Justice for Sergei Magnitsky: Crane 1 of 1 Canadian Parliament Formally Recommends the Canadian Government Adopt Magnitsky Sanctions Against Human Rights Violators

Canadian Parliament Formally Recommends the Canadian Government Adopt Magnitsky Sanctions Against Human Rights Violators

6 April 2017 – Today, the Canadian Parliament’s Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs has issued a formal recommendation to the Canadian government to update the existing sanctions legislation with the Magnitsky sanctions against human rights violators.

In their recommendation, the Committee said: “In honour of Sergei Magnitsky, the Government of Canada should amend the Special Economic Measures Act to expand the scope under which sanctions measures can be enacted, including in cases of gross human rights violations.”

The Magnitsky recommendations include:
1) Freezing assets of human rights violators,
2) Banning their entry to Canada,
3) Publishing a list of people and entities subject to these sanctions, and
4) Conducting an annual review of the Canadian government’s enforcement of the legislation.

The recommendation was inspired by the case of Sergei Magnitsky in Russia, but has been expanded to apply to human rights violators globally.

The Committee concluded:

“While originally focused on addressing the human rights situation in Russia, catalysed by the tragic case of Sergei Magnitsky, this movement now calls for the application of sanctions against human rights violators globally, and was instrumental in the passing of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act in the U.S.”

The report by Canada’s Foreign Affairs Committee cites William Browder, leader of the global Magnitsky Justice Campaign:

“Effectively, with a Magnitsky act, whether it be a Russian act specifically or a global act, it would give people some hope that in Canada, the United States, and other places, people do care.”

The Canadian Magnitsky Recommendation is a result of a five-month review of the sanctions regime conducted in the Canada’s House of Commons.

“The Committee heard compelling testimony from a number of highly-respected human rights activists regarding how sanctions can be a potentially valuable tool in the promotion and protection of human rights. They recommended that Canada expand the legislative authority under which the government can impose sanctions against human rights violators,” says the Foreign Affairs Committee report.

The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee quotes Zhanna Nemtsova, founder of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom, named after her father, a Russian pro-democracy advocate who was murdered in 2015, saying:

“These are not sanctions against a country or even a government. These are sanctions against specific individuals responsible for corruption and for abusing human rights.”

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs was tasked with the review of the sanctions regime on 14 April 2016 by the Canada’s House of Commons.

The Committee held the review from October 2016, by conducting 13 hearings where different experts testified on the legislation. The committee assessed related policy issues from government officials, academics, researchers, stakeholders and practitioners.

Today, the Committee published its final report recommending the Government adopts the Magnitsky sanctions.

As part of its recommendations, the Foreign Affairs Committee called for the Government to publish a list of sanctioned persons:

“The Government of Canada should produce and maintain a comprehensive, public and easily accessible list of all individuals and entities targeted by Canadian sanctions containing all information necessary to assist with the proper identification of those listed.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee also recommended that the Government publishes an annual report on the implementation of the sanctions regime.

“The Government of Canada should amend the Special Economic Measures Act to require the production of an annual report by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to be tabled in each House of Parliament within six months of the fiscal year-end, which would detail the objectives of all orders and regulations made pursuant to that Act and actions taken for their implementation.”

The next step is for the Canadian government to consider the parliament’s recommendation and draft legislation.

For more information, please contact:

Justice for Sergei Magnitsky
+44 207 440 1777
e-mail: info@lawandorderinrussia.org
www.lawandorderinrussia.org
billbrowder.com
Twitter.com/Billbrowder

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity Alert: Syria

Atrocity Alert, No. 49, 5 April 2017

Atrocity Alert is a weekly publication by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect highlighting and updating situations where populations are at risk of, or are enduring, mass atrocity crimes.

Syria

On 4 April a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government took place in the town of Khan Shaykhun in Idlib province. The attack killed at least 60 people, including 11 children. Eyewitness reports, videos and photographic evidence appear to show victims suffering from symptoms consistent with severe exposure to a nerve agent, such as sarin gas. It was also reported that hours later an airstrike targeted a local medical facility treating victims of the attack.

If verified, Khan Shaykhun would be the deadliest chemical weapons attack to take place in Syria since August 2013, when more than 1,000 people were killed in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta during a sarin attack. Despite the Syrian government agreeing to surrender its chemical weapons in the aftermath of that attack, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Joint Investigative Mechanism (OPCW-JIM), mandated by the UN Security Council (UNSC), has determined that the Syrian government has used chlorine gas as a weapon on at least three occasions since then – in Talmenes on 21 April 2014, Qmenas on 16 March 2015, and Sarmin on 16 March 2015. The OPCW-JIM also determined that the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant used mustard gas in Marea on 21 August 2015. These attacks violate international law and directly contravene UNSC Resolution 2118 of September 2013.

