By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

VIRGINIA, United States – Governor Tim Kaine denied a stay of execution order submitted by John Allen Muhammad on Tuesday. Muhammad is the Washington, D.C. sniper who took the lives of several people during a three week killing spree in 2002. He is set to die by lethal injection at 9pm EST.

In 2002, Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Muhammad’s victims were innocent bystanders doing everyday tasks such as pumping gas into their cars or shopping. During a three week period they killed ten people. They were apprehended by police at a gas station on October 24, 2002. Police discovered that they had cut out a hole in the trunk of their car in order to shoot out of the back of the car.

Muhammad’s sentence came after his conviction for the murder of Dean Harold Meyers at a Virginia gas station. Maryland prosecutors then indicted Muhammad and brought him to the state to be tried for the murder of the six Maryland residents. At that trial, Malvo testified that the purpose of the shootings was to extort the government and to use that money to establish a terrorist training facility in Canada. Muhammad testified at the trial that his purpose was to disrupt authorities so that he could kill his ex-wife and sneak away with his three children to Canada, pinning the blame on the suspected serial killers.

Governor Kaine denied Muhammad’s stay of execution stating that he found no “compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by a jury.” Muhammad’s lawyers appealed to the United States Supreme Court before appealing to the governor. They argued that Muhammad was mentally ill and suffers from brain damage caused by beatings he received as a child. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. However, three justices objected to the quickness of the execution. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor wrote that they did not disagree with the execution of Muhammad but did believe that more time was needed to carefully examine his appeal.

Death penalty opponents disagreed with Governor Kaine’s and the Supreme Court’s decision not to stay the execution. Beth Panilaitis, executive director of Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty stated that “incarceration has worked and life without the possibility of parole will continue to keep the people of Virginia safe.”

For more information, please see:

Examiner – One D.C. sniper will die tonight, though the other lives on – 10 November 2009

MSNBC – Clemency for D.C.-area sniper is denied – 10 November 2009

NYTIMES – Virginia Governor Will Not Stay Sniper Execution – 10 November 2009

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 

VANCOUVER, Canada – The Canadian Border Service Agency suspects at least one of the seventy-six Sri Lankan immigrants aboard the Ocean Lady which sailed into Canadian waters on October 17 may have ties to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil, a group the Canadian government believes to be a terrorist organization. All but one of the seventy-six migrants are in Canadian custody.

The CBSA initially recommended that the Sri Lankan migrants be detained until their identities could be determined. Now, they are asking that the men be detained until it can be determined which of the migrants, if any, are tied to the Tamil Tigers. On Tuesday, a judge agreed that there was reasonable suspicion to justify holding the men until their connections to the group could be determined.

The Immigration and Refugee Board postponed several status hearings for the migrants which were already underway after the CBSA raised their concerns. All seventy-six of the migrants have applied for refugee status.

The Tamil Tigers are associated with the Tamil Separatist Movement in Sri Lanka, and have served as the movement’s Militant wing during a civil war with the government. The government defeated the Tamil Separatists earlier this year. Canada has considered the group a terrorist organization since 2006 because they promote the use of suicide bombings.

The Canadian government relied heavily on the testimony of Professor Rohan Gunaratna, a Singapore-based terrorism expert who cited unnamed sources in Canada in claiming the Ocean Lady had been used by the Tamil Tigers in the past to smuggle weapons. Lawyers supporting the migrants argue that Gunaratna may be biased against the Tamils and is not credible as a witness.

Lorne Waldman, who represents fifteen of the migrants, said “He’s [Gunaratna’s] very controversial, to say the least. He often relies on unverifiable sources as the basis for the assertions that he makes. In the context of the Tamil Tigers, he’s basically biased. He’s clearly been associated with the Sinhalese [the Sri Lankan majority] cause for many, many years. And independent observers are convinced that he’s not objective, especially in relation to the Tamil issue.”

The CBSA also pointed to traces of petaerythroitol tetranitrate and TNT found on clothing aboard the ship. Both chemicals are used in explosives. The CBSA said they were particularly concerned with the presence of TNT as petaerythroitol tetranitrate could have possible innocent explanations.

The migrant accused of having connections to the Tamil Tigers was present at the hearing on Tuesday. Canadian immigration law forbids releasing his name however he is one of the migrants who speak English and no translator was needed at the hearing.

