By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – Earlier this week, Thomas Hammarberg, the Commissioner for the Council of Europe for Human Rights submitted a statement to the European Court of Human Rights, in which he urged the Court to hear a case concerning the maltreatment of a disabled person in Romania. “There is an atmosphere of impunity,” Hammarberg said, “surrounding abuses committed against people with disabilities.”

This case has been filed by the Center for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Campeanu, a young man who suffered from a severe learning disability and was infected with the HIV Virus, which in Romania is considered a handicap.  He died at the age of eighteen at the Poiana Mare Psychiatric Hospital, just one of the institutions where he spent his entire life.

Under Article 34 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a petitioner “should claim to be a victim of a violation of one of the rights set forth in the Convention.” As such, the person who was “directly affected by the violation” is the ideal petitioner to bring the lawsuit; however, the Court has not strictly enforced this provision and has, in some circumstances, allowed a close relative or legal representative of a deceased victim to commence an action for violating ones “right to life.” The case at issue differs from typical cases that the Court has heard in the past in that the named-plaintiff is deceased, and he is not survived by an heir or close relative, nor did he have a legal representative prior to death. Should this case be heard, it will be the first of its kind to be brought by a third party. Thus arises the question of whether or not the Center for Legal Resources, as a third, unrelated party may sue on behalf of Campeanu.

There are at least two bodies of international law that are intended to protect the lives and rights of persons like Campeanu but have been, in many instances, ineffectual in deterring human rights abuses. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights–adopted by the United Nations in 1948—speaks generally on the issue, stating that, “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of oneself and one’s family, including food, clothing, housing, and medical care.” More specifically, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was designed “to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”

As a policy measure, the Council of Europe 2006-2015 Action Plan to Promote the Rights and Full Participation of People with Disabilities in Society is a plan aimed at bettering the welfare of disabled people.

Despite the laws that are in place and the policy initiatives at work, the abuse of disabled people remains prevalent around the world. The abuse can be visible, while in other instances it is more subtle and clandestine. The spectrum of types of abuses runs the gamut from being denied employment opportunities, to being the subject of hate crimes; from receiving substandard education in segregated classrooms to physical and psychological abuse in the home.

Throughout Europe, “thousands of people with disabilities are still kept in large, segregated and often remote institutions” often living in “substandard conditions, suffering neglect and human rights abuses.” Adults and children alike that have been institutionalized are often denied basic mental health and medical services and are physically and sexually abused by health care professionals. Children are chained to cribs, while adults are chained to their beds; children and adults alike can be severely underfed and malnourished. In some instances, there are “premature deaths” that go uninvestigated or even unreported.

While all of these violations of basic human rights occur, disabled people are often unable to reach the very place that could give them relief from their misery: the court system. A study by Inclusion Europe, a non-governmental organization, found that “access to justice for people with intellectual disabilities is by no means guaranteed in many European countries.” The problem is widespread and deeply embedded in society. As such, Commissioner Hammarberg argues that the Center for Legal Resources—even though a third, unrelated party– should in-fact be permitted to bring a lawsuit on behalf of Campeanu. He states: “in exceptional circumstances [non-governmental organizations] should be allowed to lodge applications with the Court on behalf of victims, even in the absence of specific authorization.” Such organizations are necessary in order to expose “human rights violations experienced by vulnerable persons and in facilitating their access to justice…”

For more information please visit:

Council of Europe – Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities – 18 Oct. 2011

Council of Europe – Third Party Intervention – 14 Oct. 2011

Cornell University ILR School – Justice, Rights and Inclusion for People with Intellectual Disability – 1 Jan. 2007

Council of Europe – Improving the Quality of Life for People with Disabilities – 5 April 2006

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights – Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – 13 Dec. 2006

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

On Tuesday, October 1, 1946 nineteen defendants were convicted and three were acquitted on charges of conspiracy, aggressive war, war crimes, and crimes against humanity at the International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Nuremberg.  This date and judgment marked the end of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s work as chief prosecutor.  Justice Jackson returned to Washington, DC on October 2 and resumed his role on the Supreme Court on October 7.

