Georgian President Saakashvili addresses the role of the UN and Georgia-Russia Relations

Georgian President Saakashvili addresses the role of the UN and Georgia-Russia Relations

By Greg Hall
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

NEW YORK, United States – President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia addressed the United Nations Assembly accusing Russia of violating human rights, international law, and a 2008 ceasefire between the two countries. In addition to addressing Russia-Georgia relations, Saakashvili’s speech focused on the efforts of the international community to punish perpetrators of human rights violations, efforts, he noted, that validate the UN’s essence.

President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia. (Photo courtesy of the UN)
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia (Photo courtesy of the UN).

Thousands of people were displaced when a five-day war erupted between Georgia and Russia on August 7, 2008 after Georgia tried to retake control of South Ossetia.  As a result, Georgia and Russia relations have suffered.

“As I speak, more than 450,000 IDPs [internally displaced persons] and refugees continue to suffer because they are denied their rights, a right reaffirmed over a dozen times by this very house, to return to their homes and villages,” Mr. Saakashvili said, referring to ethnic Georgians who fled the fighting.  “They cannot go back because, in Moscow, a foreign leader has decided that their home is no longer their home.”

Saakashvili claims that dozens of terrorist attacks targeting Georgia have been directly linked to Russian secret services.  The Georgian president also said that for over a year, Georgia has pursued peaceful negations and a diplomatic approach to the conflict.  He now calls on the UN to take action.  Currently, Georgia claims that Russia is occupying over 20 percent of its sovereign territory.

Finally, Mr. Saakashvili stated, “the Cold War is over, but the old Soviet habit to play on ethnic and religious hatreds is still alive.”

Russia’s deputy justice minister, Georgy Matyushkinl, said that Russia’s involvement was in response to illegal and deliberate attacks launched by Georgia.  Michael Swainston, a lawyer representing Russia, said, “nothing allows me to say that the Russian soldiers could have engaged in abuse, or that they were instigators.”

Europe’s Human Rights Court has received over 1940 complaints related to the conflict between Georgia and Russia since 2008, most of which have been against Georgia.

For more information, please see:

UN News Centre – Trying Tyrants for Human Rights Abuses Validates UN, Georgia Tells Assembly – 23 September 2011

UN News Center – Transcript of President Saakashvili Speech – 23 September 2011

Georgian Daily – Russia Acted in Defense, Court Hears – 22 Septmber 2011

The Death of First Syrian Woman in Custody Cuts Mortal Wound Into the Arab Spring

By Adom M. Cooper
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

HOMS, Syria–A young woman used as a puppet by Syrian security forces to entice the surrender of her activist brother has been found beheaded and dismembered, according to activist and human rights groups. The body of eighteen-year-old Zainab al-Hosni was discovered by her relatives at a morgue in the city of Homs.

A photograph of 18 year-old Zainab al-Hosni. (Photo Courtesy of CNN)
A photograph of 18 year-old Zainab al-Hosni. (Photo Courtesy of CNN)

The discovery was pure chance. The family had been called to the military hospital to pick up her brother’s body three days after his arrest. When they arrived at the morgue, the family was slapped in the face with a very unwelcome discovery, compounding the already existing grief over Mohammed al-Hosni.

The family had gotten word from a Homs military hospital that Mohamed’s body could be retrieved. When they arrived at the hospital, medical officials informed the relatives about another unclaimed body with a label bearing the name ‘Zainab al-Hosni’ that had been kept in a hospital freezer for some time.

Several days later, the al-Hosni family received the woman’s headless and limbless corpse according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Amnesty International, and the Homs Quarter Union. Regime authorities forced Zainab’s mother to sign a document saying that both Zainab and Mohamed had been kidnapped and killed by an armed gang.

The Syrian government has insisted that armed gangs with foreign agendas, not anyone associated with al-Assad’s regime, are responsible for the violence that has descended upon Syria in recent months.

The number of in-custody deaths has risen to 103 since the protests began in March. Overall, the UN estimates that some 2,600 individuals have been killed in Syria since March.

