By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, U.K. – Does a soldier on the battlefield have a human right to life?  The United Kingdom’s highest court plans to answer this question for the families of three soldiers killed in Iraq.

Each case involves the much-criticized Snatch Land Rover vehicle.  The snatch had relatively light armor, and, according to The Independent, was “a vehicle so vulnerable to bombs that it would earn the nickname the mobile coffin.”  It was eventually removed from combat service.

Pte Philip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, died in July 2005, after the Snatch in which he was riding was blown up.   Pte Lee Ellis, 23, of Wythenshawe, Greater Manchester, was killed in an attack on his Snatch in February 2006. L/Cpl Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, East London, also died in a Snatch explosion in August 2007.

The families of the deceased, including Hewett’s mother, Sue Smith, persistently filed a series of suits to make the Ministry of Defense (MoD) admit the danger of the Snatch and the need to offer British soldiers the same protects as any other British citizen.

Last year, Redpath’s father, Colin Redpath, said “All we wanted was for the government to admit Snatch Land Rovers were not fit for purpose. Generals and MPs have already said this.  We just wanted it to be recognized. People are still dying in Snatch Land Rovers in Afghanistan when armored vehicles should be used against improvised explosive devices.”

Smith added that her son “was at all times a British citizen and subject to the orders of his superiors, which is why he was in a Snatch Land Rover in the first place. If Phillip had known the MoD was going to wash its hands of responsibility for his safety the moment he was sent to war, I don’t think he would have gone.”

In October, a Court of Appeal granted damages to the three families (and to the family of a soldier killed by “friendly fire”) on claims of negligence.  According to BBC News, the Court of Appeal focused on two issues: whether the MoD owes a duty of care to soldiers who are killed or injured on the battlefield, and whether soldiers serving in operations abroad fall under Human Rights laws.

While the MoD argued that decisions about battlefield equipment were for politicians and commanders, the court found that an employer-employee duty did exist.  However, as to this issue of human rights, the court rejected the claims, but gave the families leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Currently, men and women serving in foreign wars are covered by European human rights laws while on base, but not off.  Ironically, the European Court of Human Rights has also ruled that the citizens of a country under occupation by a country bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are also protected, leading to a paradox in which under European law soldiers may at times have less human rights than the people of a country in which they are stationed.

Smith’s attorney, Jocelyn Cockburn further explained “It is anomalous that, as the law currently stands, that soldiers are capable of bringing others within UK jurisdiction but they are not within it themselves. We afford Iraqi citizens rights of protection which we can’t even give to our own soldiers.”  Cockburn hopes that the Supreme Court will take the European Court of Human Rights’ ruling into consideration.

However, according to the Independent, the Supreme Court has previously ruled in 2010 against protecting soldiers in the battlefield under the Human Rights Act.  Then Defense Secretary, Liam Fox, considered it a victory for common sense, and stated: “It is right that orders given in the heat of battle should not be questioned by lawyers at a later date. It would have been absurd to try to apply the same legal considerations on the battlefield that exist in non-combat situations.”

The U.K.’s seven-justice Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the cases during a three day session beginning February 18, 2013.  The appeal is being brought under Article 2 of the ECHR, which according to John Wadham, General Counsel for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, places a responsibility on the state to protect life in the context of the situation.  According to BBC News, a reversal of the Court of Appeal’s rejection is anticipated.