The convicted defendants were sentenced to death and the Allied Control Council declined to mitigate their sentences.  On October 15 one of the condemned, Hermann Goering, committed suicide by cyanide in his cell.  In the early morning hours of October 16 the remaining condemned were led by a U.S. Army team to a newly-constructed execution chamber.  They were hanged and pronounced dead before 3:00 a.m.

Whitney Harris, formerly a junior prosecutor working with Justice Jackson, flew to Nuremberg from Berlin where he was working at the Office of Military Government for Germany.  There he saw the executions and four days later he reported to his former boss, Justice Jackson.

Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson

Supreme Court

Washington, D.C.

Dear Chief:

On Tuesday I flew to Nurnberg to be present at the final episode in the trial of the major war criminals.  In spite of the efforts of General [Lucius] Clay to gain my admittance as a witness to the actual hangings, this proved impossible under a policy established by the Control Council which excluded members of prosecuting staffs from the execution chamber.  However, familiarity with the scene and close contact with the newspaper men who were present was quite sufficient to enable me to report on the details.

The executions took place in the prison gymnasium which you will remember as the small building about seventy-five yards from the door leading into the cell block where the “Big Twenty-one” were imprisoned.  The secret that this building, which had been the workroom for the defendants who processed the thousands of affidavits submitted for the [defense of the indicted] organizations and had been used for a basketball game only the Saturday preceding, was to be the execution hall was kept so well that only two security officers knew the fact on Tuesday afternoon.

The members of the four-man committee in charge of the executions were all generals, Roy V. Rickard for the United States, Paton Walsh for Britain, Morel for France and Molkov for Russia.  They handled the arrangements very efficiently, except, of course, for the Goering suicide which could scarcely be charged to their neglect.  This remains at writing the great mystery of the executions.

At nine-thirty [on Tuesday night, October 15], the correspondents were permitted to inspect the cell block and observe the condemned.  Jodl was writing a letter; Ribbentrop was in earnest conversation with a chaplain; Sauckel nervously paced the floor, and Goering simulated sleep, his hands outside of the blankets.  At the forty-five, the guard noticed Goering twitching.  He called for the corporal of the guard and they rushed into the cell.  They saw Goering writhing in agony.  When the doctor arrived the death rattle was in his throat.  Goering had cheated the hangman.  They found in the cell a small envelope marked H. Goering on the outside, inside of which were three notes, one addressed to Colonel Andrus [the prison commandant] from Goering, and the cartridge case in which the vial of potassium cyanide had been preserved.  As yet, the contents of the notes have not been released for publication and how Goering got the poison remains unsolved.  Goering’s body was brought into the execution chamber so that it might be viewed by the committee and by the two representatives of the German people present, Dr. Wilhelm Hoegner, Minister President of Bavaria, and Dr. Jakob Meistner, General Prosecutor of the High Court at Nurnberg.

At eleven minutes past one o’clock in the morning of 16 October, the white-faced Joachim von Ribbentrop stepped through the door into the execution chamber and faced the gallows on which he and the others condemned to death by the Tribunal were to be hanged.  Ribbentrop’s hands were unmanacled and bound behind him with a leather thong.  He walked to the foot of the thirteen stairs leading to the gallows platform.  He was asked to state his name.  Flanked by two guards and followed by the Chaplain, he slowly mounted the stairs.  On the platform, he saw the hangman with the noose of thirteen coils and the hangman’s assistant with the black hood.  He stood on the trap and his feet were bound with a webbed Army belt.  He was asked to state any last words, and said:  “God protect Germany.  God have mercy on my soul.  My last wish is that German unity be maintained, that understanding between East and West be realized and there be peace for the world”.  The trap was sprung and Ribbentrop died at 1:29.

