By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom — British Prime Minister and Jordanian King Abdullah are searching for a solution to the Abu Qatada question after the European Court of Human Rights denied Qatada’s extradition from the UK to Jordan.  Qatada is a radical Muslim cleric who British judges have called “truly dangerous.”  The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg denied his deportation because it is likely that he will be tried in Jordan with evidence that was extracted with torture.  Jordan plans to contest the ruling from the Strasbourg Court.

 

Qatada was never tried in Britain but has been detained in a sort of house arrest where his movements are tracked by law enforcement.  He has been convicted in Jordan while absent from the country for his involvement in two major terror plots.  Qatada asserts that those convictions were based on evidence obtained through torture.

The UK and Jordan signed a diplomatic memorandum used to protect the human rights of those who are extradited from the UK.  The Court of Human Rights noted this memorandum but nevertheless concluded that Qatada would likely be retried in Jordan.

“Torture and the use of torture evidence were banned under international law,” said the Court.  “Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects pre-trial. Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.”  The Court went on to note instances in which Jordanian courts have used evidence gained with torture in trials.

The Strasbourg Court’s ruling puts the United Kingdom in a difficult situation.  Qatada is due to be released on bail after a British judge ruled that his six-year sentence could not be sustained.  Now the UK faces a situation in which they would have a man dubbed as a national security threat walking free unless Qatada can be deported to Jordan.

“It is simply isn’t [sic] acceptable, that after guarantees from the Jordanians about his treatment, after British courts have found that he is dangerous, after his removal has been approved by the highest courts in our land, we still cannot deport dangerous foreign nationals,” UK Home Secretary Theresa May said.  “The right place for a terrorist is a prison cell. The right place for a foreign terrorist is a foreign prison cell far away from Britain.”

Following the ruling UK Prime Minister David Cameron has been working with King Abdullah of Jordan to find a solution to the Qatada issue.  “They agreed on the importance of finding an effective solution to this case, in the interests of both Britain and Jordan,” a spokesman for 10 Downing Street said.  “The PM complimented the king on the close and effective collaboration between Britain and Jordan on this case over a number of years.”

The European Human Rights Court’s ruling also raises questions about the prospects of deporting other terror detainees, like extremist preacher Abu Hamza.  Hamza was denied extradition to the United States by the Human Rights Court in 2010 due to concerns that Hamza would be treated inhumanely.

Hamza is set to find out in a new ruling in the coming weeks whether or not he will be extradited to the United States.  The Qatada ruling casts doubts on the prospect of Hamza being sent to the United States if British courts determine that he will not be treated fairly in the US.  Because he too has completed his sentence in Britain he will be allowed to walk free if he is not deported.

The Qatada case has set off British commentators who feel the UK should separate itself from the human rights policies of the European Union if favor of taking more control over the security interests of the UK.

British conservative commentator Bruce Anderson wrote:

It is true that the initial European Convention was drafted by a British lawyer, with Churchill’s encouragement, in order “to export the British system”. The key word there is “export”. War and dictatorship had shattered legal systems across the continent. As John Hayes puts it, those countries had to rediscover decency. That was not true of us. They had everything to learn from Britain and nothing to teach. Our endeavours to assist in the creation of the ECHR were noble and magnanimous. But this was for export only. The British founding fathers would not have dreamed – or nightmared – that a time would come when their exported creation would set itself up as a European Supreme Court and seek to prevent a British government from protecting British interests

Other Britons, however, have committed themselves to following the lead of the European Human Rights Court.  Walter Bagehot wrote in The Economist: “If Mr. Qatada is a dangerous terrorist, the British government is at liberty to press criminal charges against him. If (as must be assumed) there is insufficient evidence to charge him in a British court, but the government is sure he is dangerous, then they are free to pass British laws neutralizing [sic] the dangers that he poses.”

In his article, Bagehot advocates for the idea that Britain is correct to buy into an international justice system that condemns the use of torture.