For more information, please see:

AFP – Canada Ties Sri Lanka Migrant Ship to Tiger Rebels – 4 November 2009

Globe and Mail – Tamil Migrant Held Over Possible Ties to Terror Groups – 4 November 2009

National Post – Tamils’ Ship Alleged to Have Traces of Explosives – 3 November 2009

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

ONTARIO, Canada – Jacques Mungwarere was arrested on Friday November 6, and has been charged with violating Canada’s War Crimes Act. He was arraigned on Saturday in federal court. Mungwarere is the second person to be charged with violating the law since it came into effect.

Mungwarere was charged under the act for his participation in the 1994 genocide of the Tutsi tribe in Rawanda. Police began the investigation when they received a tip from a concerned citizen. Police did not release any information about the person who told them Mungwarere was in Canada or whether the informant was in Canada or in Rwanda.

In a six year investigation the police interviewed people from Canada, the United States, and Rwanda. Canadian authorities made four trips to Rwanda during the investigation. “We’ve received very good co-operation from the government of Rwanda, which has provided logistical support particularly in locating witnesses,” said Royal Canadian Police Sergeant Menard. “The government of Rwanda did not impede nor did it attempt to influence our investigation.”

Menard would not give much information about Mungwarere’s crimes or his status as a citizen. “I can only say that he is a Rwandan national,” said Menard. Little has been released about the details of his crimes other that he is being charged for action during the 1994 genocide in Kibuye

Kibuye is a town in Rwanda located near the border between Rwanda and the Congo. Kibuye was not immune from the violence that occurred in 1994 genocide. In 1994 bulldozers knocked down a church killing 2000 Tutsi who were seeking refuge inside.

Menard hinted that there may be a connection between Mungwarere and Desire Munyasa the first person to be tried under the Canadian War Crimes Act. Munyasa was sentenced to life in prison last month after being convicted of seven crimes including murder, rape, and torture. Munyasa was in a different region of Rwanda when he committed his crimes.

The Canadian war crimes act came into effect in 2000. A universal jurisdiction clause allows Canada to charge people under the act for crimes committed in Rwanda. The 1994 genocide there claimed the lives of some 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu moderates. Ron Charlebois, who heads the RCMP’s War Crimes division, stated: “Persons who commit such heinous crimes are not welcome to Canada. We will do everything within our ability, with the resources allocated to us, to ensure that such persons do not enjoy impunity here.”

For more information, please see:

Ottawa Citizen – Windsor Man Faces Genocide Charge – 8 November 2009

AFP – Canadian Police Arrest Rwandan Immigrant, Allege Genocide – 7 November 2009

The Canadian Press – RCMP Arrest and Charge Rwandan War Criminal After 6 Year Probe – 7 November 2009

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 YUCATAN, Mexico – Litigators, Raul Lugo Rodríguez and Jorge Fernandez, from the Indigenous Group insist that Ricardo Ucan Seca’s fundamental human rights were violated because he was not provided with defense counsel that spoke in his Indigenous Mayan language during Ucan Seca’s trial. Ucan Seca has been detained in the Social Rehabilitation Center of Merida since 2000. Ucan Seca filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the Mexican State alleging violations to the American Convention for Human Rights.

The State of Yucatan argued to the IACHR that fourteen judges, both state and federal, determined that Ucan Seca is guilty of Bernardino Chan’s homicide. However, in 2007, the Commission on Human Rights for the State of Yucatan identified irregularities by the defense counsel, Blanca Segovia Ruiz, in Ucan Seca’s trial.  

The Honorable Florentín Meléndez of IACHR asked the State to provide documentation to prove that the defense counsel was able to speak Maya when the defense counsel litigated Ucan Seca’s defense. IACHR also requested more evidence of the due process procedures when Ucan Seca was determined guilty by the trial court.    

Alejandro Negrin, Executive Director of the Council on Human Rights in Mexico, sought to become a mediator between the State and Ucan Seca, to bring a quicker resolution to the matter since Ucan Seca has been imprisoned for the last ten years. Nonetheless, Negrin testified to IACHR that in Ucan Seca’s case there was compliance with the American Convention for Human Rights and there were no rights violated.

For more information, please see:

Diario de Yucatán – Discrimina el Estado al pueblo – 6 November 2009

Tribuna – Ratifica Gobierno condena a indígena – 6 November 2009

Terra – Gobierno mexicano accede a buscar solución en caso debido proceso a indígena – 5 November 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an “essential crime fighting tool” because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun – Throwing Away the Key – 4 November 2009

Newsweek – 18 And a Life to Go – 4 November 2009

Washington Post – Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – 29 October 2009