Europe

British Government Ceases Inquiry into Rendition and Torture Collusion; Activists Call for Independent Investigation

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, England–On Wednesday, January 18, Justice Secretary Ken Clarke announced that England would discontinue an investigation, initiated by Prime Minister David Cameron in 2010, to look into the country’s involvement with the United States’s extremely controversial extradition and rendition program. The decision to cease Cameron’s “Detainee Inquiry” came shortly after the statement announcing that the Metropolitan Police and Crown Prosecution Service would instead “launch a criminal investigation into claims that Britain’s domestic intelligence service, M15, and overseas spy agency, M16, were complacent in the illegal rendition of terror suspects to Libya. These “fresh allegations” were made by Abdel Hakim Belhadj, a Libyan Islamist and his attorneys at Leigh Day & Co.

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, commander of the former rebel forces in Libya, has brough torture charges against the British Government

Cameron’s Detainee Inquiry was to be led by a retired appeals court judge, Peter Gibson, who was appointed to investigate whether British agents had collaborated with foreign security services, namely the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”), in a supposed effort to obtain information from suspected terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and in so doing engaged in abusive and torturous tactics. Additionally, the inquiry was to investigate allegations made by several British citizens of Pakistani descent who claimed that “they were abused in custody” while in Pakistan “with complicity from British officials.”

Scotland Yard has already investigated the Guantanamo Bay detainee’s cases and although Peter Gibson “regretted the inquiry would not be completed” he “agreed it was not practical to continue for an indefinite period.” Further, he hopes that the investigations that have been done will not be for naught and anticipates that the information that has already been collected “will materially assist the future inquiry that the government intends to establish.”

On the other hand, however, according to Belhadj’s attorneys, the Detainee Inquiry “was ill-conceived from the beginning, the government reserved the right for the final say on what material would be published and did not allow for cross-examination or any other way of testing the evidence from members of the UK security services, which was to be given secretly. Additionally, only “as much of the report as possible” would have been accessibly to the public, rather than the entire investigation.

Human Rights activists have taken a similar stance. Clare Algar, an executive director of Reprieve, stated that the inquiry, “simply did not have the power or independence to get to the truth.” She went on to say that the organization “looks forward to working with the government to ensure that an inquiry with real clout and independence is established.”

Amnesty International’s Europe and Central Asia director, Nicola Duckworth, agreed with Algar’s sentiments, saying that the inquiry was never fit for purpose, and fell short of the UK’s international human rights obligations to fully and independently investigation allegations of UK involvement in torture and ill-treatment.” Duckworth went on to iterate that Amnesty International “hopes that the government seizes the opportunity presented by the mounting allegations of UK involvement , the ongoing criminal investigations into specific cases, and the report of the Detainee Inquiry’s work to date, to establish a human-rights- compliant inquiry that ensures real accountability.”

According to the BBC, the new police investigation came about as a result of claims made by Abdel Hakim Belhadj, a commander of the former rebel forces in Libya and Sami-al-Saadi. “The allegations raised in the two specific cases…are so serious that it is in the public interest for them to be investigated now rather than at the conclusion of the Detainee Inquiry.” It is likely that the British government will also need the police investigation to build its defense in the legal action which Belhadj and his attorneys have initiated against the government.

Belhadj says that he was tortured in Libya after being arrested in 2004 while in Bangkok, Thailand. The arrest allegedly occurred during a CIA and M16 operation which was conducted to help Muammar Gaddafi “round up his enemies.” Belhadj says he tortured for six year.  Belhadj was not allowed to bathe and was “subjected to protracted investigations.”  He also says that his pregnant wife was held in Libya for four months and released only just before she gave birth. Belhadj claims that he told British intelligence services about the torture when they visited him in Libya; they did nothing to prevent future harm.

“Those who contributed to this, those who have harmed us, and the people who elected them—they committed this crime while pretending to protect human rights—we want to see them brought to justice,” commented Belhadj.

The allegations have been consistently denied by both “current and former heads of M15 and M16 and British authorities say they would never use, or encourage others to use, torture to gain information” despite years of accusations suggesting that they did in fact assist in the “ill treatment of detainees, often at the hands of U.S. authorities after the September 11 attacks on the United States.”

