By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

IRELAND, United Kingdom – A High Court in Northern Ireland gave Facebook 72 hours to remove the page, ‘Keeping our kids safe from predators.’ A judge determined that some content amounted to “prima facie harassment” of the man and risked violating his human rights.

The page, which acquired more than 5,000 “likes,” posted pictures of a convicted sex offender. The offender, who cannot be identified, applied to the courts in Northern Ireland to have the site removed immediately after discovering his photograph and life-threatening comments.

The man, who was sentenced to six-years in jail for various child sex offences committed more than two decades ago, also sought an injunction to prevent his photograph and details from appearing on the Facebook page. He claimed harassment, misuse of private information, and a breach of his right to privacy and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment.

In response to the offender’s suit, one Facebook user posted, “So the man, or I mean mess of a human being, that’s taken this page to court, he must want to be the head paedophile and rule over all sex offenders. He will be like a god to them.”

However, Justice McCloskey stated, “Society has dealt with the plaintiff in accordance with the rule of law. He has been punished by incarceration and he is subject to substantial daily restrictions on his lifestyle.”

Although the page was taken down, two similar Facebook pages appeared on Friday afternoon. The replacement page gained 468 ‘likes’ within an hour and did not contain any personal information about specific individuals.

After McCloskey made his ruling, Facebook members continued to comment.

One user wrote, “Can facebook not step in here and fight this battle 4 us….. what the point of having a social netwok if we can’t post facts on people especially wen its 2 keep our kids safe……. Come on Mark Zuckerberg we need your help….. plz plz plz…..”.

Another wrote, “Let down a bag full 🙁 no justice at all……Not only me but every victim of sex abuse every kid in the land……. This is what we get for trying 2 protect our kids.”

For further information, please see:

BBCNews — Facebook given 72 hours to remove paedophile monitoring page – 30 November 2012

The Guardian – Facebook ordered to remove page exposing paedophiles – 30 November 2012

The Huffington Post — Facebook Paedophile Page Closed After Court Rules It Breaches Offenders’ Human Rights – 30 November 2012

IrishTimes – Sex offender takes case over Facebook paedophile page – 27 November 2012

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MINSK, Belarus – The human rights group Viasna (“Spring”) has been kicked out of their offices in Minsk following last year’s conviction of their chairman, Ales Belyatski, for tax evasion.  Belyatski has continued to deny the charges.

Viasna has experienced adversity from the government in the past.  In 2003, its status as an NGO was revoked, without explanation according to the group.

Last August, Belyatski, chairman of Viasna as well as Vice-President of the International Federation for Human Rights, was arrested and jailed on charges of tax evasion “on a large scale.”  He denied the validity of the charges, because the refusal of Belarusian authorities to register Viasna as an NGO meant that it could not hold a bank account in the country.  Therefore, Belyatski open accounts for the NGO in Poland and Lithuania.  For more information see Belarus, Lithuania Rebuked for Arrest of Human Rights Activist.

However, in November 2011, the court sentenced Belyatski to 4.5 years in prison and ordered the confiscation of all of his property.  This seizure extends to the Viasna office space.

Belyatski has been declared a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International.  He has won the Human Rights Defenders Award by the US ambassador to Poland, and the Lech Walesa Award.

Last week, a court notified Viasna that the apartment space it had used as an office for the past 12 years was being confiscated.

On Monday, the court’s orders were carried out, and officials emptied the office of all its equipment and furniture.  The fate of the empty office, a key for which was left in the possession of Belyatsk’s wife, will be decided by a court.

Valentin Stefanovich, Belyatski’s deputy and Viasna’s acting head, acknowledged that “this will make our life harder [because] [t]he office is well-known, recognizable, and people knew how to find us when something happened to them.”  However, he promised that “We are not going to stop any aspects of the legitimate human rights work of the organization. All victims of human rights violations can count on us as before for help and support.”

David Díaz-Jogeix, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia Program condemned the act, calling it “a blatant violation of Belarus’ international human rights obligations to respect and protect the right to freedom of association.”  Furthermore, in October, for the first time since the 1990s, an Amnesty International researcher was denied an entry visa by Belarusian authorities.  A reason was not given.

Additionally, Belarus, a former Soviet republic, has an unfavorable record.  It stands as Europe’s last dictatorship, ruled since 1994 by President Alexander Lukashenko.  He has been accused of persecuting dissidents in order to maintain power.

For example, last month, Lukashenko’s most formidable political rival, Andrei Sannikov, once a deputy foreign minister, fled Belarus, taking political refuge in the U.K..  He had served 16 months in prison, during which he claimed prison staff tortured him and tried to get him to commit suicide.

This September, during voting for parliament, there were reports of election rigging.  There were similar reports two years ago during the 2010 presidential elections.  The result is that no one elected to the 110 seat lower house of parliament was a member of an opposition party.

Mikhail Pashkevich, a leader of the Tell the Truth opposition party, told the BBC that the results had been predetermined.  “There are no elections […] in Belarus now, only something like a farce, a play that is named election but is not an election,” he said.

