By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MINSK, Belarus — Former Belarusian presidential candidate Andrei Sannikov has been transferred from a labor camp in the eastern city of Babruysk.  The transfer came without warning and Sannikov’s whereabouts are currently unknown.

 

Sannikov’s transfer came to light when his attorney arrived in Babruysk to meet with him.  There prison officials informed the attorney, Andrei Varvashevich, that Sannikov’s relatives would be given more information when he reached his final destination.  Officials were otherwise silent at that time.

One of authoritarian president Aleksander Lukashenko’s main political rivals, Sannikov was sentenced to five years in prison in the spring of 2011 for organizing a large antigovernment protest.  The conviction and sentence were part of Lukashenko’s wide-spread and harsh crackdown against opposition.

While in prison, Sannikov complained of torture, deprivation of sleep, exposure to the cold and threats to him and his family.  His attorney suspected that he had a broken leg but was denied an x-ray.

Sannikov was just one of seven opposition candidates who faced prison sentences for their roles in post-election violence in

Lukashenko has claimed that Sannikov was linked to the terrorist bombing of a Minsk subway station that killed 14 people.  Also, in the closing argument in Sannikov’s case the prosecutor stated that “[f]rom November to December 20, Sannikov and others organized mass unrest, accompanied by pogroms, preparations for arson, the destruction of property, violence against people and armed resistance against representatives of the government.”

The United States Department of State described the sentence as “politically motivated.”

In September Sannikov’s relatives were kept in the dark as to his whereabouts for two weeks.  His wife Iryna Khalip, a journalist, called the authorities effort to keep Sannikov’s location a mystery are part of an attempt “to intimidate him.”

Originally Sannikov was imprisoned in the city of Navapolatsak.  He was transferred on September 21 and his family was told he would be in Babruysk on September 24.  When his family went to Babruysk on the 24^th he was not there and did not arrive there for another two weeks.

Former prisoners describe the prisoner transit process as a “tough ordeal.”  Living conditions while being transported are normally worse than being in prison itself.  The prisoners are held in tiny cells in “inhumane conditions.”  There are no newspapers, sanitary facilities, letters, and no opportunity to talk to anyone.

Since the initial discovery of Sannikov’s transfer, Khalip has gained more information as to his destination.  She told journalists, “It was [acting chief of the Corrections Department Syarhei] Pratesnka who explained to me several weeks ago why Sannikov had been transferred to Babruisk. He said it would be better for him there. Now he says Sannikov has been transferred from Babruisk colony Nr 2 to the Vitsebsk region due to danger to his life and health. Pratsenka did not say in what colony Sannikov was sent.”

There are five penal colonies in the Vitsebsk region.  When Sannikov’s attorney asked Pratesnka which prison Sannikov would end up in Pratesnka told the attorney he should figure out the location himself.

Currently all the penal colonies in the Vitsebsk region deny that Sannikov is present in their facility.  Officials at Babruisk continue to refuse to give Sannikov’s exact location, and where and why he is being transferred.

For more information please see:

Charter ’97 — Sannikov To Be Sent To Vitsebsk Region Again? — 16 November 2011

Charter ’97 — Sannikov Is Not In Vitsebsk Penal Colonies — 16 November 2011

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty — Jailed Belarusian Opposition Leader Again In Transit — 16 November 2011

New York Times — Sannikov, Belarus Opposition Leader, Gets Five-Year Sentence — 14 May 2011

Washington Post — Belarus: 7 Presidential Candidates Face 15 Years — 22 December 2010

By Greg Hall
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KIEV, Ukraine – Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko will likely remain in jail for abusing her powers while negotiating a natural gas import contract from Russia.  A Ukrainian court sentenced her to seven years in jail, banned her from holding public office for three years, and imposed a fine.  Her case will be heard again by an appeals court but the appeals court is likely to uphold the conviction.  Tymoshenko’s attorney, Serhiy Vlasenko, asserted that President Viktor Yanukovych is intent on keeping the opposition leader behind bars.

Vlasenko is not alone in her assertions.  The United States, Russia and the European Union have also condemned the court ruling as politically motivated.  U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, said her country was “deeply disappointed”, calling it a “politically motivated prosecution … [raising] serious concern about the government of Ukraine’s commitment to democracy and the law”.