In the same way, each of the remaining defendants to receive capital sentences approached the scaffold and met the fate of common criminals.  All, except the wordy Nazi philosopher, Rosenberg, uttered final statements.  Keitel spoke as a Prussian soldier:  “I call on the Almighty to be considerate of the German people, provide tenderness and mercy.  Over 2,000,000 German soldiers went to their death for their Fatherland before me.  I now follow my sons.  All for Germany”.  Gestapo Chief Kaltenbrunner declared apologetically:  “I served the German people and my Fatherland with willing heart.  I did my duty according to its laws.  I am sorry that in her trying hour she was not led only by soldiers.  I regret that crimes were committed in which I had no part.  Good luck Germany”.  Frank said quietly:  “I am thankful for the kind treatment which I received during this incarceration and I pray God to receive me mercifully”.  Frick spoke only the phrase, “Let live the eternal Germany”.  Streicher shouted “Heil Hitler!” as he climbed the stairs and followed with the words: “Now I go to God, Purim Festival 1946.  And now to God.  The Bolshevists will one day hang you.  I am now by God my father”.  And his last words were, “Adele, my dear wife”.  Sauckel protested:  “I die innocently.  The verdict was wrong.  Got protect Germany and make Germany great again.  Let Germany live and God protect my family”.  Jodl spoke in the manner of an officer addressing his troops:  “I salute you my Germany”.  Seyss-Inquart climaxed the final statements when he said:  “I hope that this execution is the last act of the tragedy of the second world war and that a lesson will be learned so that peace and understanding will be realized among the nations.  I believe in Germany”.  Seyss-Inquart died at 2:57 less than two hours after von Ribbentrop had entered the execution chamber.  It was over—the trial ended, evil requited, and as Dr. Hoegner said, “Justice done”.

I am now at work in Berlin in the Legal Division, Office of Military Government (U.S.), and my job is “Legal advice”, by which I am charged with answering any and all legal questions which may be referred by the Deputy Military Governor or departments of OMGUS.  The Legal Division at present is primarily charged with the reinstitution of the legal basis for democratic government in the American Zone of Germany.  The laws of the dictatorship have been repealed, but there remains the task of reenacting codes covering each branch of substantive law and reestablishing workable procedures.  I hope this task will have been completed by next summer and that when I leave Germany the basis for a new democratic society will have been laid.

…

                                                            Faithfully yours,

                                                            /s/ Whitney

When Justice Jackson wrote back to Harris, privately, nearly a month later, Jackson expressed disapproval of aspects of the execution events and some of his standards of good judgment and propriety in the use of power:

November 18, 1946

Mr. Whitney R. Harris,

OMGUS, Legal Division

APO 742,

C/o Postmaster, New York City.

My dear Whitney:

I very much appreciated your report of the Nurnberg executions.  Apparently the military crowd were a little vindictive.  They were very sore, I understand, because those who were sent to take charge of the executions were not put in prominent [courtroom] places at the [IMT] rendering of the verdict.  The impropriety of playing up the executioners before the judgment of guilt had been rendered or sentence imposed does not seem to occur to such mentalities, if that is what they can be called by courtesy.

The photographs [of the corpses of the hanged criminals and Goering] which were released in this country have produced an extremely bad impression and with very few exceptions there is criticism, even in the papers that published them, of the fact that they were released.  All in all, I am rather glad that the military people shut us out and made it their own performance.

I am glad that you are comfortably situated in Berlin and are at the job of giving legal advice.  You certainly are having a very interesting experience and you may decide to make foreign service a career.

I hope you will let us hear from you from time to time and tell us the low-down on what goes on.  …

                                                                        Sincerely yours,

                                                                        /s/ Robert H. Jackson

To read the words of Justice Jackson and Mr. Harris is to journey to the past.  They give us eyes that see truths Nuremberg reveals that we, the people of the world, must carry with us at all times.  They show us the need for hearts and minds that must simultaneously learn, feel, and forget.  And they give us shoes in which we must continue to walk.

Special thanks to John Q. Barrett, Professor of Law, St. Johns Universty School of Law.

By Greg Hall
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KIEV, UKRAINE – A bill being introduced in Ukraine’s Parliament could unlawfully censor information about homosexuality.  The proposed bill, ‘On introduction of Changes to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine,’ would establish liability for propagandizing homosexuals. Those opposed to the proposed bill argue that it is a form of censorship and is discriminatory.

Homosexuality was decriminalized in Ukraine in 1991 but homophobia sentiment is still very strong.  There has been a rapid growth of homophobia fueled by religions and politicians.  Activists point out that homosexuals do not want extra rights or privileges but simply insist that they be treated like everyone else.

Proponents for the bill argue that sexual conduct has long fallen under the sphere of public regulation because of its relation with family and health.  Yevgen Tsarkvo, a member of Ukrainian Parliament who helped author the bill, said that one can open a magazine and see homosexual propaganda filled with same-sex love and interviews of from the gay community.