For Smith, getting this far gives her hope: “It actually gives me a little bit of faith back. Sometimes I feel the government is in control of everything that I am fighting a system that everybody works for. It is nice to know that I might have a chance.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Supreme Court Judges to Consider Iraq Damages Ruling – 10 November 2012

The Independent – Exclusive: Supreme Court to Rule on a Soldier’s Right to Life – 10 November 2012

The Independent – A Mother’s Story on a Soldier’s Right to Life: ‘Initially, I just Got Blanked and Treated Like a Fool by Everybody I Met’ – 10 November 2012

The Telegraph – Court to Consider Whether Soldiers Have Right to Life’ – 10 November 2012

BBC News – Soldiers’ Families Get Green Light to Sue MoD over Iraq Deaths – 19 October 2012

The Telegraph – Families of Dead Soldiers Can Sue MoD for Negligence, Senior Judges Rule – 19 October 2012

BBC News – Relatives of Iraq Death Soldiers Make Compensation Bid – 25 June 2012

BBC News – Iraq Compensation Bid is Blocked – 30 June 2011

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BERLIN, Germany – A German court recently ruled that skin color alone is insufficient grounds for a police check. This decision overturned a previous ruling that determined certain police are allowed to carry out ID checks based on skin color.

In the lower court, the Koblenz court dismissed a complaint by a black German man who was asked to show his papers when he was on a train. When the man refused, he was taken to a police station and searched. Thereafter, two federal police officers alleged the man abused them while he was detained. During the court hearing, the officers said he checked the man’s ID on the train partially because of the man’s skin color.

Although the administrative court in Koblenz held that the police’s behavior was reasonable in order to catch illegal immigrants, the judges in a higher administrative court determined that racial profiling is a clear violation of the ban on discrimination.

The German constitution states, “No person shall be favored or disfavored because of sex, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, or religious or political opinions.”

Human rights activists applaud the high court’s decision. Alexander Bosch, an expert for police and human rights issues, said, “We welcome the ruling as an important signal against discrimination in identity checks.” He also commented that over the past couple of years, there has been an increase in complaints by people with an immigrant background who were exposed to discriminatory identity checks.

Tahir Della, from the Initiative of Black People in Germany, also favored the decision.  He states, “We have been fighting for years for public recognition of this practice. Police checks of this kind are no one-off. They are the everyday experience of many black people and people of color in Germany. They are put under suspicion and criminalized by this police practice. We hope that this verdict will serve as a basic political signal.”

However, the German police do not agree with the recent decision. Rainer Wendt, chair of the German Police Union, states, “The courts deal with the law in an esthetically pleasing way, but they don’t make sure their judgments match practical requirements.”

Josef Scheuring, head of the union’s federal police division, commented, “A person should never be checked based solely on his or her skin color, and the federal police don’t do this as a rule, but particular situations and considerations could justify such measures.” He believes that this issue should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.

For further information, please see:

Deutsche Welle – Court Bans police Racial Profiling – 31 October 2012

Spiegel — Court Rules Against Police Checks Based on Skin Color – 31 October 2012

The Local — Police: sorry for racial profiling on ID checks – 30 October 2012

The Huffington Post — German Police ID Checks By Skin Color OK, Says Court – 27 March 2012

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

PARIS, France — French president François Hollande’s Socialist government has announced its plan to make good on a key issue of his electoral platform from May: gay marriage and adoption.  The French Parliament presented Hollande’s cabinet with draft legislation of the bill it plans to review in January to legalize gay marriage and adoption, despite strong opposition from the political right, and from the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Islamic faiths.

The draft legislation would probably pass both houses of France’s Parliament fairly easily.  If measures legalizing gay marriage were passed, France would be the 12^th country to legalize gay marriage, in the company of other countries including Canada, South Africa, Spain and Portugal; with a population of 60 million, it would also be the largest.

Currently civil unions are allowed between gay couples.  However, such lack several advantages of marriage, including the ability take their partner’s name, gain inheritance and pension rights, and to adopt.

The proposed legislation would also expressly allow gay couples to adopt.  In France, a requirement of adoption is being a married couple, which hereto now has not been an option for members of the gay community.

Legislation appears to be the only measure to overturn France’s gay marriage ban.  Two years ago France’s highest judicial authority, the Constitutional Council, refused to strike down the ban residing in the Civil Code, ruling that the ban was constitutional, but that the legislator could change the law if desired.

