By David Sophrin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KIEV, Ukraine – An international women’s rights organization filed a discrimination lawsuit last week against the Ukrainian Prime Minister in response to recent statements he made regarding the role of women in government.

During a economic speech on 19 March, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov speech focused on a theme that women may not be able to properly handle the current economic issues that Ukraine is facing.  Azarov declared that “some say our government is too large; others that there are no women.”  He then went on to state that “with respect to women, conducting reforms is not women’s business.”

Yekaterina Levchenko of La Strada-Ukraine International Human Rights Protection Center, one of the women’s rights group that filed a suit, stated that Azarov’s statements were evidence of “direct discrimination against Ukrainian women.”  Another suit against the Prime Minister was brought by Olena Suslova, a leader of the Information and Advisory Women’s Center, in response to his statements.

The lawsuits state that the Prime Minister’s comments violated Ukraine’s constitutional mandate for equality among men and women.

After drawing increasing criticism from both national and international rights groups, Azarov spoke publicly in an attempt to clarify his earlier comments.  He stated that the remarks in his speech were only meant to establish his belief that he did not wish for any woman to work more than 15 hours a day, as his cabinet ministers often do.

Azarov’s statements come in the midst of increased political pressure in favor of greater roles for women in Ukraine’s national government.  Protests, organized by national women’s rights leaders, were held in front of the federal Cabinet buildings in Kiev earlier this month calling for greater diversity on the all-male national Cabinet.

For more information, please see:

AP – Ukraine Premier Accused on Discrimination –  1 April 2010

ITAR-TASS: Female activists sue Azarov for violation of women’s rights – 31 March 2010

THE GUARDIAN – Ukrainian women berate ‘Neanderthal’ PM for sexist remarks – 24 March 2010

By Kenneth F. Hunt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BELGRADE, Serbia – A court in Belgrade, Serbia issued an international arrest warrant for a former Nazi accused of committing war crimes during World War II against Jews.

Peter Egner, 88, is suspected of committing mass murder during the Nazi occupation of Serbia. The Nazis occupied large parts of Serbia, including Belgrade, from April 1941 to October 1944.

He is accused of taking part of executing 17,000 civilians between 1941 and 1943, including “Jews, Romas, and political dissidents”. The indictment also suggests that Mr. Egner directly ordered some of those executions.

Some of the victims were executed in Belgrade in a van specially designed for gassing. Others executed later after being sent to concentration camps.

The alleged crimes occurred when Mr. Egner was part of a Nazi-run Serbian police unit known as Einsatzgruppe. Mr. Egner has consistently claimed not only that he was not a part of Einsatzgruppe, but knows nothing about its existence.

Mr. Egner, born in the former Yugoslavia, is an ethnic German, who has been an American citizen since he moved to the United States in the 1960’s. Mr. Egner also currently lives in the United States.

The United States Department of Justice has cooperated with Serbia in investigating war crimes committed by Einsatzgruppe, and plans to continue to do so.

As a result of the investigation, the Department of Justice has filed a motion with a federal court to revoke Mr. Egner’s citizenship.

For more information, please see:

B92 – Arrest warrant out for WW2 Nazi – 2 April 2010

BBC – Serbia issues warrant for ‘Nazi murderer’ Peter Egner – 2 April 2010

NEW YORK TIMES – Serbia Seeks Extradition Of Suspected Nazi From U.S. – 2 April 2010

UPI – Serbia issues warrant for WW II suspect – 2 April 2010

By David Sophrin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MINSK, Belarus – A prominent Belarusian journalist and critic of the national government was stripped of his citizenship earlier this week.

Pavel Sheremet was informed by officials from the Belarusian Embassy in Moscow, where he is currently living, that his citizenship had been revoked.

The Belarusian government pointed to 2002 legislation which attached new requirements regarding Belarusian citizens who reside in other countries.  Those citizens face a possible revoking of their citizenship if they join a military, law enforcement or intelligence unit of that foreign nation.  The final order to take action against Sheremet was made by national Belarusian Security Council.