The Qatada case presents a theme that will likely continue to present itself: the conflict between national security interests and the interest in protecting individual rights.

For more information please see:

ABC News — Jordan To Contest EU Extradition Ban On Preacher — 10 February 2012

The Economist — The Oddity Of Britain’s Human Rights Debate — 10 February 2012

BBC — David Cameron And King Abdullah Discuss Abu Qatada Case — 9 February 2012

The Telegraph — Abu Hamza Could Also Be Bailed After Abu Qatada Ruling — 8 February 2012

BBC — ‘Unacceptable’ UK Can’t Deport Abu Qatada – Theresa May — 7 February 2012

BBC — Abu Qatada Wins Jordan Deportation Appeal — 17 January 2012

The Guardian — Abu Hamza Extradition To US Blocked By European Court — 8 July 2010

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

THE HAGUE, Netherlands—The International Court of Justice—the United Nation’s highest court—held on Friday that Germany will maintain legal immunity from being sued in foreign courts by victims of World War II Nazi atrocities.

The case at hand focuses on the June 29, 1944 murder of 250 Italian civilians in and near the Tuscan town of Civitella by German troops. More than forty years later, family members of the victims sued Germany in an Italian court seeking reparations. In 2008, Italy’s Supreme Court found that one of the plaintiffs, an Italian civilian, Luigi Ferrini, was in fact entitled to reparations for his deportation to Germany in 1944 to work as a slave laborer in the armaments industry. The court iterated that individuals whose human rights had been violated could sue for individual damages.

Germany appealed to the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) and argued before the court, saying that denying Germany immunity from these types of lawsuits would “open the floodgates to compensation claims by individuals around the world.”

The ICJ “threw out” Italy’s 2008 decision on Friday, February 3, 2012 in a 12-3 decision, determining that the “Italian case violated Germany’s immunity…from being sued in national courts,” a principal which has been widely recognized in international law.

Hisashi Owada, the president of the United Nations court further explained: “The action of Italian courts in denying German immunity…constitutes a breach of the obligation owed by the Italian state to Germany.”

Legal scholars agree that the 2008 decision violated international rules on foreign state immunity as pertaining to human rights cases thus concurring that the ICJ reached the correct decision. “Were one to deny foreign state immunity in this and other similar cases, then Georgian courts, for example, could pass judgment on Russian behavior during the 2008 conflict,” explained Andreas Zimmermann, a human rights professor.

In other words, this ruling is “expected to end a wave of claims for damages” which stem from the Nazi regime’s human rights violations, including one which originated on behalf of Greek victims. On June 10, 1944 S.S. units “assembled 218 women, children and elderly in Distomo, a village not far from Delphi, and murdered them. The Greek representatives sought reparation through the German judicial system.

Amnesty International’s Senior Director of International Law and Policy, Widney Brown, has proclaimed the ICJ’s ruling to be a “big step backwards on human rights” going on to say that “the judgment flies in the face of the Hague Convention, under which victims of war crimes are entitled to sue the state responsible to obtain reparation.”

Germany has already paid tens of billions of dollars in reparations since the 1950s, including a “lump sum” to Italy in the amount of 40 million marks in 1961. Moreover, in 2000, Germany founded the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future Foundation with the goal of compensating forced laborers from Eastern Europe. Germany has also made additional payments at peace conferences as well as a part of treaties with other countries.

 

For more information, please visit:

Amnesty International—UN Court Ruling on Nazi War Crime Victims ‘a Setback for Rights’—3 Feb. 2012

International Court of Justice—Germany v. Italy—2 Feb. 2012

The New York Times—World Court Upholds German Immunity in Nazi Cases—3 Feb. 2012

Reuters—U.N Court Rules against Italy’s Nazi Compensation Claims–3 Feb. 2012

Speigal Online International—Human Rights Take a Back Seat to Sovereignty—3 Feb. 2012

 

 

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BELGRADE, Serbia — Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor decided not to take up a complaint against newly appointed Serbian Armed Forces Chief of Staff, Ljubisa Dikovic.  The prosecutor, Vladimir Vukcevic, determined there was no basis to proceed against Dikovic for alleged crimes that occurred during the Kosovo war in 1998 and 1999.

