By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – On Thursday, a United Nations appeals court overturned Momcilo Perisic’s, former Yugoslav Army chief, conviction of war crimes. He was originally sentenced to 27 years for aiding and abetting killings in Bosnia and Croatia, including attacks on Sarajevo and Srebrenica.

In a 4 to 1 decision, the judges ruled that Perisic did not order Serbian forces into Bosnia-Herzegovina to commit war crimes. Furthermore, the judges also determined that he was not in a position to discipline soldiers for attacking the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

During Perisic’s trial, the record showed Perisic regularly attended the Supreme Defense Council’s meetings where Slobodan Milosevic, then the Serbian president, and other leaders approved sending weapons, fuel, police officers and military personnel to fight on behalf of the Serbs in Bosnia and Croatia.

However, the appeals judges said that regardless if Perisic knew about the crimes Serb or pro-Serb fighters committed in Bosnia and Croatia, he did not “directly or knowingly assist” in the atrocities, but rather he made decisions to support the war.

The United Nations appeal court ultimately decided that lower court committed an error by not showing that he was “physically present when criminal acts were planned or committed.”

Theodor Meron, president of the appeals chamber in the tribunal in The Hague, stated, “While Mr Perisic may have known of VRS [Serb Army of Republika Srpska, VRS] crimes, the Yugoslav Army aid he facilitated was directed towards the VRS’s general war effort rather than VRS crimes.”

However, this overturned conviction created some concerns. Various lawyers in The Hague said the ruling confused them.

The court’s ruling, which follows other recent acquittals by appeals court judges, can be seen as changing the story line of war. As a consequence, these recent reversals tightened the definition of crimes for which military commanders can be held responsible.

In the past, the crime of “aiding and abetting” only required knowledge that assistance was being used to commit serious crimes. Yet, the appeals court said that the “intention to commit crimes” is required for a conviction.

Nicholas Koumjian, a lawyer who has worked in several international courts, stated,  “I think this is a step backwards in the law; it contradicts all jurisprudence of this tribunal, even back to the findings of trials at Nuremberg after World War II.”

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s appeals chamber in The Hague ordered Perisic’s immediate release.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Momcilo Perisic: Yugoslav Army Chief Conviction Overturned – 28 February 2013

CNN – Tribunal Reverses Balkan War Crimes Verdict – 28 February 2013

RFE/RL – UN Appeals Court Overturns Ex-Yugoslav Military Chief’s Conviction – 28 February 2013

The New York Times – Court Overturns War Crimes Convictions of Former Chief Yugoslav Army – 28 February 2013

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – Anti-corruption blogger and prominent opposition figure Alexei Navalny is no stranger to butting heads with Russian authority.  His stance as one of the leaders of the opposition movement against President Putin’s 13-year rule has already garnered Navalny three criminal investigations.  However, on Wednesday, investigators levied a new accusation, accusing Navalny of having acquired his qualifications as a lawyer illegally.  Navalny denied the charge.

The Federal Investigative Committee, which answers directly to President Putin, claimed that Navalny provided fraudulent information regarding the two year work experience required to qualify as a lawyer.  The Committee took issue with the Navalny’s statement on his law application that he had obtained the necessary experience while he was the deputy director responsible for legal issues at Allekt, a company where he was also director.

The Committee explained in a statement on its website, “So he named himself both director and his own deputy,” and further claimed that Allekt did not exist when Navalny says he received his legal experience and that Navalny had refused to testify.

Navalny fired back on his blog, pointing out that the Committee’s statement was posted before the Committee had actually interviewed him.  Navalny web activity had already drawn the ire of the Committee.  He had previously used his blog to accuse Investigative Committee chief Alexander Bastrykhin of hiding real estate and other investments in Europe.

Navalny asserted that there are no grounds for denying him his legal credentials and condemned the charges are politically motivated.  Navalny’s lawyer, Vadim Kobzev, has further said his client received his status as a lawyer legally and that there were no reasons to deprive Navalny of his credentials.

Denouncing President Putin’s United Russia as “the party of crooks and thieves,” Navalny’s prominence and effectiveness in the opposition movement appear to have made him a target for a defensive government.  Navalny claims that Putin abuses the justice system to persecute adversaries and the parliament to adopt laws to stifle opposition.  Last week, a senior figure in the United Russia Party resigned after Navalny produced documents evidencing he had failed declare homes owned in the United States on his taxes.

Therefore, three pending investigations are currently underway against Navalny.  He has been accused of stealing timber worth more than $500,000 from a state company in 2009; embezzling up to $3.24 million from a political party in 2007; and, along with his brother, cheating a mail-transport company out of $1.79 million.

Navalny, who worked in commercial law before becoming involved in political activism, became a lawyer in 2009 when working as an adviser to Nikita Belykh, currently the governor of the Kirov region and another prominent opposition figure.

After the Investigative Committee’s announcement, the Moscow Legal Chamber, which registers lawyers in the capital city, announced it would be investigating Navalny’s credentials.

