Europe

UK Parliament Calls For Sanctions On Russia For Magnitsky Death

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom — The parliament of the United Kingdom unanimously passed a resolution urging sanctions against Russian officials for the egregious arrest and murder of Sergei Magnitsky.  The resolution was proposed by Dominic Raab and calls on the government of the UK to freeze the assets and visas of sixty Russian officials who were complicit in Magnitsky’s death.

Sergei Magnitsky (Photo courtesy of RIANOVOSTI).

The measure is labeled “Human Rights Abuses and the Death of Sergei Magnitsky.”

The human rights issues surrounding Magnitsky arise from a $230 million tax fraud scheme perpetrated by tax agents who registered fake companies with Hermitage Capital.  In 2008 Magnitsky uncovered the scheme.  The Russian government, instead of punishing the wrongdoers, framed Magnitsky and blamed him for the scheme.  The government subjected Magnitsky to abhorrent living conditions in prison and denied him urgent medical treatment.  They allowed him to die on the floor of the Matrosskaya Tishina prison hospital while he waited for a doctor for over an hour.

An investigation by Hermitage Capital leader William Browder uncovered the framing scheme and found that the true criminals were all enriched by the scheme while truth tellers were punished.  Meanwhile the Kremlin has perpetuated the cover-up by seeking to prosecute Magnitsky posthumously.

“All the suspects were cleared by Russian investigators. Some have been promoted, some decorated. In fact, the only people on trial are Magnitsky’s employer and Magnitsky himself, now the subject of Russia’s first ever posthumous prosecution,” Raab said.

The bill passed by the UK Parliament is meant to support the truth Magnitsky worked for and help those fighting for human rights improvements in Russia.

“The UK Parliament has spoken overwhelmingly in solidarity with Sergei Magnitsky and the other brave voices fighting for the rule of law and reform in Russia. The government should now heed its will and come forward with a bill to impose targeted sanctions on those responsible for torture, assassination and other crimes against those struggling to promote or defend the most basic freedoms we enjoy here,” said Mr. Raab, MP.

Other Members of Parliament have expressed enthusiasm over the measure.  “I am delighted that the House of Commons has unanimously expressed its will that the UK should join other government around the world in refusing visas and travel rights into the UK for those responsible for the persecution and death of Sergei Magnitsky,” said Sir Malcom Rifkind, MP.

Alistar Burt, the UK’s Foreign Office Minister, said that he does not oppose the bill, but it is the policy of his office not to comment on individual cases.

Mr. Burt did mention, however, that “[t]he death of Sergei Magnitsky serves as a stark reminder of the human rights situation in Russia, and questions about the rule of law there.”

The measure calling for sanctions comes on the heels of Vladimir Putin re-taking the Russian presidency.  Parliament declared its intent to shed light on Russian human rights abuses prior to debating the Magnitsky sanctions bill.  Former foreign secretary William Millband stated, “[t]his is not about Russia-bashing but support for a Russia fit for the history of that country.”

The measure calls for sanctions for those who

“(a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or

 (d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.”

While the debate in Parliament was ongoing Russian officials objected to any proposed sanctions by the British government.  The Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom sent written objections to Member so Parliament telling them of errors in their proposed sanctions.

Mr. Raab responded “It’s bad enough Mr Putin’s regime corrupting elections in Russia. But it adds insult to injury for him to send envoys to try to subvert democracy in this country.”

The United States and the Netherlands have both imposed visa bans against Russian officials involved in Magnitsky’s death.  Russia responded by banning certain American and Dutch officials, but none of the countries have actually carried out the ban. 

The United States Congress is currently considering a measure similar to the one urged by Parliament.  The Obama administration has shown no urgency to pass the measure, however, likely because of the provision in the bill that requires sanctions for any official associated with “gross violations of human rights.”  This proposition would drastically change the US’s human rights policy.

Last month the European Parliament’s delegation on relations with Russia requested that European Union member nations take action against Russia in response to the Magnitsky affair.