In yet a similar case, Sami-al-Saadi has made like allegations, claiming “British collusion in rendition and is demanding damages for the torture he suffered in one of Gaddafi’s prisons.”

For more information, please visit:

Reuters–UK Scraps Torture Inquiry While Police Probe Libya Cases–January 18, 2012

BBC–UK Inquiry Into Rendition and Torture Collusion Scrapped–January 18, 2012

 

 

Belarusian Interior Minister Accused Of Torture In French Court

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

PARIS, France – A group of alleged victims from Belarus have filed a complaint in a Paris court against Belarusian Interior Minister Anatoly Kuleshov accusing him of torture.  The victims claim that the torture took place just after Alyaksandr Lukashenka’s disputed reelection in 2010.  The suit was filed on Wednesday, January 18.  Kuleshov is currently attending an Interpol meeting in the French city of Lyon; his visit is scheduled to end on January 20.

Belarusian Interior Minister Anatoli Kulashov, who faces allegation of torture. (Photo courtesy of Telegraf.by)

Victims’ lawyer William Bourdon called the conduct of which Kuleshov, who is blacklisted in the European Union for his role in the government crackdown on political opposition, is accused of “torture and cruel and degrading treatment.”  Bourdon has called for an immediate investigation into Kuleshov’s involvement in the alleged torture following the 2010 elections.

Following the December 2010 elections in Belarus, which Lukashenka won in dubious fashion, Belarus witnessed a rise of political opposition followed by a crackdown by Lukashenka’s regime.  Nearly 50,000 Belarusians took to the streets after the election, in which each of Lukashenka’s opponents was awarded less than three percent of the vote.  The complaint filed in France pinpoints Kuleshov as a key player in the orchestration of the torture of political opponents.

The complaint alleges “proof of the crimes under universal jurisdiction, giving the basis to legally pursue Lukashenko and his associates, particularly, for torture and hostage-taking.”  French officials have received no reply from Kuleshov or any Belarusian authorities in response to the complaint.

Bourdon cites United Nations regulations as justification for the complaint, stating “[t]he United Nations Convention against Torture, adopted on December 10, 1984, the so-called New York convention, obliges the states which had ratified it, including France, to arrest persons suspected in torture, when they stay at hair territory. It is exactly the situation of the minister.”

The strength of the evidence, according to Bourdon, is strong enough to warrant legal action by France.  The documentation “leaves no doubt that the Interior Minister is the main person responsible for organizing torture against opponents in Belarus.”

Bourdon took the case after British law firm McCue and Partners reached out to him about a possible case against Kuleshov.  McCue and Partners is known for their work in human rights law and previously posted guidelines for Europeans to initiate prosecution against Lukashenka and his ministers.

Matthew Jury, a partner at McCue, said, “If Kuleshov is in France, under the Torture Convention, France should be obliged to take Kuleshov into custody for his part in the torture and hostage-taking of innocent Belarusians. It will only diminish France’s standing and moral authority if it fails to take action. If it does not, then we call on France’s civil society and legal community to take up the responsibility and to enforce the law.”

Pro-Belarusian liberty groups criticized the French government for allowing Kuleshov to freely enter French territory.  Natalia Kaliada of Free Belarus Now said, “The French Republic is founded on the principles of Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood; today those principles seem very far away. By inviting an agent of the Lukashenko regime, who personally orchestrated mass violent arrests of peaceful demonstrators, over its borders, France has betrayed all those fighting for democracy and human rights in Belarus. There are fifteen political prisoners who remain behind bars in my country in the heart of Europe. These men along with any others were arrested and tortured while in KGB custody in December last year. Today INTERPOL freely welcomes emissaries of Europe’s last dictatorship and condemns those who stood peacefully against them as criminals.”

Bourdon himself expressed regret for possible failure of the French court system in this case.  “Struggle with impunity is a great problem for the international community. The Justice becomes global. Some countries do not obey it, so access to the French judicial system, considering that France had recognized the New York Convention, gives victims a means to get access to justice, and a hope that persons responsible for crimes would be brought to justice. It requires political will. Technical means should be used for capturing these suspects. I deeply regret about hesitation of Paris Court, which does not react in a speed required by the situation.”

According to the French embassy, the French visa had been issued to the Belarusian Minister, banned in the European Union, for legitimate reasons.