Zainab al-Hosni is the first woman known to have died in custody during the recent displeasure and demonstrative dissent against Bashar a-Assad’s regime.

Mohammed was slain on September 10, when security forces opened fire on demonstrators in Homs.

Amnesty International, a London-based human rights group, reported that Zainab’s body has been decapitated, her arms cut off, and her skin removed. Philip Luther, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa, shared these sentiments.

“If it is confirmed that Zainab was in custody when she died, this would be one of the most disturbing cases of a death we have seen so far. We have documented other cases of protesters whose bodies were returned to their families in a mutilated state during recent months, but this is particularly shocking.”

The last time that her family saw her alive, Zainab al-Hosni was running a quick errand to the grocery store last month.

Zainab’s brother, Mohammed al-Hosni, was a prevalent opposition activist lauded by his colleagues and peers for heading up anti-government protests and treating the wounded. He had successfully evaded regime authorities for weeks when his sister disappeared, according to the Homs Quarter Union activist group. A union media coordinator relayed this statement to CNN.

“The secret police kidnapped Zainab so they could threaten her brother and pressure him to turn himself into the authorities. The government often uses this tactic to get to activists.”

The Local Coordination Committees of Syria, an activist group, claimed that security forces called Zainab’s family to trade her “freedom for her pro-democracy activist brother’s surrender.”

Amnesty International has reported as many as 15 in-custody deaths since publishing its 21 August report, Deadly Detention: Deaths in Custody Amid Popular Protest in Syria. The organization has list with a running tally of more than 2,200 individuals reported to have died since the anti-regime protests began. Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa Philip Luther said these words concerning how the international community should respond.

“The mounting toll of reports of people dying behind bars provides yet more evidence of crimes against humanity and should spur the UN Security Council into referring the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.”

The ban on international journalists in Syria is still in full effect, making it extremely difficult to independently verify reports coming from within the country. Now that the first female in-custody death has been reported, one can only hope that it will also be the last. The unrest with al-Assad’s regime cannot continue and the demands of Syria’s citizens must be met. Or unfortunately, the news of the next in-custody death, female or not, will worsen the tensions inside Syria even further.

For more information, please see:

Ahram – More Deaths as Sanctions on Syria Widen – 23 September 2011

Al-Jazeera – More Deaths in Syria as Sanctions Tighten – 23 September 2011

Amnesty International – New Evidence of Syria Brutality Emerges as Woman’s Mutilated Body is Found – 23 September 2011

BBC – Syria Unrest: ‘First Woman Dies in Detention’ – 23 September 2011

CNN – Mourning, Outrage, Disbelief Over Woman’s Mutilation in Syria – 23 September 2011

The Guardian – Syrian Teenager Believed to Be First Female to Die in Custody Since Uprising – 23 September 2011

NYT – Syria: Woman Held by Security Is Beheaded, Rights Group Says – 23 September 2011

Will Justice Prevail After Jean-Claude Duvalier’s Return to Haiti?

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Amnesty International and other human rights groups want legal investigation and prosecution for former dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier.  Duvalier unexpectedly returned to Haiti in 2011 after spending 25 years in exile.  During his 15 years as dictator in Haiti, thousands of people were tortured, killed, or went missing.  Some support Duvalier’s recent return, but many more seek justice.

Thousands of people were killed, tortured, or went missing during Jean-Claude Duvaliers 15-year presidency in Haiti. (Image courtesy of CNN)
Thousands of people were killed, tortured, or went missing during Jean-Claude Duvalier's 15-year presidency in Haiti. (Image courtesy of CNN)

Jean-Claude Duvalier became president in 1971 at the age of 19, earning him the nickname, “Baby Doc.”  He took over for his father, Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, according to The Washington Post.  After serving as a dictator for 15 years, he was exiled to France and did not return until January 2011.

Amnesty International recently published a report encouraging the current authorities to seek prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier.  According to CNN, Amnesty International’s 40-page report highlights the arbitrary detentions, torture, deaths in custody, killings and disappearances of Haitians during Duvalier’s 15 years in power.  Special Advisor at Amnesty International, Javier Zuniga went on to describe the abuse as systematic and widespread and that some of the actions “amount to crimes against humanity.”