Raab has called on the UK government to pass the measure before the Queen’s speech, scheduled to take place on May 9th.

For more information please see:

The Guardian — At Last, The British Parliament Demands Action Against Corrupt And Murderous Russian Officials — 8 March 2012

Law and Order in Russia — British Parliament Votes Unanimously In Favor Of Magnitsky Sanctions — 8 March 2012

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — U.K. Lawmakers Urge Sanctions Against Russians Over Magnitsky Death — 8 March 2012

RIANOVOSTI — British MPs Urge Magnitsky List Sanctions — 8 March 2012

The Guardian — Russia ‘Tries To Gag British Parliament’ — 7 March 2012

BBC — UK MPs To Stage Debate Over Russia’s Human Rights Record — 28 February 2012

 

Spanish Judge Off The Hook For Franco Probe

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MADRID, Spain — Baltasar Garzon, a well-known judge in Spain, was acquitted Monday of abuse of power charges.  His charge stemmed from his alleged improper investigation of human rights violations under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

Baltazar Garzon, Spanish judge accused of abuse of power (Photo courtesy of Amnesty International).

Spain’s Supreme Court acquitted Garzon on a 6-1 vote.

The prosecution was brought by right wing private groups, as allowed by Spanish law, led by the group Manos Limpias (Clean Hands).  They accused Garzon of ignoring Spanish amnesty laws when he investigated human rights abuses that occurred between 1936 and 1975.

Franco led a military uprising in 1936 that set off three years of civil war in Spain that ended with Franco’s forces defeating republican and left-wing fighters.  He remained in power until he died in 1975.

Garzon has said that crimes against humanity deserve no amnesty because they are “permanent crimes.”

In 2008 Garzon began an investigation of the disappearance of tens of thousands of people in the build up to Franco’s rise to power.  The investigation included the excavation of mass graves.  Ultimately an appellate court ended the investigation and the next year Manos Limpias brought the prosecution.

Relatives of the victims of Franco’s human rights offenses have been some of the strongest supporters of Garzon.  They have seen the judge as their hope for justice

The groups bringing the prosecution supported their allegations by saying Garzon’s investigation “reopened wounds which we Spaniards – whatever our political beliefs – had totally recovered from.”

Human rights groups applauded Garzon’s acquittal.  “The Supreme Court has spared itself further embarrassment by rejecting these ill-advised charges,” Reed Brody of Human Rights Watch said. “Investigating torture and ‘disappearances’ cannot be considered a crime.”

In addition to the Franco investigation charges, Garzon is under fire for ordering wire taps of conversations between remand prisoners and their lawyers regarding a corruption case.  The lawyers filed suit alleging a constitutional violation of their constitutional right to confidential communications with their clients.

Garzon contends that the wiretaps were supported by state prosecutors, who did not file charges against him.  The wiretaps were ordered on suspicions that the subjects of the taps were involved in a money laundering scheme.  He was suspended from the bench for 11 years.

Supporters of Garzon argue that these convictions are meant to be retaliation for Garzon’s activism.  “It was clear they were out to get him, and now they have,” said Emilio Silva, head of the Historical Memory Association that campaigns to shed light on Francoist killings. “It is very sad. Plenty of other judges have committed the same irregularities and have not been treated this way.”

Garzon argued in a statement through his lawyers “that the Supreme Court sentence seriously violated several of the fundamental rights which he, as all citizens have under the constitution, as well as his judicial independence.”

Accordingly Garzon filed his papers with the Supreme Court to appeal the decision.  This request, however, is expected to fail and Garzon plans to appeal to the Supreme Constitutional Court.

Although human rights groups applauded Garzon’s acquittal on the Franco investigation charges, they continue to push Spain for accountability for its past misdeeds.

“It is a scandal that Spain has not yet tackled its dark past,” said Marek Marczynski, Amnesty International’s Head of International Justice.  “News about Judge Garzón is a step forward. However, what we want to see next is a full investigation into the catalogue of abuses that took place during the Civil War and Franco’s regime. There must be no impunity in Spain for these most horrible crimes.”