The Humanitarian Law Center, the group that brought the complaint, alleged “numerous grave and massive” offenses that occurred in the region of Kosovo that was under Dikovic’s command.  The HLC cited such specific offenses as rape, execution of citizens, and looting.

Natasa Kandic, Humanitarian Law Center, president, declared, “An officer like Ljubisa Dikovic is not suitable to head the army.”

Dikovic was commander of the 37^th Motorized Brigade of the Yugoslavian Army.  His brigade was deployed in the Drenica region, where many war crimes alleged against Serbian paramilitary and police took place.  One incident alleged was the massacre of 130 Kosovo Albanian men in March 1999 near the city of Izbica.  This massacre was cited in the indictment against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.

Evidence for the HLC’s claim is derived from Dikovic’s testimony at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  In his testimony, Dikovic described “terrible crimes happening.”

“First of all, we have Izbica: Dikovic’s testimony as defense witness before the ICTY is pretty clear. Not once did he deny his units were in Izbica. He said they had contact with civilians,” Kandic said.  “In other discussions, based on prosecution questions, he said that the army — his units actually — entered Izbica village. But then he said they only wanted to stop the shooting and get the civilians out.”

Dikovic’s appointment raises concerns Serbia’s relations with its neighboring countries.  Jelena Milic, director of the Belgrade Center for Euro-Atlantic studies said, “The Dikovic appointment will seriously affect regional cooperation, especially when we have in mind the current situation in North Kosovo, since we cannot rebuild trust if we have a leading man in the army with a dubious past.”

The HLC’s complaint claims that Dikovic should have prevented those crimes and even admitted that soldiers under his command committed the crimes.

Dikovic and other Serbian government officials have denied the claims out of hand.  Defense Minister Dragan Sutanovac has dubbed the allegations and vouched for their falsity.  “We are absolutely at ease; the allegations are false,” he added.

“Lieutenant General Dikovic is truly inappropriately — and in some instances truly monstrously — accused for crimes he allegedly participated in by approving them or ignoring them,” Sutanovic says. “I must say that before Dikovic was appointed, we conducted all background checks in regards to his past. And [this week] we checked all claims made in this report. So I can say it is completely false.”

In response to the allegations, Dutanovic says that Serbian officials will take action against the HLC for its libelous complaint.

About 10,000 people died during the Kosovo War.  Serbia’s harsh response to an ethnic Albanian uprising prompted NATO to intervene and bomb the country until they left Kosovo.   Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia in 2008.  Belgrade does not recognize Kosovo as a independent country.

For more information please see:

RFE/RL — Belgrade Dismisses War Crimes Claims Against Army Chief — 25 January 2012

Balkan Insight — NGOs Question Serbian Army Chief’s Wartime Past — 24 January 2012

Denver Post — Rights Group Accuses Serb Army Chief Of War Crimes — 24 January 2012

RFE/RL — Rights Group Accuses Serb Army Chief Of War Crimes — 24 January 2012

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

PARIS, France–Late Monday night the French Senate passed a new genocide law that could be signed by French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, in just two weeks; the new law elicited angry reactions from Turkey.

The new legislation provides that, “those who have publicly denied or trivialized crimes of genocide” could be subject to a year in prison and/or a 45,000-euro fine (the equivalent of $58,00). Although the law does not mention specifically the “massacre of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians by Ottoman Turks,” the seven-hour debate in the French senate on Monday focused primarily on the memory of the Armenian genocide.