On his blog, Navalny further ridiculed the Committee, calling the allegations old and baseless: “So far, all these complaints have been unsuccessful because they contain a load of garbage that is instantly exposed under critical examination.”

For further information, please see:

Moscow Times – Navalny Fraudulently Obtained Lawyer Credentials, Investigators Say – 28 February 2013

BBC – Russia’s Alexei Navalny Accused of New Fraud – 27 February 2013

Returns – Russia Piles Pressure on Opposition Leader With New Accusation – 27 February 2013

RFE/RL – Russian Opposition Leader’s Law Credentials Questioned – 27 February 2013

Live Journal – The Blog of Navalny in English, In Russian [Original]

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom – The United Kingdom’s top cardinal, Keith O’Brien, is to step down as an archbishop after news reports of inappropriate behavior toward various priests in the 1980s surfaced. Furthermore, he will not to take part in the election of the next pope to succeed Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal O’Brien’s announcement comes a day after a the British newspaper, The Observer, reported that three priests and one former priest brought allegations against O’Brien that date back 30 years.

One former priest claims Cardinal O’Brien made an inappropriate approach towards him in 1980, after night prayers, when he was a seminarian at St Andrew’s College, Drygrange. Furthermore, he resigned as a priest when Cardinal O’Brien was first made a bishop.

Another complainant says while he was living in a parish, inappropriate contact took place between him and O’Brien. A third complainant stated that he consistently experienced “unwanted behavior” by the cardinal in the 1980s. Lastly, the fourth complainant claims the cardinal used night prayers as an “excuse for inappropriate contact”.

James Robbins, BBC’s world affairs correspondent, reported that for years, the Vatican squashed criticism of other cardinals who might have been involved in covering up sexual abuse. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is attracting attention for his role in the cover-up of sexual abuse by priests.

However, the recent accusations will be taken more seriously because Cardinal O’Brien was allegedly involved directly in improper behavior towards other priests.

Ironically, Cardinal O’Brien is famous for his outspoken defense of Catholic teaching on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality.

Last year, Stonewall Scotland, a gay rights group, named O’Brien “Bigot of the Year” after he said gay marriage was a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Catherine Deveney, author of the relevant Observer piece, stated her story was important because the Cardinal set a very adamant “moral blueprint” for the way other people should lead their lives.

She further stated, the four accusers were “men of integrity” who had “done a difficult thing and acted according to their conscience”.

Although Cardinal O’Brien contested the allegations, he stated he would not attend the conclave because he not wish media attention in Rome, during conclave, to be focused on him. Consequentially, Britain will have no voice in the conclave to choose Pope Benedict’s successor.

For further information, please see:

BBC – Cardinal Keith O’Brien Resigns as Archbishop – 25 February 2013

CNN – Scandal Threatens to Overshadow Pope’s Final Days – 25 February 2013

The Guardian – Cardinal Keith O’Brien Resigns – Full Statement – 25 February 2013

USA Today – Britain’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien to Skip Papal Elections—25 February 2013

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KARLSRUHE, Germany – In a historic step, Germany’s highest court last week handed down a ruling which will strengthen gay couples’ adoption rights.  The same day, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against an Austrian policy that had denied certain adoption rights to gay couples.

The German Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt the adopted or step-child of his or her registered partner, a practice known as successive adoption.  German laws allow for the adoption of a same-sex partner’s biological child, while a married heterosexual person can already adopt a partner’s adopted children.

Germany does not permit marriage between homosexual couples, but homosexuals have had the right to form civil partnerships since 2001.  The government has been accused of procrastinating on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage when compared with other countries such as France and the United Kingdom, which are actively addressing the issue.  However, Chancellor Merkel’s spokesman said the government views the ruling “with great respect” and is in the process of considering how to comply with it.

Giving the government until June 2014 to amend the law in conformance with the ruling, the Court explained, “The exclusion of successive adoption by registered partners violates the general principle of equality.”

The Court further reasoned, “In marriage as in a civil partnership, adoption provides the child in the same way with legal security and material advantages in terms of care, support and inheritance law.”

However, the ruling stopped short of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children as a couple.  Much to the frustration of Germany’s main gay rights group, under the ruling, same-sex couples are restricted to adopting the same child on an individual basis.

The case was brought before the Court by a doctor from Münster who had been denied the right to adopt her long-term partner’s adopted Bulgarian daughter.

Volker Beck, an openly gay senior lawmaker with the opposition Green Party, greeted the ruling enthusiastically as “a breakthrough in equal treatment.”  He has announced that the Green Party will propose a draft law in the German Parliament to grant gay couples equal adoption rights with heterosexual couples, including tax breaks.

By contrast, an Austrian lesbian couple went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to earn the right to jointly be recognized as the parents of one of the partner’s biological son.

While Austrian law allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt the biological child of one’s partner, no such right was extended for homosexual couples.  The Austrian government argued before the Court that the purpose of its current law were to uphold a traditional family model.