Amnesty International calls on Spain to continue its remediation of its past human rights abuses and set aside its law granting amnesty for crimes committed under Franco.

For more information please see:

Amnesty International — Spain: Ruling On Baltazar Garzon Is Good News, But Crimes Remain Untackled — 27 February 2012

BBC — Spanish Judge Baltazar Garzon Cleared On Franco Probe — 27 February 2012

CNN — Former Spanish Judge Acquitted Of Abusing Power — 27 February 2012

Expatica — Spanish Judge Asks Supreme Court To Annul Verdict — 22 February 2012

The Guardian — Baltazar Garzon, Judge Who Pursued Dictators, Brought Down For Wiretapping — 9 February 2012

NY Times — Truth On Trial In Spain — 4 February 2012

European Court Rules That Migrants Intercepted at Sea Cannot Be Expelled

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France–On Thursday, February 23, 2012, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that, “it is a violation for states to collectively expel migrants intercepted on high seas.”

Migrants rescued at sea (Photo Curtesy of The United Nations)

In 2009, the subjects of the case, 11 Somali and 13 Eritrean nationals, boarded a boat and left for Italy in search of a better life. They were part of a larger group of about 200 migrants, including pregnant women and children. Just outside of Italian territorial waters, south of the Sicilian island of Lampedusa, Italian military vessels picked the migrants up and took them to Tripoli, Libya’s capital. There, they were handed over to Libyan authorities who incarcerated them for at least several months.

This procedure was arranged by then-Italian President, Silvio Berlusconi and Libya’s then-dictator, Moammar Ghadafi, in an effort to “stem the huge tide of immigration to Italy.”  Under this course of action, about 1,000 migrants were “forcibly returned to Libya by the Italian Cost Guard,” according to the United Nations.

The attorney for the African migrants alleged that this bi-lateral agreement between the two countries violated Article 3, Article 4 of the Protocol Number 4, and Article 13 of the Geneva Convention thereby violating their human right to seek political asylum. The European Court of Human Rights agreed.

The Court Opinion recognized that, through the bi-lateral agreement, Italy attempted to alleviate some of the problems associated with a great influx of migrants; however, the Court went on to articulate that a State is not absolved of its “obligation not to remove any person who would run the risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited under Article 3 in the receiving country.”

Article 3, which governs civil armed conflict, prohibits members of the armed forces from engaging in “violence to life and person, in particular murder…mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” against civilians and innocent bystanders.

Looking back to the “situation prevailing in Libya” at the time migrants were forced there in 2009, the Court determined that they could have been subjected to the aforementioned Article 3 prohibitions. Moreover, bringing the African migrants to Libya exposed the migrants to the “risk of arbitrary return to their countries of origin,” also in violation of Article 3. The Court determined that in 2009 Somalia remained a place of “widespread insecurity” and individuals in Eritrea “faced being tortured and detained in inhuman conditions merely for having left the country.”

The court also ruled that a country is not permitted, under Article 4 of Protocol Number 4, to collectively expel migrants captured at sea, iterating that, “we have long expressed alarm at the interception and collective expulsion of migrants, often risking their lives on the high seas, without opportunity for an individual examination of their cases.”

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, “cheered” the Court’s decision and called on “all states to recognize and respect the fundamental rights of all migrants, which are guaranteed by international law.” She also encouraged states to consider “human rights and protections enshrined by international law” when writing migration policies and laws.

For more information, please visit:

The United Nations – Rights of Migrants Upheld by European Court – 24 Feb. 2012

European Court of Human Rights – Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy – 23 Feb. 2012

 

Germany Rejects Demands From Council Of Europe To End Castration Of Sex Criminals

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BERLIN, Germany — Germany has rejected recent calls to end its practice of castration of sex offenders, reasoning that the punishment has a high deterrent effect.  The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) has led the calls for Germany to end the practice recently.