Maja Kocijancic, spokeswoman for EU foreign affairs commissioner Catherine Ashton, said: “The EU is very disappointed with the verdict,” and that the court “did not meet the international standards for a just, transparent, and independent judicial procedure”. Despite international pressure, Yanukovych has refused to release her.  Yanukovych loyalists in the parliament will likely turn down a bill being proposed to significantly decrease the sentence for the crime which Tymoshenko was convicted.

Tymoshenko is accused of going beyond her authority to negotiate a gas contract with Russia.  This deal is believed to have hurt the Ukrainian economy.  Russian officials are puzzled how a legally enforceable contract can be the cause of a criminal proceeding.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov responded to the verdict, saying it was highly politicized. “We cannot accept that a legitimate contract that remains in force and which has never been legally challenged may be cause for a court ruling like today’s,” said Russia’s top diplomat.

Tymoshenko insists that she is being kept behind bars so Yanukovych can remain in power and be unchallenged.  Her arrest and detention has gained international attention for violating human rights.  Vlasenko wants to bring this case before the European Court of Human Rights in hopes of overturning the Ukrainian court.  There is some contention as to whether or not that court’s decision will be binding on Ukraine.

The Main Department of the Tax Militia of the State Tax Service has reopened an investigation into the United Energy Systems of Ukraine dating back to 1996-97.  The investigation reopens yet another criminal case involving Tymoshenko.  This case accuses her of embezzling 405 million dollars of state funds.  If found guilty of that crime, she could face another 12 years behind bars.

Vlasenko is reporting that Tymoshenko is suffering from severe back pain.  Despite such pain, investigators questioned her in her jail cell.  Ukrainian officials stated that she has received the proper medical attention but would not go into any details.  Vlasenko believes that Ukrainian authorities will feel significantly more pressure to release Tymoshenko if the European Court of Human Rights reverses the conviction.

For more information, please see:

Russia Now – Yulia Tymoshenko Verdict Condemned by Russia, EU and US – 14 November 2011

Unian – Vlasenko: Investigators Illegally Presented Yulia Tymoshenko with New Charges – 11 November 2011

Washington Post – Lawyer: Ukraine’s ex-PM Tymoshenko Likely to Remain in Jail for Many Months – 11 November 2011

 

 

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina – On Thursday November 10, Bosnia’s War Crimes Court sentenced Bosnian Serb Sasa Baricanin to 18 years imprisonment for the murder of a family, rape and enslavement during the 1990s Balkan War.

Baricanin was an accomplice to Beselin Vlahovic’s atrocities. Together, the two broke into a family apartment in the Serb-controlled Grbavica district in July 1992. They removed a husband, wife and son from their apartment, bringing them out, behind their home where the two shot the family, mercilessly, until dead.

According to the verdict, another female was left in the apartment at the time of the invasion that ended in the three innocent deaths. Thereafter, Baricanin “kept her enslaved, raped her for several days and brought another person to rape her.”

Enida Hadziomerovic, chairwoman of the court counsel stated in the verdict that, “Defendant Sasa Baricanin committed war crimes against the civilian non-Serb population in the city of Sarajevo,”

On the outcome of the case, Margot Wallstrom, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict said that “this case is yet another testament to the resilience of Bosnian women who have joined forces in their quest for justice, both within and beyond the courtroom.” Wallstrom went on to say that, “the verdict sent a strong signal that justice must ultimately prevail for victims of sexual violence.”

Despite the truly justice-achieving verdict, this case is only one instance of tens of thousands of rapes that occurred during the War. It is estimated that about 50,000 rapes occurred during the war years yet there have been only 30 convictions for this heinous crime, to date.  “While it is a positive step that the War Crimes Court in Sarajevo has reached this verdict, the pace of justice for sexual violence survivors has been painfully slow.”

Baricanin was a member of the Bosnian Serb Kosevo Battalion which occupied Sarajevo neighborhoods of Grbavica and Vraca—two towns located in Sarajevo. During his time in the battalion, he worked with Veselin Vlahovic, also known as Batko.