However, the ECHR ruled against the Austrian government, finding its adoption legislation discriminated based on sexual orientation.  The court stated, “No convincing reasons had been advanced to show that such difference in treatment was necessary for the protection of the family or for the protection of the interests of the child.”

The court further asserted, “there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life,” emphasizing that the government had failed to show that an LGBTI couple could not adequately provide for the needs of a child.

Martin K.I. Christensen, Co-Chair of the International Lesbian and Gay Association-Europe’s Executive Board said: “We hope that this judgment will pave the way towards the removal of the remaining legal barriers for [LGBTI] families in Europe.”

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Austria: Reform Needed After European Court Adoption Victory for Lesbian Couple – 19 February 2013

Huffington Post – Germany’s Gay Adoption Rights Strengthened By Court – 19 February 2013

Pink News – European Court of Human Rights Rules that Austria’s Adoption Laws Discriminated Against Lesbian Couple – 19 February 2013

Returns – German Court Expands Adoption Rights of Gay Couples – 19 February 2013

Spiegel International – Court Ruling: Germany Strengthens Gay Adoption Rights – 19 February 2013

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – Last week, Russia’s Constitutional Court, while upholding the constitutionality of law passed in June restricting protest and rally organization, ruled that authorities should not discriminate against rally organizers and participants on the basis of their political views.

The Constitutional Court approved of Russian laws banning individuals with multiple administrative convictions, which include a large number of citizens, from organizing rallies, reasoning that recurring violations “cast[] doubt on the organi[z]ational ability of such individuals and, most importantly, their ability to run a peaceful public event in a manner prescribed by law.”

Members of Parliament from the Other Russia political party had challenged law, which had become Federal Law No. 65-FZ as of June 8, 2012 (see Russia Parliament Approves Peaceful Assembly Fine, Bill Awaits Putin’s Approval).  They specifically believed Paragraph A in Part 1, Article 2 to be unconstitutional.  This paragraph denied the right to organize rallies, marches and pickets, to those with outstanding convictions for offences against the foundations of the constitutional system and the security of the state, or offences against public safety, or those who have been charged with administrative offences.

Under the law, protest organizers cannot reject alternative routes that authorities propose without good reason, but are entitled to challenge the route decisions in court.  This provision was also upheld by the Court.

However, the Court stressed that authorities must apply the law equally with respect to all organizers and participants, regardless of political views.  The court stated, “Any response by a public authority to the organi[z]ation and running of meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets must, in any case, be neutral, regardless of the political views of the organi[z]ers and participants.”

Nevertheless, the court recognized that even the minimum fines imposed by the rally law are disproportionate to the income of the Russian citizen.  Therefore, the Court order the legislator to take measures to lower the current fines.  Presently, the maximum fines stand at 300,000 roubles (~ $9,000) for individuals and 600,000 roubles (~ $20,000) for officials.

Even in light of the Court’s ruling, restrictions on meetings, rallies and protest continue to be seen throughout Russia.  In St. Petersburg, the city’s local assembly, or City Duma, this week adopted restrictions on public gatherings that will require such gatherings to have official permission and be at least 50 meters from government buildings, schools, hospitals, or police stations.

The adoption comes only a month after the bill was first introduced to the City Duma, when it was first refused in its original form.  The Yabloko Democratic Party, A Just Russia Party, Communist Party and even two members of the United Russia and Liberal Democratic Party questioned whether assembly would be possible in light of the bill.

“We’ll be left with nothing more than one-man pickets; you’ll be allowed to stand with a poster, and that’s all,” Alexander Kobrinsky, a Yabloko deputy, said.

Although the law makes special exceptions for lawmakers, religious ceremonies, sporting and cultural events, and for gatherings limited to less than 200 people in in specially designated areas, the ability to protest or demonstrate in a meaningful way and place is greatly curbed by the new law.

Yabloko leader Grigory Yavlinsky has called the law unconstitutional and promised to fight to repeal it.

The LGBT community in St. Petersburg has certainly seen the effects of tight restrictions on public rallies.  Under the June 8^th law, authorities have the power to require the LGBT demonstrators move to the technical city limits to a tiny village called Novosyolki, after 15 sites the demonstration organizers suggested all were rejected because other events were taking place.

Natalya Tsymbalova, an activist with Democratic St. Petersburg and the Alliance of Straights for LGBT Equality, described the alternative location the city authorities had provided: “There is an aerodrome, a dump and a cemetery there. It looks like they have found the most remote location which is still officially part of the city.”

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – St. Petersburg Tightly Restricts Public Gatherings – 20 February 2013

St. Petersburg Times – Gay Groups Continue to Fight Unfair Treatment – 20 February 2013

Human Rights in Russia – Constitutional Court Confirms Special Requirements for Rally Organisers – 14 February 2013

RT – Authorities Must Not Politically Discriminate Against Protesters – Constitutional Court – 14 February 2013

St. Petersburg Times – City Duma Rejects Call For Ban on Assemblies – 23 January 2013