Germany's voluntary castration of sex offenders is being criticized (Photo courtesy of The Daily Mail)

Voluntary castration was implemented as a punishment in Germany’s 1969 Law on Voluntary Castration.  A person over the age of 25 who has committed a sex crime may be subject to castration if he “displays an abnormal sex drive, which … gives reason to suspect that he will commit one or more criminal offenses.”

The punishment is not mandatory and may only be used with the informed consent of the offender.  The convicted offender can only be castrated after he is informed of the implications of his decision and medical approval is obtained.  Germany’s use of castration as a punishment is reportedly “rare”, only used on about five offenders annually during the past decade.

German officials posit that castration is not a punishment, but instead is a treatment for those with an abnormal sex drive.

Despite the rarity and consensual nature of the punishment the CPT has still called on Germany to stop castrating because of its degrading nature.  “It’s a highly controversial issue. There are divided opinions on the subject — some justify it on the basis that the results validate the process,” said Tim Dalton, leader of the CPT.  “[The CPT’s] fundamental position is that it’s not an appropriate response to the threat of reoffending to mutilate a person, which is in effect what is involved.”

The CPT also criticized the Czech Republic, the only other European nation to practice castration.  The Czech Republic still offers castration as an optional punishment for convicted sex offenders.

The CPT gave four main reasons for its opposition to castration.  First, the punishment has permanent effects that may cause physical or psychological damage.  Second, castration does not conform to the punishment guidelines set forth by the International Organization for the Treatment of Sex Offenders.  Third, there is no guarantee of a lasting reduction of the sex offender’s testosterone level.  And fourth, it is unclear how “consensual” the punishment actually is.

The CPT’s report also cites investigations into ill treatment of offenders during police custody, conditions for immigrants who have been detained, and allegations of violence amongst prisoners.

Germany has stood fast against the calls to cease castration, citing a high deterrent effect supported by a low recidivism rate.  Specifically, Germany points to a 1997 report that shows a three percent recidivism rate amongst those who opted for castration.  Out of 104 sex who underwent castration between 1970 and 1980, only three went on to repeat their offense.  The report also showed a forty-seven percent recidivism rate for a control group that did not get castrated.

A spokesperson for the German government stated, “Germany defends the procedure on the grounds that surgery helps where illnesses connected to an abnormal sex drive must be treated, or in order to counter the risk of future unlawful offences being committed by sexual offenders and/or violent offender.

“As far as the federal government is aware, there are quite a number of scientific studies on the criminological long-term effects of surgical castration.”

Presently Germany has no plans to eliminate castration as an option for convicted sex offenders, but Berlin has expressed agreeability to talks on the issue.

The Council of Europe is Europe’s primary watchdog for torturous practices, but the Council itself has no actual power to change laws.  Still, its opinions and critiques carry a great deal of influence.

The practice of castration of sex criminals dates back to Nazi Germany where thousands of sex criminals were forcibly castrated.

Russia recently implemented a form of voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders.  The law was proposed last summer and was approved this month.  During the course of the debate the majority party, which proposed the punishment, wanted chemical castration to be mandatory.

South Korea, Canada, France, Israel, Poland, some US states, Britain, Denmark, and Sweden offer voluntary chemical castration drugs to sex offenders.

For more information please see:

CNN — Germany Asked to Stop Castrating Sex Criminals — 23 February 2012

Daily Mail — Germany Rejects Demand to Stop Castrating Sex Criminals as Part of Their Punishment — 23 February 2012

JURIST — Council of Europe Criticizes Germany Castration Law — 23 February 2012

BBC — Germany Urged to End Sex Offender Castration — 22 February 2012

MSNBC — Germany Urged to Stop Castrating Sex Offenders — 22 February 2012

The National — Calls for Germany to End Surgical Castration of Sex Offenders — 22 February 2012

Reuters — Germany Urged to Halt Castration of Sex Offenders — 22 February 2012

Deceased Russian Whistleblower to be Tried Posthumously

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia–On February 7, 2012, The New York Times announced that Russia plans to reopen for trial the prosecution of Russian attorney Sergei L. Magnitsky for alleged tax evasion even though the defendant died in November 2009.