As a nation, Turkey has, and continues to deny that the killing of 1.2 million ethnic Armenians was “genocide.” The United Nations has defined genocide as “the killing of, injuring of, or displacing of members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the group.”  Turkey claims that the estimated 1.2 million deaths is a gross exaggeration and that “there was no attempt to wipe out the whole group,” instead arguing “that hundreds of thousands of Armenian Christians and Muslim Turks died from intercommunal violence, disease and general chaos.” Moreover, under Turkish law today, recognizing these particular deaths as genocide is an “insult to Turkish identity” that could result in a criminal conviction.

Notwithstanding Turkey’s strong and passionate denial, France, along with many other countries throughout the world, have in fact declared the 1915 killings “genocide.” In 2001, France enacted a law codifying this belief. As such, if the latest genocide law is signed by President Sarkozy, any person that denies the 1915 killings as being a genocide could face severe penalties.

While Armenia’s foreign minister, Edward Nalbandian, recognized Monday as a day which will be “written in gold,” and avowed France as “a genuine defender of universal human values,” the Turkish government, and supporters of the government, could not have been less enthusiastic. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed that the French legislation “represented evident discrimination, racism and massacre of free speech,” adding that “we have not lost our hope yet that this mistake can be corrected.” Various headlines found on Turkish newspapers screamed “Guillotine to History” and “Guillotine to Thought.” Yet another said, “He Massacred Democracy” next to a photo of Sarkozy.  

Despite the Bill’s seemingly good intentions, even Amnesty International has agreed with Turkish sentiment. Nicola Duckworth, the Director of Europe and Central Asia at Amnesty Internationa,l claimed that the legislation “would violate freedom of expression by making it a criminal offense to publicly question events termed as ‘genocide’ under French law,” a principal that has been repeatedly upheld by the European Court of Human Rights. She went on to explain that “this bill…would have a chilling effect on public debate and contravene France’s international obligations to uphold freedom of expression…People should be free to express their opinions on this issue—in France, Turkey and elsewhere.” In short, should this bill be enacted, it will be clear that “French authorities are failing to comply with their international human rights obligations,” she said.

In addition to violating international law, the direct conflict between France’s new law and Turkish law, not to mention Turkish nationalism, could cause “permanent harm to Franco-Turkish relations.” When the French lower house of parliament passed the genocide law in December, Turkey withdrew Tahsin Burcuoglu, the country’s ambassador, from Paris and suspended military ties with France. Additionally, some Turkish politicians have warned of further sanctions and the permanent removal of the ambassador while the Turkish President, Abdullah Gul wasted no time declaring that the “bilateral relations are at a different level from now on.” The Nationalist Movement Party expressed a desire to terminate the Turkish and French friendship parliamentary committee.

For more information, please visit:

Ekklesia—France’s Armenian Genocide Bill Threatens Free Speech, Says Amnesty—26 January 2012

RFI—France’s Armenian Genocide Bill—Who? What? When? Where? Why?—25 January 2012

New York Times—French Bill on Genocide Is Denounced by Turkey—24 January 2012

 CNN—Turkey Blasts French Passage of Genocide Law—24 January 2012

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

PARIS, France — Human rights watch issued a report Thursday documenting discriminatory practices of French police.  The report accuses the police of “using overly broad powers to conduct unwarranted and abusive identity checks on black and Arab young men and boys.”

Details of the discriminatory acts in the report, entitled “The Root of Humiliation: Abusive Identity Checks in France,” include probing questioning, invasive patdowns, and sometimes excessive force.  Usually the checks are done without any indication of wrongdoing and at times involve the use of racial slurs.  The report focuses its attention on minority communities in the cities of Paris, Lille, and Lyon.

Judith Sutherland, a Western Europe researcher at Human Rights Watch, said, “It’s shocking that young black and Arab kids can be, and are, arbitrarily forced up against walls and manhandled by the police with no real evidence of wrongdoing.  But if you are a young person in some neighborhoods in France, it’s a part of life.”

This kind of behavior by the police is allowed under French law, which affords broad discretion to police for search and seizure.  The police do not systematically record the searches nor do they give documentation explaining to those searched the premises of the check.