Unfortunately, Viasna and other NGOs in Belarus face a battle on two fronts.  They face both the human rights abuses they intended to fight, as well as a government that does not want them there in the first place.

For further information, please see:

Moscow Times – Lukashenko Relishes Reputation as Dictator – 27 November 2012

Amnesty International – Belarus Evicts Leading Human Rights Organization – 26 November 2012

RFE/RL – Belarusian Human Rights Center’s Property Confiscated – 26 November 2012

BBC News – Lukashenko’s Belarus: Rights Group Viasna to be Evicted – 20 November 2012

Polskie Radio – Opposition Parties Boycott Belarus ‘Pseudo-Elections’ – 23 September 2012

Polskie Radio – US to award Belarusian ‘human rights defender’ in Warsaw – 25 September 2012

Polskie Radio – Belarusian ‘prisoner of conscience’ wins Lech Walesa Award – 23 September 2012

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom – Britain faced a political scandal when three children were removed from their foster parents after a social worker discovered the couple’s membership in the right-wing party, UKIP, which supports the independence from the European Union.

Although various reports determined that the three migrant children were happy with the couple and no concerns were raised over the care provided, the Rotherham Borough Council in Northern England ordered the removal and defined the parents as unsuitable to provide foster care.

Joyce Thacker, the director for children and young people’s services at Rotherham Council, reasoned that the children were placed with the couple solely for emergency purposes and were never meant to stay with the English couple permanently. Thacker continued, “If the party [UKIP] mantra … is ending the active promotion of multiculturalism, I have to think about that. I think they [UKIP] have very clear views on immigration.”

On the contrary, UKIP party leader, Nigel Farage, said authorities “clearly have no understanding of UKIP and by their actions, clearly no desire to know.” He believed that the council was “partially backtracking” by allowing the couple “to adopt. But by the sounds of it, only white children.”

The UKIP party’s stance on immigration says “the tide of mass EU immigration has pushed down wages and restricted job opportunities. Only by leaving the EU can we regain control of our borders.” The party desires a freeze on immigration for 5 years and believes immigrants “must be fluent in English, have minimum education levels and show they can financially support themselves.”

The Rotherham Council decided that the three children were not “indigenous white British” and “social workers had raised concerns about the UKIP political party’s stance on immigration.” However, after great criticism, the children’s removal will be reviewed.

Education Secretary, Michael Gove, stated that the social workers made “the wrong decision in the wrong way for the wrong reasons” and he  will investigate the decision. He continued, “we should not allow considerations of ethnic or cultural background to prevent children being placed with loving and stable families. We need more parents to foster, and many more to adopt.”

In addition, Rotherham Council Leader, Roger Stone, announced that the Department of Education will investigate and “will focus on the information, advice and evidence gathered before making this decision, the nature of the decision itself and how it was communicated.”

For further information, please see:

Postcode Gazette – Sheffield does not ban foster carers over political views – 26 November 2012

The Independent – Council will investigate why children were removed from Rotherham foster family who were Ukip members after Michal Gove and Ed Miliband weigh in to row – 24 November 2012

NBCNews – Kids removed from UK couple over support for ‘independence’ from Europe – 24 November 2012

RT – Politics over parenting: UK foster family’s children removed over ‘racist’ party support – 24 November 2012

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, U.K. – Following an appeal by several British prisoners to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) due to their lack of enfranchisement, the ECHR ruled that the U.K.’s blanket ban against prisoner voting was illegal (see Hirst v. United Kingdom).  In May, the ECHR gave the British government until this Friday to comply with its ruling.  However, many members of Parliament, including Prime Minister David Cameron, are strongly opposed to giving prisoners the vote.

Presently under Section 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, there is a blanket ban preventing those serving prison time from voting.  However, prisoners awaiting trial, fine defaulters, and those held for contempt of court are still permitted to vote.

The 2005 ruling of the ECHR found this blanket ban to be a violation of human rights, and has demanded that at least some prisoners be enfranchised.  However, the Court did not rule that all inmates need to be given the right to vote.  Rather, individual countries can consider factors such as severity of crimes and duration of sentence when writing policies on which prisoners may vote.  However, a total ban is illegal.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Cameron, most Tories, and even some Labour members are decidedly against any legislation that would enfranchise prisoners.  Popular opinion is also strongly opposed to such a move.

Last month, Prime Minister Cameron told members of Parliament: “No one should be under any doubt – prisoners are not getting the vote under this government.”

Chris Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, last month cautioned against ignoring the ECHR’s ruling, because such would be “a significant step outside th[e] international commitment [of the European Convention of Human Rights].”  He further warned that while other countries have disagreed with the ECHR before, “if we send a message that says we will stand up to the court, where does that leave countries in other parts of Europe that perhaps have less good human rights records than we do?”

Attorney General Dominic Grieve has also stressed the importance of complying with the ECHR’s ruling, saying that it imposes an international legal obligation on the U.K.

As the ECHR’s Friday deadline approaches, Parliament has drafted a bill that some BBC sources claim on Thursday will be voted on after it is outlined by the justice secretary.  The bill gives MPs three options with which to address prisoner voting.