Hollande and the legislator’s plans have seen fierce opposition from the political Right and church, throughout the French country.

Over 1000 mayors and deputy-mayors of communities have signed a petition against the bill and in at least 75 towns and cities there have been protests, with some calls for mass protests.

Jean-Francois Cope, a member of the conservative UMP party leadership, wants to draft bill delayed citing that it was “incredibly badly prepared.”  He claims that the measures go far beyond gay marriage: “[I]t is about a complete reorganization, deconstruction of the right of the family, with questions surrounding lineage, the removal of the reference to father and mother in the text.”

Former Prime Minister, François Fillon, has also promised his party will repeal the law and un-marry any gay couples married under it.

The Roman Catholic Church has also expressed its concern over the draft legislation.  Pope Benedict XVI has called on French bishops to oppose the legislation and defend marriage as the “foundation of social life.”

A leader of the opposition, Paris Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois, expressed his concern that children needed both a father and a mother to build their identities.  He said “When we defend the right of children to build their personality with reference to the man and the woman who gave them life, we are not defending a particular position” and urged the government to consider “the accumulated wisdom of our civilization that marked its gradual exit from barbarism.”

However, Minister of Family Affairs Dominique Bertinnoti argued that “This is an important step towards the equality of rights,” and asserted that the bill will not destroy families, because “on the contrary it is a legal protection.”

The writers of the draft bill intend to only amend the Civil Code “where strictly necessary,” however, they also plan to use gender neutral language throughout al amended sections: “patent” instead of “mother” or “father” and “spouse” instead of “husband“ or “wife.” However, these terms will not be changes globally through the Civil Code.

Even those largely in favor of the law have identified some short comings.  For example, the draft legislation does not provide the right to medically assisted conception for gay couples (e.g. in vitro fertilization for lesbians).  Nor will it allow a single gay person the right to adopt.  Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has suggested amendments can be added later.

President Hollande expressed his approval of the draft legislation, saying that “[t]his would be progress not just for the few, but for our whole society.”  He further emphasized that the proposed legislation “resolutely takes into account the greater interest of the child.”

Hollande wants to see the new bill on the statute books by mid-2013.

Support for gay marriage is growing in France.  French newspaper Le Monde’s most recent Ifop poll showed 65% support for gay marriage, although only 52% of respondents favored gay couples adopting.

For further information, please see:

France 24 – French Government Backs Draft Gay Marriage Law – 8 November 2012

BBC News – French Gay Marriage and Adoption Bill Backed by Cabinet – 7 November 2012

France 24 – France Adopts Gay Marriage Plan Despite Opposition – 7 November 2012

The Guardian – French Government Approves Introduction of Same-Sex Marriage – 7 November 2012

The Independent – French President Francois Hollande Keeps His Vow to Legalise Gay Marriage – 7 November 2012

The Telegraph – French Gay Marriage Plans ‘A Sham That Will Smash Foundations of Society’ – 6 November 2012

The International Herald Tribune – France: Gay Marriage Ban Upheld – 28 January 2011

France 24 – France Reviews Gay Marriage Ban – 16 November 2010

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

ATHENS, Greece – Last Sunday, a Greek independent magazine editor, Kostas Vaxevanis, was arrested on the charge of breach of privacy for publishing the names of 2,059 Greeks alleged to have Swiss bank accounts.  Only days later on Thursday, Vaxevanis was tried, and was acquitted.  However, Vaxevanis claims that his arrest, trial, and subsequent release, and the lack of press coverage thereof in Greece as opposed to in foreign countries, demonstrates that the business elite in Greece have muzzled the Greek press.

Last Saturday (10/27), Vaxevanis’ Hot Doc magazine published a list he claims is the infamous Lagarde list, containing the names of 2,059 Greeks believed to have accounts in the Geneva branch of HSBC, according to the New York Times.  Vaxevanis claimed he got it from an anonymous source, according to Returns.