The prohibition of chemical weapons is one of the oldest norms of the international community, dating back to 1899. The Geneva Protocol of 1925 reinforced the strict prohibition of chemical weapons under international law. Chemical weapons remain inherently immoral, indiscriminate and illegal. The use of chemical weapons and the deliberate targeting of medical facilities both amount to war crimes.

The failure of the Security Council to act in relation to the findings of the OPCW-JIM is leading to the normalization of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Less than two months ago, on 28 February, the United Kingdom, United States and France put forward a draft UNSC resolution that would have held accountable, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Syrian government officials and entities linked to chemical weapons attacks that have taken place in Syria since 2013. The resolution was not adopted due to Russia and China’s sixth double-veto. As the attack in Idlib demonstrates, such vetoes shield perpetrators and perpetuate a climate of impunity.

The UNSC held an emergency meeting on 5 April during which many Council members condemned the Khan Shaykhun attack and the use of chemical weapons. A draft resolution is currently under negotiation.

We urge all Security Council members to come together to uphold their responsibility to protect civilians in Syria. The international community cannot allow the normalization of chemical warfare to continue. For the sake of the Syrian people the Security Council must speak with one voice and hold those responsible for the Khan Shaykhun attack accountable under international law.

Connect With Us

Germany to Investigate Suspected Turkish Spying

By Sarah Lafen

Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe

BERLIN, Germany — Thomas De Maiziere, German interior minister announced last week that it will no longer tolerate “foreign espionage” within its country.  The announcement was made following reports that Turkish secret services were spying on supporters of the Gulen movement within Germany.

Turkish voters in Berlin, Germany wait in line at the Turkish consulate to vote in a constitutional referendum on March 27, 2017 (Photo Courtesy of U.S. News & World Report)

The Gulen movement originated with Fethullah Gulen, a U.S.-based Muslim cleric who has a large following in Turkey and is accused of orchestrating the coup in Turkey last July.

At a security conference in February, Hakan Finda, head of Turkey’s intelligence service MIT, allegedly gave a list of 300 people and 200 organizations that are suspected to be involved in opposition movements to his German counterpart Bruno Kahl.  The list reportedly includes surveillance photos taken by hidden cameras, and personal data.  Finda’s apparent goal in handing over the list was to convince German authorities to assist Turkey’s efforts of surveilling these individuals.

De Maiziere affirmed that Germany has “repeatedly told Turkey that something like this is unacceptable.”  He also noted that despite any amount of evidence that Turkey might have on the Gulen movement, “German jurisdiction applies and citizens will not be spied on by foreign countries.”

The espionage claims further the strain in the relationship between Germany and Turkey, who are Nato allies and have had recent disputes regarding human rights issues.  Boris Pistorius, interior minister of the German state Lower Saxony, called the Turkish espionage “intolerable and unacceptable” and publicly deplored the “intensity and ruthlessness” of Turkey’s attempt to spy on Turks living in foreign countries.

A spokesperson for the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in Germany confirmed that they have launched an investigation against an “unnamed entity on suspicion of espionage.”  The spokesperson declined to comment on which specific entity was being investigated, however federal prosecutors will be looking into how Turkey compiled such detailed information on the people on their list.

This Turkish espionage effort is not the first that Germany has seen.  In February, German police raided the homes of four Turks who were suspected of spying on alleged Gulen supporters on behalf of Erdogan’s government.

Germany’s foreign secret service has not yet commented on the situation.

 

For more information, please see:

BBC — Turkey ‘Spied’ on Pro-Gulen Opponents in Germany — 28 March 2017

Daily Mail — Germany Opens New Probe into Suspected Turkish Spying — 28 March 2017

The Guardian — Germany to Investigate Claims of ‘Intolerable’ Spying by Turkey — 28 March 2017

U.S. News & World Report — Germany Tells Turkey not to Spy on Turks Living on its Soil — 28 March 2017

Syrian Network for Human Rights: No less than Nine Chemical Attacks since the Beginning of 2017

In its 4th report which was published on October 21, 2016, the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism, established in accordance with Security Council Resolution 2235 on August 7, 2015, has declared the Syrian regime responsible for three chemical attacks that took place between 2014 and 2015, and declared ISIS responsible for one attack in Marea city in Aleppo. SNHR has published a report that highlights the chemical attacks in the period of time between the 4th report and the end of 2016.

More…

Website
Facebook
Twitter
Google Plus
Instagram
YouTube
RSS
Email

PILPG:War Crimes Prosecution Watch Volume 12, Issue 2 – April 3, 2017

Case School of Law Logo
 
Founder/Advisor
Michael P. Scharf
 
War Crimes Prosecution Watch
Volume 12 – Issue 2
April 3, 2017
PILPG Logo
Editor-in-Chief
James Prowse
Managing Editors
Rina Mwiti
Alexandra Mooney
War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type “subscribe” in the subject line.
Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group.

Contents

Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber