later around 200 men took to the streets of Kandahar to demonstrate over the killings on a highway outside the Afghan city, burning tyres and shouting “death to America, death to Karzai, death to this government”.  Later, three Taliban militants wearing suicide vests and carrying guns tried to storm the office of Afghanistan’s premier spy agency in Kandahar, causing a shoot-out.

Speaking by telephone, the bus driver, who gave his name as Esmate, said he was about 70 to 100 meters from a military convoy when the shooting started.  “They opened fire at us and I fell unconscious.  The people who were killed were sitting in the seats just behind me,” he said.  Gul Mohammad, another witness, heard the firing and saw the bus skid on the road, alleging that the soldiers “opened fire for no reason”.

This incident reflects the chronic insecurity in the province, where US-led military forces are preparing a major push to dislodge the Taliban from their spiritual base.

NATO expressed it’s regret over the incident and said forces treated the injured at the scene.   Civilian deaths as a result of NATO has been the cause of increasing friction between NATO and the Afghan government.  NATO admitted its forces were responsible for the deaths of three women during a botched night-time raid in eastern Afghanistan in February.

NATO is continuing to investigate the incident.  Patrols warned off the approaching vehicle with a flashlight and flares.  “Perceiving  a threat when the vehicle approached once more at an increased rate of speed, the patrol attempted to warn off the vehicle with hand signals prior to firing upon it,” the statement says.

Currently Afghan and NATO forces are engaged in an anti-Taliban operation to rid parts of southern Helmand province of militants. Officials have stated that the offensive will switch focus to Kandahar in the next few months.

For more information, please see:

BBC News- Nato Firing Kills Afghan Civilians In Kandahar – 12 April 2010

AFP- Afghan Fury After US Troops Kill Four Civilians– 12 April 2010

VOANews.com- NATO Troops Kill 4 Civilians On Bus in Southern Afghanistan– 12 April 2010

Kuwait Deports Egyptian Supporters

By Brandon Kaufman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

CAIRO, Egypt– Human Rights Watch has reported that Kuwaiti forces have arrested and deported supporters of the prominent Egyptian opposition figure Mohammed ElBaradei.

Human Rights Watch has reported that three Egyptians living in Kuwait were arrested on Thursday “after they attended a small meeting of ElBaradei supporters at a local café.”  Their report further went on to say that the initial arrests led to a larger gathering of approximately 30 ElBaradei supporters who met on Friday to talk about how best to respond to the arrests a day prior.  That meeting was disrupted by members of the Kuwaiti security forces who deported more than half of the participants back to Egypt on Saturday.

According to the wife of one of the men detained, some of those arrested are still in custody.  The woman briefly saw her husband on Thursday night when four men dressed in civilian clothing brought him home and subsequently confiscated campaign T-shirts with images of Dr. ElBaradei and an Egyptian flag with the slogan “For Change” written in Arabic.

Before meeting with members of an Egyptian opposition party, ElBaradei posted on his Twitter page that “Deporting Egyptians peacefully congregating in Kuwait is a gross injustice.  I call for their immediate return on humanitarian grounds.”

Sheikh Jaber al-Khaled-al-Sabah, Kuwait’s interior minister, told Human Rights Watch on Saturday that the deported Egyptians, whose meetings were apparently arranged online, had broken the country’s laws by assembling in a group of more than 20 without a permit and by criticizing Egypt’s president.  Said Mr. Sabah, “They are visitors in Kuwait, and we look at them as visitors in Kuwait.  When somebody breaks the law, he has to go back to his country.”  We don’t allow demonstrations in this country.”

For more information, please see:

The New York Times- Kuwait Deports Critics of Egyptian President– 12 April 2010

The Washington Post- Egypt Says No Hand in Kuwait Deportations– 12 April 2010

The Associated Press- Kuwait Deports 21 Egyptian Supporters of ElBaradei– 11 April 2010

Palestinians Call for Revocation of IDF Military Order

By Meredith Lee-Clark
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

JERUSALEM, Israel/West Bank – Palestinian leaders have strongly condemned a new Israeli military order that would classify Palestinians living in the West Bank without “proper identification” as “infiltrators.” Palestinian officials fear the order would allow the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to deport Palestinians from their West Bank homes in the thousands.

Though the military order was passed six months ago, it will go into effect on April 13, and was discovered by HaMoked: the Center for the Defense of the Individual, an Israel-based human rights group, and was published in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz on April 11. HaMoked, along with nine other Israeli human rights groups have joined in the calls to repeal the order.