For more information please see:

Charter 97 — France Met Kolyashou With A Law Suit — 20 January 2012

Charter 97 —William Bourdon: Responsible For Torture Must Be Arrested — 20 January 2012

Naviny — French Court Asked To Order Arrest Of Belarus Minister — 20 January 2012

Expatica — French Torture Charge Against Belarus Minister: Lawyer — 19 January 2012

RFE/RL — French Torture Charge Against Belarus Minister — 19 January 2012

Telegraf — French Prosecutors Are Asked To Arrest Kuleshov — 19 January 2012

EU Takes Stance Against Hungary’s “Unconstitutional Constitution”

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BUDAPEST, Hungary — The European Union has assumed a hard line stance against Hungary’s controversial political reforms.  The EU accuses the Hungarian government of violating democratic rights with its new constitution.  Hungarian authorities dismissed the accusations and await the EU’s explanation for why it so staunchly opposes the new constitution.

Hungary's new constitution has come under fire from EU officials (Photo courtesy of AFP)

Hungary’s new constitution, which was adopted at the end of 2011, contains provisions that limit the independence of the central bank, the judiciary, and the media.  Critics say the new laws are a sign of emerging authoritarianism that block the road back to democracy.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, released a statement calling for reform in the Hungarian government.  “The commission recalls that a legally stable environment, based on the rule of law, including respect for media freedom, democratic principles and fundamental rights, is also the best guarantee for citizens’ trust and confidence of partners and investors.  This is particularly vital in times of economic crisis. The swiftest way to lay to rest the concerns mentioned would of course be action by the Hungarian authorities themselves.”

For example, one provision of the new constitution gives the Prime Minister the power to appoint vice presidents of the Hungarian central bank.  Previously the president of the bank himself began the appointment process by nominating a candidate for the position.  This power is no more, thus depriving the central bank of its independence and giving greater power to the government.

Hungary also now has mandatory retirement rules that the government can use to oust judges and prosecutors.  This, critics say, eviscerates the independence of the judiciary.

The EU stands opposed to the new constitution and threatens legal action if the constitution is not reformed.  EU officials allege that there are a “number of the new provisions may violate EU law.”  If found in violation of EU law, the EU “reserves the right to take any steps that it deems appropriate, namely the possibility of launching infringement procedures.”

Hungary has dismissed the accusations.  The Prime Minister Viktor Orban objected to the European Commissions admonishment of Hungary, saying the criticism of the new constitution was not “convincing.”  He said, “Our general approach is that we are open and flexible, we are ready to negotiate all the points but what we need is not political opinion but arguments…. And when the arguments on behalf of the EU are convincing that it’s better to accept and follow that line, there is no reason not to do that.”

At a time when the Eurozone is struggling to stave off economic crisis, Hungary will likely have to bow to EU demands.  Hungary cannot afford to alienate the EU at this time.

Zoltan Arokszallasi, an economist for Erste Bank Hungary in Budapest, opines that Hungary will have to take steps to be amenable with the EU’s requests.  “It is likely the government will take adequate steps,” Mr. Arokszallasi said. “From a financial point of view there is no alternative.”

For more information please see:

The Star — EU Ready To Hit Hungary — 13 January 2012

CBS Money Watch — Hungary Awaits EU, IMF Argument Against New Laws — 12 January 2012

New York Times — European Union Gives Hungary An Ultimatum — 12 January 2012

Reuters — Hungary PM: Waiting For EU’s Arguments On Disputed Laws — 12 January 2012

Wall Street Journal — EU Hardens Line In Hungary Fight — 12 January 2012

Washington Post — Summary Box: Hungary’s Prime Minister Dismisses EU’s Opposition To Country’s New Constitution — 12 January 2012

New York Times — The Unconstitutional Constitution — 2 January 2012

French Legislature To Mull Ban On Armenian Genocide Denial

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

PARIS, France – The upper house of France’s parliament is preparing to vote on a measure that would criminalize the denial of the Armenian genocide.  The proposed law has drawn the ire of Turkey as well as free speech proponents.

French Senate, where bill banning denial of Armenian Genocide will be debated (Photo courtesy of Azatutyun.am)

The law would prescribe a maximum one-year prison sentence and a € 45,000 penalty to those who would violate it.  This penalty is equal to the law that criminalized the denial of the Holocaust.  French government minister Patrick Ollier reasoned that “There is no reason to punish the denial of one genocide but not the other.  This is a simple coordination of punishment.”