Under a first option, Parliament could outright refuse to give prisoners the vote, as it did in February 2011 in a vote of 234 to 22.  This would place the British government in violation of international law and therefore Article 46 of the Ministerial Code.  Furthermore, the ECHR could fine the government for failure to comply.  Prisoners who feel that they should have been enfranchised under the Court’s ruling could also make bids for compensation.

Under a second option, voting rights would be extended to prisoners serving prison sentences of up to 6 months.

Under a third option, voting rights would be extended to prisoners serving prison sentences of up to 4 years.

Current speculation is that if a vote does take place, the blanket ban would likely be upheld.  However, Parliament hopes that by discussing the issue, it will have met the ECHR’s Friday deadline, even if a vote this week does not enfranchise any prisoners.

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper suggests maintaining the ban, but also working with the ECHR to determine narrowly what voting laws would be acceptable.  “You have to keep going back to the European Court on this because I think the job of the European Court is to look at what is proportionate, what is responsible,” she explained.  “We haven’t passed laws on this before, even though we have passed motions, and I think when we do so, the European Court should look at it again.”

However, there are also those in the U.K. who question Parliament’s reluctance to allow prisoners the vote.  Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, asked: “Is it wise for the government to flout international law, face a substantial fine and millions in mounting compensation claims, ignore the advice of its attorney general, prison governors, bishops to, and inspectors of, prison, and take up Parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money in order to stop sentenced prisoners from acting responsibly by voting in democratic elections?”

For further information, please see:

The Guardian – UK Rejection of the ECHR’s Ruling on Prisoners’ Votes would be Devastating – 21 November 2012

BBC News – Prisoners’ Vote: MPs to Decide on European Ruling – 19 November 2012

BBC News – Votes for Prisoners – Opening the Door? – 19 November 2012

BBC News – Prisoner Vote Bill to be Outlined – 18 November 2012

The Independent – Parliament to Consider Giving Prisoners Votes as European Ruling Deadline Looms – 18 November 2012

The Telegraph – Tories will Change Relations with European Courts After Prisoner Vote Row, says Justice Secretary – 28 October 2012

BBC News – Prisoners will not get the Vote, Says David Cameron – 24 October 2012

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – In early November, Leila Ashirova and Bakiya Kasymova, who were among 12 Kazakhs and Uzbeks, were freed from a nightmare described as a decade of slavery in a basement of a Moscow supermarket.

Although Ashirova and Kasymoya thought their captors would face criminal charges for slavery, Russian prosecutors dropped the criminal investigation and claimed there was no evidence of a crime. Furthermore, on November 9, police accused Ashirova and Kasymova of illegally residing on Russian territory without proper documentation.

Irina Biryukova, the lawyer who represents Ashirova, stated, “The girls are in a really difficult situation because they are no longer connected to a criminal investigation.” She continued, “That means in the eyes of the authorities, they are on Russian territory illegally. [The authorities] would, of course, like to deport them somehow. But we are trying everything to stop this from happening.”

Rights activist, Danila Medvedev, reported “Six years ago, a survey on human trafficking was conducted at the U.N.’s request and said that there are half a million to one million people in Russia who are practically living as slaves here.”

When Russian human rights activists freed the two women in early November, Ashirova and Kasymoya said they were attracted to Russia with the promise of employment. The women also told investigators that they were kept in the supermarket basement for at least 10 years with the fear of violence if they tried to escape. Furthermore, the prisoners were not paid for their work in the supermarket.

Ashirova described the conditions, “I saw one young woman who was carried out dead. Another woman was taken from there forcibly by her parents because she had not come home in so long. Another girl left because one of her legs had become gangrenous. She’d worked there 10 or 15 years; she was there even before us.”

However, despite Ashirova’s testimony, the Moscow prosecutor’s office maintains there is no evidence of slavery. Yelena Rossokhina, a spokeswoman for the Moscow prosecutor’s office, stated, “They say it’s slavery and that they were held for several years. These Uzbek women weren’t held by anyone; they visited shops, they visited clinics, and they didn’t appeal to anyone about being held captive. How can this be sufficient grounds for a criminal case? It’s a very big question. Simple as that.”

Oleg Melnikov, a member of the rights organization Alternative, scorns the prosecutors’ claims as “deceit.”

Anastasia Denisova, a member of the Civil Assistance rights organization, said the two women, “realize that if they don’t go all the way to the end now that it won’t be safe for them either here or at home if these people (their former captors) remain at large.”

Attorneys for Ashirova and Kasymova believe the two women face deportation because of the criminal case the women initiated against their alleged captors.

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL — Freed ‘Slaves’ In Moscow Face Deportation, Their Captors Off The Hook – 20 November 2012

Times of News — Grocery Store Slavery Case Opened – 06 November 2012

Reuters — Russian activists say have freed 12 human “slaves” from shop – 02 November 2012

The Moscow Times – Activists Say Migrants Were Held as Slaves in Grocery Store – 01 November 2012