The order would amend the 1969 laws designed to prevent infiltration to include anyone living in the West Bank without an Israeli permit. Such persons could be expelled within three days, or alternatively, sentenced to a maximum of seven years in prison. In a statement released after the Ha’aretz story broke, the Israeli military confirmed the order, and said that the IDF “is ready to implement the order, which is not intended to apply to Israelis, but to illegal sojourners,” though the statement did not elaborate on the order’s impact on Palestinians.

Ha’aretz characterized the order, saying, “[t]he order’s language is both general and ambiguous, stipulating that the term infiltrator will also be applied to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, citizens of countries with which Israel has friendly ties (such as the United States) and Israeli citizens, whether Arab or Jewish.”

The Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, told Ha’aretz that the order “threatens the emptying of large areas of land from its Palestinian inhabitants.” There is no clear standard of what constitutes a valid permit, so many fear arbitrary, inconsistent, and discriminatory enforcement by Israeli forces.

Saed Erekat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, called on the international community to pressure Israel to revoke the order. Erekat described the order as “racist,” and was a violation of the Geneva Conventions, particularly article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits any forcible transfer or deportation of protected persons and civilians from occupied territory.

For more information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Israeli Order Raises Eviction Risk – 12 April 2010

Christian Science Monitor – Israel Moves to Deport “Illegal” Palestinians from West Bank – 12 April 2010

Ha’aretz – Fayyad: New IDF Orders Threaten to Empty West Bank of Palestinians – 12 April 2010

Ma’an News Agency – Erekat: World Must Compel Israel to Revoke Military Order – 12 April 2010

Palestine News Network – Palestinians Fear Mass Expulsions – 12 April 2010

THE SOUNDTRACK TO GENOCIDE: Using Incitement to Genocide in the Bikindi Trial to Protect Free Speech and Uphold the Promise of Never Again

By Justin La Mort
Courtesy of The Council for American Students in International Negotiations

The promise to “never again” allow the crime of genocide is often made, although promises alone were not enough to protect the victims in Srebrenica and Kigali.  Legal concepts such as universal jurisdiction and the Responsibility to Protect are being used, or at least considered, as ways to uphold this promise, but the Genocide Convention still remains the main means of protection.  One of the Convention’s tools of prevention and punishment is the criminalization of “direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”  The meaning of these seven controversial words will help decide where the international community draws the line between preventing the crime of crimes and protecting the fundamental right of free speech.

The claims of genocide are increasing, while advocates are pushing for expanding the Convention’s boundaries.  No one wants to allow the next genocide.  No one wants to allow perpetrators to escape punishment.  This does not mean that in striving towards “never again” we sacrifice free speech as a casualty of war.  Freedom of speech is “the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.”  A vague or overly expansive interpretation of incitement will be abused and misused by dictators in silencing artists, journalists, and genuine political opposition.  A limited, well-defined interpretation will still allow for the intended purpose of prevention and punishment of genocide, yet respect the basic tenets of free expression.

The upcoming appeal of Rwandan musician Simon Bikindi, who was charged with incitement to genocide in various contexts, including direct calls to action, implicit appeals, music composition, and failure to prevent radio broadcasts of his songs, will allow the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to clarify the elements of incitement to genocide.  Based upon a review of the genocide jurisprudence and the lessons learned from the American experience, I propose the following test: whether the speaker directly, seriously, and publicly urges the commission of genocide in the near future and that the message is reasonably likely to produce such action.  Explicitly incorporating an imminence standard will permit incitement to genocide to serve its intended purpose of prevention while safeguarding freedom of speech.

This analysis is divided into six parts.  Part I reviews the background of Simon Bikindi whose case has the potential to elucidate the incitement to genocide standards.  Part II tracks the development of international law in response to the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide, while Part III examines nearly a century of U.S. experience in balancing speech and security.  Part IV canvasses the proposed tests leading to Part V, which explains why the proposed imminence test should become the accepted standard.  Lastly, Part VI details the test’s application in Bikindi’s appeal.

To read the complete article, please see:

Justin La Mort, THE SOUNDTRACK TO GENOCIDE: Using Incitement to Genocide in the Bikindi Trial to Protect Free Speech and Uphold the Promise of Never Again.

The Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Rights Law (IJHRL) is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal designed to address international human rights issues more broadly. The first volume of the IJHRL was ranked #8 among top international law reviews on ExpressO rankings. The journal explores political, philosophical, and legal questions related to international human rights from diverse perspectives. It strives to create a more thoughtful polity better able to make informed choices about ethical foreign policymaking.