The following morning (10/28), police surrounded the home of Vaxevanis’ friend with whom he was staying while Vaxevanis was giving a live radio interview.  According to the New York Times, Vaxevanis tweeted: “They’re entering my house with the prosecutor right now. They are arresting me. Spread the word.”

The prosecutor charged Vaxevanis with breach of privacy at setting his trial date for Monday before releasing him several house later.  The alleged crime carries a prison term of up to two years and a fine of about 30,000€ ($39,000).

A police officer explained to Returns that “the prosecutor issued a warrant for Vaxevanis’ arrest because he published a list of names without special permission and violated the law on personal data. There is no proof that the persons or companies included in that list have violated the law . . . . on tax evasion or money laundering.”

However, Vaxevanis felt that he had a duty to the Greek people to report the truth.  During a recess in his trial, he told the Guardian: “If you look at the names, or the offshore companies linked to certain individuals, you see that these are all friends of those in power. Phony lists had also begun to circulate. It was time for the truth.”

On Monday (10/29), Vaxevanis’ trial date was set for Thursday, November 1.  The New York Times noted that many Greeks saw the speed with which the trial moved ahead “as a sharp contrast to the normally slow wheels of Greek justice,” particularly in light of the Greek state’s resilience to investigate those named on the Lagarde List.

A few days later, Vaxevanis noted, “I don’t think the decision to bring me before the court was the work of an overzealous prosecutor. I think it was very deliberate and very vindictive.”

On Thursday (11/1), Vaxevanis was acquitted by a three judge panel in a hearing that lasted almost 12 hours.  His lawyers argued in part that the charges were outrageous and that no one on the list had complained of a breach of privacy.

The Lagarde List, so named after former French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde who gave the list to her Greek counterpart, George Papaconstantinou, in 2010, had been believed to contain the names of prominent Greeks who used Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes.

However, in the two years since obtaining the list, the Greek government did not appear to take action to investigate those named, and there have been accusations of a cover up.  Greek finance ministers have claimed both to have lost the list, and to have turned it over to the appropriate police authorities.

The list Vaxevanis published includes a former culture minister, doctors, lawyers and individuals identified as “housewives,” but did not include information on the amount of money anyone had in an account.  Even so, the Lagarde List of wealthy, allegedly tax evading Greeks is especially jarring in a nation attempting to pull itself out of financial crisis and suffering from tax increases and wage cuts.

Since his acquittal, Vaxevanis has further claimed that Greece is essentially controlled by a group or corrupt politicians working with businessmen who own and muzzle the press.  He cites for example the lack of coverage of his own trial, and especially acquittal, by the Greek media.

“Had it not been for the foreign media taking such an interest in my own story, it would have been buried. With few exceptions, hardly any of the Greek media bothered to report that I was acquitted, when CNN and the BBC were breaking into their news broadcasts to do so,” Vaxevanis said.

“The country is governed by a poisonous combination of politicians, businessmen and journalists who cover one another’s backs. Every day laws are changed, or new laws are voted in, to legitimize illegal deeds.”  However, Vaxevanis intends to continue his fight against political corruption and scandal in Greece: “The political elite have got used to the mainstream press not annoying them, but investigation is what we do.”

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Greek Bank Leak Editor Costas Vaxevanis Acquitted – 2 November 2012

The Guardian – Greece is Governed by a Corrupt Clique, Says Kostas Vaxevanis – 2 November 2012

The Guardian – Greek Editor Kostas Vaxevanis Acquitted Over Swiss Bank List – 1 November 2012

The New York Times – Greece Moves Quickly to Put Editor on Trial – 29 October 2012

BBC News – Greece Arrests Journalist Over ‘Lagarde List’ Banks Leak – 28 October 2012

GlobalPost – Greek Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis Arrested for Releasing ‘Lagarde List’ of Swiss Account Holders – 28 October 2012

The Guardian – Greek Magazine Editor in Court for Naming Alleged Tax Evaders – 28 October 2012