Sergei L. Magnitsky, Russian attorney who suffered human rights abuses at the hands of prison officals. (Photo Curtesy of The Guardian)

Magnitsky’s trial would be the first posthumous prosecution in Russian legal history.

The circumstances surrounding Magnitsky’s death have been vague and elusive from the beginning. Some officials, like Russia’s President, urged for law reform while Russian law enforcement lauded and issued awards to the police officials who handled the case. This much is clear: Magnitsky testified against the Russian Interior Ministry (a governmental agency responsible for policing, national security and investigation economic crimes, like tax invasion), stating that they used his employer, Hermitage Capital, to embezzle $230 million from the Russian treasury by filing false corporate tax returns. After testifying against the Interior Ministry, Magnitsky was detained beginning in 2008 “on suspicion of helping Hermitage Capital evade $17.4 million dollars in taxes.”

A year after being detained, Magnitsky died. Government officials iterated that his death came as a result of heart disease and active hepatitis. Appropriate medical care would have allowed for the diagnosis of the diseases before he become fatally ill; nevertheless, on the day of his death he received no such medical treatment.

Moreover, a human rights panel that advises the Russian President, Dmitri A. Medvedev, published a subsequent report arguing that Magnitsky was beaten and suffered severe human rights abuses while in detention: “Highly placed investigators and prison officials share responsibility for his death in state custody.” Furthermore, forensic experts maintained that Magnitsky’s body “showed the impact of a blunt hard object (or objects) not long before his death, and legal documents reveal that a rubber baton was used on Magnitsky” at a clinic where he was taken for treatment after suffering abdominal pain and vomiting.

The report further found that “among the members of the investigative team working on the case against Magnitsky…were Interior Ministry officials against whom he had testified in [the] $230 million fraud case the year before.”

Magnitsky’s incarceration and ensuing death as a result of inhumane treatment has drawn international criticism over Russia’s notorious human rights record; however, governments, like the United States have been slow to act. Last year the State Department “quietly” issued visa bans on the Russian Officials linked to Magnitsky’s death, but the administration has otherwise treaded carefully.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have drafted the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011, targeting Magnitsky’s captors as well as any other Russian officials “responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of human rights.” Despite their efforts, the State Department said in a statement on February 9, 2012 that, “senior Russian government officials have warned us that they will respond asymmetrically if legislations passes. Their argument is that we cannot expect them to be our partner in supporting sanctions against countries like Iran, North Korea, and Libya, and sanction them at the same time.”

Furthermore, in response to the Magnitsky Accountability Act, the Russian Duma drafted legislation “that would institute similar travel bans and asset freezes for U.S. Officials whose actions Russia deems in violation of the rights of Russian citizens arrested abroad and brought to the United States for trial…” therefore, U.S. national security interests would be “affected” by the passage of the proposed legislation.

Though the State Department has spoken out against a rather noble piece of legislation, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland did address the proposed trial of the deceased Magnitsky, iterating that “pursuing criminal charges against Sergei Mangitsky serves no purpose other than to deflect attention away from the circumstances surrounding this tragic case. We continue to call for Russian authorities to bring those responsible for Mr. Magnitsky’s death to justice.”

For more information please visit:

The New York Times – Russia Plans to Retry Dead Lawyer Sergei L. Magnitsky in Tax Case – 7 Feb. 2012

The New York Times – Poor Medical Care Led to Lawyer Magnitsky’s Death, Russia Admits – 4 July 2011

The Library of Congress – Bill Text S.1039.IS – 19 May 2011

The New York Times – Poor Medical Care Led to Lawyer Magnitsky’s Death, Russia Admits –