The proposed bill itself states in part, “[t]he spread of homosexuality is a threat to national security, as it leads to the epidemic of AIDS/HIV and destroys the institution of the family and can cause a demographic crisis.  To address these demographic challenges, it is necessary to create conditions to direct public policy to improve nation’s morals, including introduction of effective mechanisms for strengthening family values and preventing the spread of manifestations of moral depravity in the media.”

The proposed bill seeks to achieve this objective through amendments of five laws addressing protection of public morals, regulation of the media/publishing, and the criminal code. In each case this is done through simply adding either “the promotion of homosexuality” or “the production/distribution of products which promote homosexuality” to the list of prohibited activities in the legislation.

Ukraine has been a member of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms since 1997.  This Convention protects against discrimination and protects freedom of expression.  Arguably, this bill violates the Convention’s principles.  Several months ago, the Convention unanimously adopted a set of recommendations to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Borris Dittrich, advocacy directory for the LGBT rights program said, “If the Ukrainian parliament were to adopt this discriminatory and stigmatizing legislation, Ukraine would alienate itself from the other member states of the Council of Europe.  Lawmakers should realize that the best way to protect Ukrainians is to respect their rights and not to censor them.”

For more information, please see:

Human Rights Watch – Ukraine: Reject Homophobic Law – 16 October 2011

Ukraine Watch – National Peculiarities of Homophobia in Ukraine – 23 August 2011

ILGA Europe – Ukraine Introducing New Homophobic Law – 26 July 2011

 

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

GENEVA, Switzerland – On October 11, the United Nation’s Council on Human Rights in Geneva reviewed and discussed the serious human rights problems that continue to pervade Lithuanian society, namely a “discriminatory policy with regard to ethnic and language minorities, manifestations of racism and anti-Semitism, a grave situation in the penitentiary system, human trade, the violation of the rights of children, women and handicapped, and others.

UN member states made a variety of suggestions to Lithuanian officials to improve the dire human rights conditions. Russia identified the particular “need to eradicate manifestations of racism, and neo-Nazism, to put an end to attempts to revise the outcome of World War II, to make heroes of fascist henchman and persecute veteran anti-fascists. It is correcting these violations that the Lithuanian authorities must, at least, deal with.”

In response, the head of the Lithuanian delegation at the United Nations, Justice Remigijus Simasius, declared that Lithuania will not abandon a policy of persecuting people who “committed crimes against the Lithuanian people during the occupation,” also commenting that, “some Russian institutions hold an odd stance that censuring the crimes against humanity committed by Stalinism automatically vindicates Nazi crimes.”

In mid-July, Lithuanian foreign minister issued a statement recognizing Russia’s role in defeating Hitler and the Nazi regime iterating that, “we have big appreciation for the Russian nation’s historic contribution and dedication to the defeat of the dragon of Nazism together with members of the then coalition.” He went on to say that, “I believe evaluation of Stalinism is currently a difficult task in Russia because it is viewed together with the Russian nation’s historic role in World War II. I believe that Russia has intellectual potential and the capacity of separating the two phenomena. The start may be difficult but we hope that is part of a longer path.”

It appears that the heart of the disagreement between Russia and Lithuania stems from the fact that the two countries cannot agree on the role that the Stalinist regime played during World War II and the Lithuania occupation.

Nevertheless, relations between Russia and Lithuania run deep and have been tumultuous from the beginning. Once a part of Russia, Lithuania initially achieved independence in 1917 during the Bolshevik Revolution.  In 1939, however, the Soviet Military invaded and took Lithuania over as a result of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact made between Russian Dictator Josef Stalin and German Dictator Adolf Hitler.  Once occupied, an estimated 200,000 Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians were arrested, deported and imprisoned in labor camps in Siberia and the Northern Soviet Union. Lithuanians say the agreement resulted in the “”planned genocide of the people” and have pointed toward the illegal nature of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact. Lithuania regained independence in 1991.

Though no mention of reform was made regarding the other human rights abuses occurring in Lithuania the head of the Lithuanian delegation asserted that Lithuania “would continue seeking due assessment of totalitarian regimes in Europe.”

For more information, please visit:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation – Comments by Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Ombudsman for Human Rights – 12 October 2011

United States Department of State – Background Note: Lithuania – 11 March 2011