Batko is currently on trial for some of the most brutal treatment of civilians in Sarajevo in 1992 and 1993.

In related news, on Thursday, Ratko Mladic, the Bosnian Serb ex- army chief told the former Yugoslav war crimes court, via a signed letter, that he was too ill to attend a scheduled court hearing. The letter stated that he was unable to attend “due to illness” and that he waived his “right to be present”  and gave his “consent for the proceedings to continue” without him.

According to Mladic’s attorney, Branko Lukic, his client’s health was, indeed, “very serious” and that he had to utilize a wheelchair to move about.

The Tribunal Judge Alphons Orie said in response to Mladic’s letter that, “because of the medical issues brought to chamber’s attention during the last few days, it is considering ordering a medical report addressing the medical picture of the accused’s health.”

Mladic is accused of “masterminding the murder of more than 7,000 Muslim men and boys at Screbrenica in July 1995.” Should all go according to plan, his trial will begin sometime in 2012.

AFP – Mladic Says Too Ill to Attend War Crimes Court Hearing – 10 November 2011

The Washington Post – War Crimes Court Send Bosnian Serb to Jail for 18 Years for Murder and Rape – 10 November 2011

Reuters – Serb Given 18 Years For Murder and Rape in Bosnian War – 9 November 2011

United Nations – UN Envoy Welcomes Conviction for Rape and Murder During Bosnian Conflict – 9 November 2011

 

 

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France — The United Kingdom began its six month tenure as chair of the Council of Europe’s (CoE) committee of ministers.  As the chair, the UK will be responsible for supervising compliance with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), giving the UK the opportunity to assert its influence over human rights matters.  UK media outlets are calling for the UK to take advantage of this opportunity.

Ukraine was the previous chair of the CoE.

The CoE is an organization of forty-seven member states and 800 million citizens and was founded in 1949.  It is not to be confused with the European Council, European Union, court of justice of the European Union, or European Parliament.  Its founding was inspired in part by Winston Churchill’s speech at the University of Zurich in which he called for a body that would foster truth and understanding to save Europe from descending into violence.

The UK said it will focus on strengthening the CoE as an organization, firming the rule of law, improving internet governance including freedom of expression, combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identification, and supporting local and regional democracies.

The UK foreign secretary said in a statement, “The United Kingdom is committed to upholding and promoting the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention – even if there has been at times considerable political controversy around certain judgments in the UK. As in many governments, and especially coalitions like ours, there is to be found a wide range of views – but this commitment is firmly agreed between the Conservative Party that I represent and our Liberal Democrat partners.”

The UK has already set forth its priorities for its term as chair, including:

“A set of efficiency measures, which will enable the court to focus quickly, efficiently and transparently on the most important cases that require its attention.

Strengthening the implementation of the Convention at national level, to ensure that national courts and authorities are able to assume their primary role in protecting human rights.

Measures to strengthen subsidiarity – new rules or procedures to help ensure that the court plays a subsidiary role where member states are fulfilling their obligations under the Convention.

Improving the procedures for nominating suitably qualified judges to the court, and ensuring that the court’s case law is clear and consistent.”

The CoE’s democratic structure will prevent the UK from implementing its reforms by force.  The UK’s objectives have been initiated, however, at previous conferences.  This will help the UK achieve its goals.

Among the other challenges the UK will face as chair is a backlog of cases in the human rights courts.  There are currently 150,000 cases pending with an additional 20,000 added each year.  This rush to the courts can be attributed to the success the court has had in resolving disputes.  Citizens of newly formed Eastern European democracies have turned to the court to assert their rights, but they sometimes must wait years to have their case heard.

To deal with such a large volume of cases the court must be selective and accept only the most worthy cases.  Some recommend that this goal would be served by improving the mechanisms of the court or consolidating cases that have similar facts.

The UK must improve the quality of judges in the court as well.  Some propose filling the courts with the world’s best judges to demonstrate the priority the UK gives to human rights issues.

Indeed the UK has called for a more focused court, one that will not be used as a substitute for national court systems.  Changes will be necessary to let the court “operate effectively.”

The increased volume of cases in the court may be a sign that the court has become a viable and effective venue in which claimants may assert their rights, but European Minister David Lidington said this goes beyond the scope of the original purpose of the court.

