By Alok Bhatt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BAGRAM, Afghanistan – Representatives of the US military recently divulged its designs to remove and re-locate non-Afghan prisoners presently detained in Bagram Air Base.  Bagram Air Base signifies the United States’ controversial detention facility outside the capital  city of Kabul.  Since 2001, the US military has utilized Bagram Air Base to hold suspected enemy combatants, persons classified as terrorists, and other alleged malefactors.  Numerous human rights issues have been invoked since the transformation of the Air Base into a prison.  Among the most significant international law violations charged are the torture of Bagram inmates and the indiscriminate abduction and subsequent captivity of persons with unconfirmed combatant status from countries surrounding Afghanistan.

Vice-Admiral Robert Harward of Joint Task Force 435, overseer of detainees and operations concerning their imprisonment, stated that Bagram contains only a small number of non-Afghan detainees.  There are supposedly only approximately thirty to sixty foreign nationals held in Bagram.  The US military has also claimed that it is currently coordinating with the native countries of the non-Afghan detainees.  These negotiations aim to deliver non-Afghan inmates back to the legal structures of their respective home nations.

The decision to  release all non-Afghan detainees is said to have formed from Afghanistan’s requests, for they did not desire to manage persons from other states when the Afghan government assumed control of the prison.  Prior to the recent decision to ultimately relinquish control of Bagram to Afghanistan, the US military had sole rule over its operations.  However, by the end of 2010, the US military hopes to transfer the responsibility of running the prison to the Afghan government.  While Afghanistan will possess control of the institution,the US military will retain some minimal involvement.

In late 2009, the US military announced myriad reforms pertinent to the management of the Bagram Air Base.  Following the completion of expansion and renovation of the prison, it was announced that greater transparency and regard for rights would be implemented into its system.  The Afghan government will be charged with fulfilling these promises, particularly as they regard the non-Afghan nationals.  Although negotiations to transfer foreign nationals have gone underway, the ultimate fate of non-Afghan detainees, as a general matter, remains to be determined.

For more information, please see:

Al-Jazeera – US to ‘transfer Bagram detainees’ – 27 April 2010

Common Dreams – US to “transfer Bagram detainees’… – 28  April 2010

NPR – Rights Groups Descry U.S. Stand on Bagram Detainees – 15 September 2009

By Hyo-Jin Paik
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BEIJING, China – Two Chinese human rights lawyers are fighting moves to disbar them from practicing law for defending human rights activists.  Their case has drawn protests from others in the legal profession as well as activists groups.

The two lawyers, Tang Jitian and Liu Wei, could be disbarred because the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice has accused them of “disrupting order in court and interfering with proper litigation procedure.” 

Tang and Liu also stood a disbarment hearing last year in southwest China for defending members of the Falun Gong, a group that has been banned in China in 1999 after Falun Gong members protested around the Chinese Communist Party’s headquarters.  However, the two left the courtroom in protest.

Another hearing was held this week to decide whether the two should be permanently disbarred.  Amnesty International called the hearing “absurd” as the goal of the hearing is to revoke the two lawyers’ licenses for defending Falun Gong members.

Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific Director Sam Zarifi said, “The notion that lawyers can be punished for presenting evidence and arguing their case in court is absurd.”

Zarifi added, “The Chinese Ministry of Justice must send a signal that it will protect lawyers from political intimidation and uphold their right and duty to defend their clients appropriately, in line with Chinese law and international legal standards.”

Teng Biao, who represented Tang and Liu at the administrative hearing before the Beijing Bureau of Justice, said, “This case is getting so much attention because it’s really about the basic ability of rights defen[s]e lawyers to represent people in court.”

In his defense, Tang also said, “In recent years, China’s gone into reverse.  The judiciary is paying more attention to politics, less to rule of law, and we felt we had to speak out.”

In the recent years, Chinese lawyers have used a combination of litigation and publicity to challenge the Chinese authorities’ laws and policies that restrict citizens’ rights.

Around 500 supporters of Tang and Liu gathered outside the hearing venue where they were met by 200 police officers.  Some 20 protesters were detained but most were released by end of the day.

“Escalating harassment of Chinese lawyers is seriously undermining the rule of law, and risks further lowering public trust in the Chinese legal system,” said Zarifi.

Tang and Liu are still awaiting the verdict.
For more information, please see:

Amnesty International – CHINESE HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS SUBJECTED TO ‘ABSURD’ DISBARMENT HEARING – 22 April 2010

Reuters – China rights lawyers fight disbarment threat – 22 April 2010

Spero News – China: Lawyers for Human Rights demonstrate in Beijing against injustice – 22 April 2010

By Alok Bhatt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

COLOMBO, Sri Lanka – After months of what General Fonseka has claimed to be unlawful detention, the former key organizer of Sri Lankan armed forces now demands freedom from captivity.  General Fonseka’s unsuccessful run against Mahinda Rajapaksa in Sri Lanka’s presidential elections cost him his liberty, as Rajapaska, the remaining president, accused Fonseka of running with militant, anti-government designs.  High tensions between Rajapaksa and Fonseka intensified when, following the end of the quarter-century civil war against the Tamil Tigers, Fonseka acted on political aspirations.  Fonseka’s policies contravened Rajapaksa’s ethically questionable regime, further alarming the former president and resulting in his efforts to undermine Fonseka’s potential to ascend to office.

Among other allegations, Rajapaksa charged General Fonseka with interacting and supporting anti-government organizations.  Rajapaksa also claimed that General Fonseka illegally procured arms to advance his purposes.  Under the notion that General Fonseka was planning a forceful rule of the state, Rajapaksa ordered law enforcement to arrest and retrieve General Fonseka from his campaign offices and detain him.  A pending trial will determine the validity of these suspect charges.  The court marshal for Fonseka’s supposed effort to run for office while still serving under the Sri Lankan military was recently adjourned for two weeks for parliament’s inaugural session.