Haitian authorities already indicted Duvalier for embezzlement, theft of public funds and crimes against humanity committed during his presidency according to Amnesty.org.  Further,  CNN reports that the embezzlement case alleges hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the national treasury.  Amnesty International has already provided copious amounts of documented abuses to aid in the prosecution.

Not all Haitians are seeking legal repercussions however.  At an Amnesty International conference with authorities, protestors showed up in support of Duvalier, criticizing Amnesty as “imperialists” who wanted to divide the country, as reported by The Washington Post.

The bigger hurdle seems to be Haiti’s judicial system in general.  Many are questioning why Duvalier has been back in the country for 8 months without any legal repercussions.  Amid a seemingly stalled investigation, concerns for Duvalier’s health have come into play.  As reported by The Guardian, he was recently hospitalized for chest pains and many fear he will die before justice will be served.

According to The Guardian, Duvalier is currently under a very loosely enforced version of house arrest.  He is reportedly living lavishly in a suburb of Port-au-Prince, visiting friends and even attending jazz concerts.

“The cases of human rights abuses we documented in Haiti are likely to be only a small proportion of what really happened during Duvalier’s rule,” said Zuniga.  Amnesty International and other human rights groups will continue to seek justice for the impunity created under Duvalier’s rule.

For more information, please visit:

Amnesty International — Haiti Urged to Bring Jean-Claude Duvalier to Justice — 22 Sept. 2011

CNN — Human Rights Group: Bring Duvalier to Justice in Haiti — 22 Sept. 2011

The Guardian — Will “Baby Doc” Duvalier Ever Face Justice in Haiti? — 22 Sept. 2011

The Washington Post — Protestors in Haiti Reject Amnesty International Report on Former Dictator — 22 Sept. 2011

Oman Court Jails Newspaper Editors Over Government Corruption Allegations

By Tyler Yates
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

MUSCAT, Oman — A court in Oman has ordered two senior journalists to be jailed for five months after they insulted the justice minister.  The court also ordered the closing of Ibrahim al-Maamary Yussuf and al-Haj’s newspaper, Azzaman, for one month.

Al-Mukeebli, an Omani civil servant, was also sentenced to five months in jail, presumably for giving information to the newspaper about the case.

The three men were convicted of “insulting” Justice Minister Mohamed al-Hanai and his under secretary of state by accusing them of “fraud, deception, and prevarications.”

The insults were published in Azzaman, and were included in a May 14 article alleging corruption inside the justice ministry.  Specifically, the article accused the justice minister and his deputy of refusing to grant salary and grade increases to al-Mukeebli, described as a longtime civil servant.

In response to the article the justice minister brought charges of slander against the newspaper, which led to the court’s ruling.

Ahmed al-Ajmi, the defense lawyer for the three men, has succeeded in getting them freed on bail and the order closing the newspaper suspended, until an appeal on 15 October.

The newspaper will continue to operate until the appeal decision is reached.

The case has given rise to complaints about media suppression in the Gulf Arab nation, which underwent pro-reform protests earlier this year.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called on the appeals court to immediately overturn the lower court’s decision, citing that the charges appear to violate international standards of freedom of expression, including the right to criticize government ministers.

“Journalists should be permitted to report freely about the government without fear of criminal charges and retribution,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at HRW. “Omani authorities shouldn’t use the courts to silence independent publications critical of the government.”

Freedom of expression is guaranteed under international human rights law.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) holds that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression…to seek, receive, and impart information, and ideas of all kinds.”

Oman is not party to the ICCPR, but the covenant serves as an authoritative guideline that reflects the international standard.  Accepted international standards only allow restrictions of the press in extremely specific circumstances, for example cases of slander or libel against private individuals or speech that threatens national security.