“Enforcing rights in situations where the drafters of the convention never intended them to be is the wrong direction of travel for the court and this situation is getting worse and it actually undermines both the court’s authority and its efficiency,” Mr. Liddington said.

The UK will chair the CoE until May 2012.

For more information please see:

APA — United Kingdom Takes Over Presidency of Council of Europe’s Committee Of Ministers — 7 November 2011

Guardian — UK Should Not Waste This Opportunity In Strasbourg — 7 November 2011

Isria — Foreign Secretary Announces UK Priorities For UK Chairmanship Of Council Of Europe — 7 November 2011

Telegraph — The Council of Europe: This is Britain’s Human Rights Opportunity — 7 November 2011

BBC — European Court of Human Rights Reform “Will Take Time” — 27 October 2011

By Greg Hall
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – Sweden has approved the extradition of Sylvere Ahorugeze, the former head of the Rwandan Civil Aviation Authority, to Rwanda to stand trial for his involvement in the country’s 1994 genocide.  Sweden is the first European state to approve an extradition to Rwanda.  Other European countries including Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have denied extradition petitions on the grounds that the alleged genocide suspect would not receive a fair and just trial in Rwanda.  After last week’s ruling by Sweden’s Supreme Court, Ahorugeze appealed his decision to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

The ECHR ruled that if extradited to stand trial in Rwanda, Ahorugeze would not risk a flagrant denial of justice.  The court also noted that “experience gathered by Dutch investigative teams and the Norwegian police during missions to Rwanda, concluded that the Rwandan judiciary cannot be considered to lack independence and impartiality.”

The judgment is not final because Ahorugeze still has a chance to appeal the judgment to the ECHR Grand Chambers.  Despite the decision not being final, however, it has a major impact on other countries because Rwanda has issued more than 40 extradition requests for suspects residing within European borders.

International law permits countries to prosecute suspects of serious international crimes before their domestic courts when extradition is not an option.  However, those domestic countries often fail to prosecute suspects of heinous crimes which allow those suspects to go untried for their crimes against humanity.

Ahorugeze left Rwanda after the 1994 genocide in which 800,000 people were killed. He obtained refugee status in Denmark.  In 2008, Danish authorities initiated an investigation against him but later released him because of lack of evidence.  Rwanda submitted a request for his extradition but was denied on the grounds that Rwandan authorities did not provide any further evidence to support their request.

In July of 2008, Ahorugeze was arrested while he was visiting the Rwandan Embassy in Stockholm, Sweden.  Swedish police acted on an extradition request from Rwanda and the Swedish Supreme Court decided that Ahorugeze could be extradited back to Rwanda.  Ahorugeze appealed this decision to the ECHR.  The ECHR ordered Sweden to release Ahorugeze while his trial was pending.  Ahorugeze went back to Denmark to be with his family and that is where he remains.  In the mean time, the ECHR returned an order to extradite him back to Rwanda.  It remains to be seen what effect this ruling will have on Ahorugeze given that Denmark has already refused to extradite him.

Whether or not the extradition actually happens, Rwanda must view the court decisions made by the ECHR and Sweden as an acknowledgment warranting international respect of the progress Rwanda has made.  This decision also opens the door to future extraditions of suspects in the 1994 genocide that Rwandan authorities are trying to prosecute.  However, the ECHR decision is applicable only to Ahorugeze.  Other cases brought before the ECHR might not have the same outcome.

Ahorugeze maintains his innocence and argues that he will not receive a fair trial in Rwanda.  It is alleged that Ahorugeze was involved in the murder of twenty five Tutsis whose bodies were found in a latrine pit.  Ahorugeze’s attorney, Hans Bredberg, stated that Ahorugeze is depressed over the ruling and plans to appeal the decision.

For more information, please see:

Radio Netherlands Worldwide – Green Light: Sweden Rwanda for Genocide Extradition – 7 November 2011

The Copenhagen Post Online – Human Rights Court: OK to Extradite Rwandan – 28 October 2011

Hirondelle News Agency – European Human Rights Court Greenlights Extradition to Rwanda – 28 October 2011