In his first public statement since his detainment on February 8th, General Fonseka expressed his hopes that the parliament would support the rights and liberties of the Sri Lankan people and unite in the interest of an honest nation.  The Sri Lankan government has long been accused of myriad human rights violations and morally tenuous policies and practices.  Fonseka’s remarks suggest his discontent with the state’s operations, despite his significant involvement in the military’s victory over the Tamil Tigers.

Although Fonseka’s attempt to rise to the presidency failed, his Democratic National Alliance party was able to occupy as total of seven seats in parliament.  Afforded the opportunity to speak in the house, Fonseka described his detainment as “illegal detention” and an example of the multiple “injustices” perpetrated by the Sri Lankan government.

The ultimate fate of the general remains to be decided, and it seems uncertain how his minimal influence in parliament will effect the pending decision of his fate.  However, Fonseka’s captivity appears to be an extension of Sri Lanka’s history of rights violations against its own people

For more information, please see:

Al-Jazeera – Sri Lanka’s Fonseka demands freedom -22 April 2010

BBC – Detained opposition leader in Sri Lankan parliament – 22 April 2010

Los Angeles Times – Sri Lanka defends arrest of candidate Sarath Fonseka – 10 Februar 2010

By Alok Bhatt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – The continual violence between insurgency groups and US and Nato forces in Kandahar has recently claimed the lives of three youths, aged between eleven and fifteen.  The children were playing near a donkey cart in a residential locality, where their uncle, who had significant involvement in the election  of President Hamid Karzai, serves as a local chief.  The children jumped on the donkey cart and triggered a concealed explosive device.  The blast also injured two police officers and two civilians.  Screams were reported to  be heard from inside a nearby residential compound, and the scene after the blast has been described as “carnage”.

Explosions were apparently to a donkey fitted with a remote detonator.  The weight of the children upon the cart likely activated the detonator, resulting in the  explosion.  A Taliban leader claimed responsibility for the attack and also asserted that the attack actually took the lives of eleven people.  It does not seem to be reported, however, whether or not this count has been confirmed.  Furthermore, the Taliban agent divulging the alternate number did not identity the other supposed victims as either civilian or combatant, making the additional entailed human rights issues based on his information difficult to determine.

Previous reports expressed that only one boy had been killed while the two civilians and pair of policemen had been injured.  Further confusing the account of the blast, the Taliban fighter claiming responsibility for the attack asserted that the attack was intended to effect “foreigners”, and that eleven foreigners were successfully killed.  The purpose of the attack, however, was discovered to be a response to a US military strike that has been planned to remove Taliban presence from the Kandahar region.

The instances of attacks outside Kandahar carry severe implications for both  the effort to oust the Taliban and the right of civilians to live in peace.  Violence occurring in residential areas suggests that the perpetrators of such strikes have accumulated the resources and disposition to strike areas not directly involved in the conflict.  This has the effect of terrorizing non-combatants and leaving no areas immune to such attacks.  Such reckless regard for human life also signifies the difficulty of attempting to undermine a group that kills merely to demonstrate their presence.

For more information, please see:

Al-Jazeera – Children killed in Afghan blast – 19 April 2010

CNN – Donkey cart at police post, killing 3 children – 19 April 2010

Yahoo! News – Three children killed in Afghan blast – 19 April 2010

By Michael E. Sanchez
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BANGKOK, Thailand- On Tuesday, protesters dug their heels deeper, fortifying their encampment in Bangkok’s hotel-and-shopping district and threatened to “wage a big war” to bring down the government.  The Thai army has stated its intentions to use live ammunition against “red-shirt” anti-government protesters in certain circumstances.

A spokesman for the army said that soldiers were ready to use their weapons “decisively”.  The army warned that is was ready to use force if provoked.  Soldiers in combat gear guarded nearby sections of the capital, are prepared to use tear gas and rubber bullets, in addition to live ammunition in self defense, if fighting were to occur.  The Thai army alleges that protesters were arming themselves with crude weapons such as small bombs, and sharpened bamboo poles.  Spokesman Col Sansern KaeKamnerd told reporters “We can no longer use the soft to hard steps…We have to keep a distance between troops and demonstrators.  If they try to break the line, we will start using tear gas, and if they do break the ling, we need to use weapons to deal with them decisively.”

The “Red Shirt” protesters, mostly comprised of poor, rural demonstrators,  have demanded that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva call early elections.  They have occupied the tiny Rajprasong district for more than a month and now are camping in nearby main roads covering several city blocks.  On Monday, security forces moved to nearby Silom Road to prevent Red Shirt incursions in the the area’s central business district.

This standoff in Bangkok has cost city merchants tens of millions of dollars. Key protest leader  Nattawaut Saikua stated ” We will fortify our rally campground to ward off any invasion before we go out to wage a big war.”  He also stated that once troops move out of Silom Road, the Red Shirts would stage a march down the road.

Saikua indicated that the protesters were open to negotiations to end 40 days of confrontations in the city, saying  “Our group is always open to outsider suggestions.  Whatever group wants to propose a solution to the crisis, we’re happy to hear these solutions.”

However there has been no sign of compromise on the horizon, although Abhisit said he would not set a date for protesters to be forced out of their encampment.

For more information, please see:

BBC News- Thai Army ‘Ready To Use Live Fire Against Red-Shirts’– 20 April 2010

WDAM.Com- Thai Protesters Fortify Camps in Heart of Bangkok– 20 April 2010

Inthenews.co.uk- Thai Army Ready To Use Weapons “Decisively’ Against Protestors– 20 April 2010