According to Armenia the Armenian genocide took place in 1915 when 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks.  France officially recognized the Armenian genocide by passing a law in 2011.  Turkey objects to the description of genocide and comparison to the Holocaust, reasoning that there was substantial loss of life on both sides.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy, whose signature is necessary to ratify the bill, has thrown his support behind the bill.

Some French Members of Parliament stand in opposition to the bill.  Foreign Minister Alain Juppe slammed the bill, calling it “a futile and counterproductive bill, which will have serious consequences on bilateral ties with Turkey.”  French Senator Nathalie Goulet has declared that she will “go on a crusade” against the proposed anti-denial law.

The National Assembly, France’s lower house approved the bill last month.  The passage of the law prompted Turkey to recall its ambassador and suspend all contracts and military cooperation with France.  Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogam slammed the bill, calling it “politics based on racism, discrimination and xenophobia” and accused France of committing genocide in Algeria and being complicit to genocide in Rwanda.

The French law has also come under fire for its assault on free speech.  William Bauer of Policymic argued against the sensibility of denying genocide, but added “the act of genocide denial, written or verbal, must never be made an illegal, criminal act.”

Protests of about two dozen people of Turkish descent have taken place in front of the French embassy in New York City on January 5th to oppose the ratification of the bill.  Protestors want an open and fair discussion to find out what truly happened in 1915.  “The Turkish government [are] always asking Armenia [to] open the books, let’s discuss on both sides,” protestor Mae Somnez said. “But they never open the books…we never can discuss archives and what is the truth.

Supporters of the bill cite the protection of the dignity of those who perished as reason enough to restrict speech.  An appeal signed by famous singer Charles Aznavour, director Robert Guédiguian, lawyer Serge Klarsfeld, philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Michel Onfray, and Turkish writer Erol Özkoray was published in Le Journal du Dimanche.

“As Elie Wiesel has written, the denial of the genocide is killing its victims for the second time. We welcome the adoption of the bill on racism, discrimination and denial by the French National Assembly on December 22.

Our target is the ban of denial on state level that the Turkish authorities bring up to France. In order the text to become a law, we call the French President, the government and the leading parties to confirm their gesture and let the Senate ratify the bill.”

The Senate will debate the bill on January 10th.  This will be followed by discussion by the Constitutional Court sometime between January 23rd and January 30th.  If the bill passes it will go to President Sarkozy’s desk where he will have the opportunity to sign the bill into law.  The bill poses the difficult balance between allowing freedom to discuss controversial issues and reverence for horrific events in human history.

For more information please see:

Hurriyet Daily News — French Senator To Launch ‘Crusade’ On Genocide Law — 6 January 2012

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — France Said To Speed Up Vote On Armenian Genocide Bill — 6 January 2012

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty —  Protest Held In NYC Over France’s Armenian Genocide Legislation — 6 January 2012

Azatutyun — French Senate To Vote On Armenian Genocide Bill — 5 January 2012

Euractiv — Turkey Pressues France To Stop Armenian Genocide Bill — 5 January 2012

PanARMENIAN — Sarkozy Approves Genocide Bill — 5 January 2012

Policymic — France’s Armenian Genocide Bill An Assault On Free Speech — 4 January 2012

NEWS.am — Aznavour, Philosophers, Turkish Writer Call French Senate To Ratify Bill Penalizing Armenian Genocide — 2 January 2012

Press Release: Hermitage Releases List of 14 Russian Judges Who Illegally Refused Sergei Magnitsky’s Mother Access to Justice in 2011 in the Murder of Her Son in State Custody

29 December 2011 – Today, Hermitage Capital Management published a list of 14 Russian judges who illegally refused Sergei Magnitsky’s mother access to justice throughout 2011 in the murder in Russian state custody of her son. The list will be submitted to the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the Council of Europe’s Consultative Council of European Judges. The list comprises nine judges of the Moscow City Court, three judges of the Tverskoi district court and two judges of the Basmanny district court in Moscow.