For more information, please see:

Human Rights Watch — Oman: Newspaper Verdict Aims to Silence Dissent — 23 Sept. 2011

The National — Oman jails newspaper editor for slandering justice minister — 22 Sept. 2011

BBC News — Oman editors jailed for ‘insulting’ justice minister — 21 Sept. 2011

Boston Globe — Oman paper shut for month over corruption series — 21 Sept. 2011

Times of Oman — Oman journalists get jail terms for insulting minister — 21 Sept. 2011

An End to an Era of Silence: U.S. Repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

By Ryan T. Elliott
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America/Oceania

WASHINGTON D.C., United States — The policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was officially repealed Wednesday. The history of the policy is an interesting one. The repeal marks a major step forward for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. However, at the time of its enactment, the policy was viewed as a progressive step forward because it allowed individuals to serve in the military regardless of their sexual orientation.

DADT repeal becomes effective as of September 20, 2011
DADT repeal becomes effective as of September 20, 2011. (Photo courtesy of Liberty Voice)

The policy was a product, and some may say a compromise, of the Clinton Administration. The policy became a legal reality under 10 U.S.C. § 654 on December 21, 1993. The Clinton Administration also issued a Defense Directive, which provided that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.

The policy’s well-known name is derived from its provisions, which allowed gay men and women to serve in the armed forces so long as they did not reveal their sexual identity.  The government’s rationale for the policy has often been explained in terms of the negative impact that gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly would have on the morale, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essential to military capability.

The “Don’t Ask” provision of the policy mandated that military officials were not to ask members to reveal their sexual orientation. This meant that superiors couldn’t investigate service members without witnessing prohibited behavior or receiving credible evidence of homosexual behavior.  Meanwhile, the “Don’t Tell” provision meant that members could be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual, or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities.

The two other, less well-known, provisions followed later. They included the “Don’t Pursue” and “Don’t Harass” provisions. The “Don’t Pursue” provision simply established the basic requirements that would be necessary in order for officials to initiate an investigation. And due to unauthorized investigations and harassment, the policy was expanded to include a “Don’t Harass,” which really applied to all service members, and directed a zero tolerance provision of harassment or violence against service members.

At its outset, the policy was thought to be an even-handed approach that would allow gays and lesbians to enlist and serve in the armed forces. However, history confirmed that the policy was anything but impartial. In fact, the policy created an environment where no one was punished for asking, but where the military discharged nearly 14,000 troops from the military for “telling.”

Realizing the unfairness of this policy, in 2008, President Obama campaigned on the promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But this promise only began to gain real momentum and garner national attention after the Pentagon released a report on the issues associated with a repeal of DADT. The report gathered information from more than 100,000 surveys returned by service members and their spouses. The major findings of the study were: (1) allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly posed a “low risk” of disruption; and (2) nearly 70 percent of active-duty and reserve forces saw little or no problem with ending DADT.

However, in a 13-page section of the report, dozens of quotes reflected the attitudes of the remaining 30 percent. Among these views, the Washington Post reported that these individuals expressed fears about: (1) contracting AIDS; (2) getting leered at in the showers; (3) disturbing critical bonding at barbecues and bar outings; (4) affronts to religious beliefs; and (5) that this is not the appropriate time to make major changes in the military when we are at war and our men and women overseas.

Despite these divergent views, it is clear the latter is now in the minority. Last year, a California federal judge, Virginia Phillips, ruled that the DADT policy violates service members’ free-speech and due process rights. Now, the law that for nearly 18 years has banned gay Americans from openly serving in the armed forces was repealed Tuesday. This repeal comes nine months after Congress voted to end the law that began during the Clinton Administration.

While President Obama signed the repeal into law last December, its provisions required time for the Pentagon to prepare for the policy changes. For the estimated 65,000 gay members currently serving in the military, the years of debate and months of preparation are finally over. For the first time in the history of the United States, gay service men and women can serve openly in the armed forces without fear of being discharged.

For more information, please see:

Is the Constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Still at Issue? – 21 September  2011

With Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ An Era Ends  20 September 2011

“The Legal Brief” — May 2010

261 DADT Discharges in 2010 – 25 March 2011

Obama calls for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal –27 January  2010

Obama Signs Away ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – 22 December  2010

Senate Repeals Ban Against Openly Gay Military Personnel – 18 December 2010

New bill introduced to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – 11 December  2010

Voices from the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ report of troops who oppose repeal – 30 November 2010