The political climate in France seems to foster this kind of discrimination.  In the last presidential election law enforcement and reducing crime were top issues.  President Nicholas Sarkozy came to power with a “law-and-order” image.  Now far-right politicians who take hard-line stances on immigration are registering high poll numbers.

Farid A., who lives outside of Paris, said that he and his friends were stopped three times near the Eiffel Tower.  “We came out of the metro, a check. We walk 200 meters, another check. We walk 200 meters, and another check.  There were a lot of people, but they stopped only us.”

Incidents of violence were also noted in the report.  On 17-year-old boy gave his account of an encounter with the police.  “When we were there with our hands against the wall, I turned toward him [the officer who was frisking him] and he hit me on the head. I said something like why are you hitting me, and he said to shut up, ‘You want a shot of [tear] gas or what?”

In its report, Human Rights Watch warns that ethnic profiling by the police works to divide the community.  France should be especially sensitive to animosity between races following the 2005 riots that grew out of tension between police and ethnic minorities.

“Frankly, police-community relations in France are dismal, and everyone knows it,” Sunderland said. “Taking concrete steps to prevent abusive identity checks – one of the main sources of tension – would be a real step forward and would make a genuine difference in people’s daily lives.”

Pascal Garibian, the national spokesman for the police, dismissed the Human Rights Watch report as a caricature of the police and called it unfair and unscientific.

This is not the first report documenting racial profiling by French law-enforcement authorities.  A report from 2007-2008 by Open Society Justice Initiative found that black people are six times more likely to be searched by police and Arab people are eight times more likely to be checked by the police.

Included in the report were several statements from French citizens who recount unreasonable searches by police.  Here are a few.

Ouamar C., 13 years old, Paris

“I was sitting with some friends…and they came to do a stop. I didn’t talk because if you talk they take you downtown. They opened my bag. They searched my body too. Like every time. They didn’t find anything on me. That was the first time it happened in front of my school. They say, ‘Up against the wall.’ They search, and when it’s over they say thank-you and leave…I was scared at first, now I’m getting used to it.”

Haroun A., 14 years old, Bobigny:

“I was at the shopping mall with some friends having fun. They [the police] come with their weapons and point them at us. There were three of them. They said: ‘Identity check.’ Two of them had their Flash-Balls [a gun that shoots rubber bullets] in their hands. There were five or six of us. We weren’t doing anything. They just stop us all the time like that. When there’s a group of us, they stop us right away. They asked if we had stuff.  They put us against the wall. They search even in our socks and shoes.  They didn’t find anything. They don’t always ask for our papers.”

Halim B., 17 years old, Lille:

“The bus stops and the police come on. I was sitting in the back. It was 7:20 in the morning. The bus was full…They pointed to one guy and said, ‘You get up and get off with us.’ I was watching. I thought he was a criminal. And then they pointed at me to get off too. Three people had to get off, and two of them were Arabs. The bus was full. There were plenty of people standing. There were more [white] French on the bus…They [the police] have the right to do these checks whenever they like but honestly I was upset. I felt like I was a burglar, a wanted criminal. I was scared when they told me to get off. I wondered what I’d done. When I got off [the bus], they said, ‘contrôle [identity check], do you have anything illegal on you, empty your pockets.’ They searched my bag and then let me go. I got to school a bit late.  Honestly, I wasn’t poorly dressed or anything, I was going to school.”

For more information please see:

BikyaMasr — French Police Abuse Power With Black And Arab Men, Says Report — 27 January 2012

Connexion — ‘Excessive’ Police Force Criticized — 27 January 2012

OnIslam — Police Under Fire On Minority Abuse — 27 January 2012

RFI — French Police Accused Of Racial Profiling By Human Rights Group — 27 January 2012

Human Rights Watch — France: Abusive Identification Checks Of Minority Youth — 26 January 2012