Topping the list is Olga Egorova, chair of the Moscow City Court, who, on November 18, 2011 rejected Mrs. Magnitskaya’s complaint seeking an independent medical evaluation into her son’s death. Her denial was based on the assertion that there was no need for an independent medical evaluation because the findings of state bodies could not be questioned.

Another person on the list is Alexei Krivoruchko, judge of the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow who refused on August 30, 2011 to consider a complaint from Mrs. Magnitskaya about the illegality of the posthumous prosecution of her son. As a result, the Interior Ministry proceeded to prosecute a man who had been dead for two years in spite of the fact that
there is no legal precedent in modern times for prosecuting someone after they are dead. Judge Krivoruchko is the same judge who sanctioned this their participation in year’s arrests of opposition figures Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov who protested against voting fraud in the December 4th Parliamentary elections.

Also on the list is Igor Alisov, recently appointed chair of the Tverskoi District Court of Moscow, who on September 12, 2011 rejected another complaint of Mrs. Magnitskaya protesting the prosecution of her son after his death by the Russian Interior Ministry. In March this year, the same Judge Alisov in an expedited procedure, closed to the public – and ignoring the evidence of Magnitsky’s colleagues and journalists – considered the case about the theft of $230 million from the budget exposed by Sergei Magnitsky prior to his arrest. Judge Alisov found one guilty party in this
crime – a jobless person Vyacheslav Klhebnikov, and recognized as “victims” the tax officials, who approved the multi-million dollar illegal tax refunds in one day and began buying $2 million apartments in Dubai shortly after the illegal tax refunds were granted.

“On fifteen different occasions this year, Sergei Magnitsky’s mother went to Russian courts to uphold her rights and each time she faced a wall of injustice. This story shows that Russian judges are not acting independently and the judicial system in Russia is not working. The plight of Mrs. Magnitskaya is a well-evidenced example that Russian courts are entirely politically directed,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.

During the twelve months of 2011, Moscow courts have refused all fifteen applications from Mrs. Magnitskaya seeking justice for her son. In particular, the judges rejected her application for an independent medical evaluation of causes of her son’s death in Russian police custody and her requests for access to her son’s tissues archive, stating there was no
ground to doubt the findings of state appointed experts. The judges also rejected her complaints against the Russian Investigative Committee for the concealment of her son’s case files, claiming she had no right to inspect those files. Similarly, the judges refused her complaint against the
Russian General Prosecutor’s Office and Interior Ministry for the reopening of the prosecution against her dead son and for the falsification of evidence in the case. Finally, the judges refused to compel investigators to prosecute high-ranking Russian officials for the illegal arrest, torture and murder of her son in state custody.

Judge Mushnikova of the Bamanny District Court in Moscow rejected two applications from Mrs. Magnitskaya this year. On 19 July 2011, Judge Mushnikova rejected an application from Mrs. Magnitskaya seeking access to her son’s tissues archive for an independent medical examination. On 8 December 2011, judge Mushnikova rejected Mrs. Magnitskaya’s complaint
against the Russian Investigative Committee for withholding case files from the relatives and separating the case against two medical personnel of Butyrka detention center.

Another judge of the Basmanny District Court Karpov on December 13, 2011 rejected the lawsuit from Mrs. Magnitskaya seeking to compel the Russian Investigative Committee to open an investigation into the illegal arrest, torture and murder of her son based on evidence she submitted to the Russian authorities this September. In her application, Mrs. Magnitskaya named high-ranking officials of the Interior Ministry, General Prosecutor’s Office, the FSB, the penitentiary system and judges.

On December 9, 2011 Judge Kovalevskaya of the Tverskoi District Court refused the lawsuit filed by Nikolai Gorokhov, the lawyer for Mrs. Magnitskaya, against the Russian Interior Ministry for the falsification of evidence in the case against Sergei Magnitsky by convicted criminals who
Magnitsky had exposed prior to his arrest for acting in collusion with law enforcement officers to misappropriate his client’s companies and $230 million they had paid in taxes to the Russian government.

Finally, Moscow City Court Judge Selina, Abbazov, Gorba, Bondarenko, Martynova, Khatuntseva, Lovchev and Ishmuratova upheld the decisions of judges from Tverskoi and Bassmanny district courts rejecting all complaints of Magnitsky’s mother this year.

For further information please contact:

Hermitage Capital