In response to the notification regarding his citizenship, Sheremet declared that he had done nothing to violate the 2002 legislation.  Since living in Moscow, he stated that he had not joined a Russian government agency of any kind.  He also questioned why, after he had been openly living in Russia for over a decade, the Belarus government decided now to take this action.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, an international non-governmental organization that attempts to protect the rights of journalists, was quick to criticize the actions of the Belarusian government and call for the re-establishing of Sheremet’s citizenship.

“Sheremet has long been critical of the regime of Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko and has been jailed, attacked, and harassed for his work in the past.  This latest official move appears as yet another act of official retaliation.  It must be stopped at once.”

Sheremet noted that “the desire to take away my Belarusian passport [was] a manifestation of aggravation of the Belarusian special services’ hysteria.”  He went to conclude that the action of Belarus was “revenge for [his] professional activities.”

Sheremet has been detained and jailed a number of times by both Belarusian and Russian authorities.  During the 2006 Belarusian Presidential election, Sheremet was jailed while covering protests that arose in its aftermath.  In 2004 Sheremet was attacked in Minsk and subsequently charged with disturbing the peace following his publishing of a biography critical of the Lukashenko government.

For more information, please see:

CHARTER 97 – Committee to Protect Journalists has called upon returning citizenship to Sharamet – 31 March 2010

CHARTER 97 – Paval Sharamet deprived of Belarusian citizenship – 31 March 2010

RADIO FREE EUROPE – Belarusian Journalist ‘Loses Citizenship’ – 31 March 2010

CPJ – More than two dozen journalists jailed in Belarus – 28 March 2006

By Elizabeth A. Conger
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

BRUSSELS, Belgium – The Belgian parliament’s Justice and Home Affairs Committee has unanimously approved a draft law calling for the prohibition of the wearing of face-covering Islamic veils, such as the niqab and the burqa, in public. If the proposed law is passed individuals could face fines of up to €25 or seven days in prison for wearing the burqa or the niqab.

The measure, which has the backing of all five parties in the ruling coaltion, still needs to be approved by the parliament before becoming law and is likely to be voted upon by April 22, 2010. If approved, Belgium would be the first European country to implement such a ban.

Support for the measure has transcended both party and linguistic lines in Belgium. Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal MP who proposed the bill, told channel RTL in Brussels:

“A person cannot claim the right to see another person without being seen himself . . . I think there is also an aspect related to human dignity — the women’s imprisonment under a burqa is not acceptable in a civilized society.”

Denis Ducarme of the Belgian center-right Refomist Movement said: “This is a very strong signal that is being sent to Islamists . . . I am proud that Belgium would be the first country in Europe which dares to legislate on this sensitive matter”.

Several districts in Belgium have already banned such veils under old local laws designed to prohibit people from fully masking their faces during carnival.

There are roughly 500,000 Muslims living in Belgium, and, according to the Belgian Muslim Council, only a couple dozen Muslim women in Belgium actually wear the face-covering veils. Bacquelaine has admitted that there is no current problem with the face-covering veils, but said: “We have to act as of today to avoid [its] development.”

The proposal has raised the alarm among those who see such regulation as an attack on civil liberties. Isabelle Praile, the vice-president of the Muslim Executive of Belgium, remarked that such a law could set a dangerous precedent. She was quoted by AFP news agency as saying:

“Today it’s the full-face veil, tomorrow the veil, the day after it will be Sikh turbans and then perhaps it will be mini-skirts . . . The wearing of a full-face veil is part of [an] individual’s freedoms.”

Guy Harpigny, a Catholic bishop in the southern Belgian town of Tournai, said: “Does the state really have the right to regulate the symbols of  personal beliefs?

Measures to ban face-covering veils have also been considered, as of late, in France, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Last week French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “The all-body veil is contrary to the dignity of women . . . The answer is to ban it. The government will introduce a bill to ban it that conforms to the principles of our laws.”

The headscarf has already been banned in French schools on the grounds that it is to ‘conspicuous’ of a religious symbol to be allowed in secular state schools. No nation-wide ban on the headscarf in the classroom has yet been passed in Belgium, but last year the Dutch-speaking region of Flanders in Belgium passed a law banning the wearing of Muslim head scarves in state-run schools.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders – a far right politician who received considerable support in recent local elections – has campaigned for Muslim veil bans, and has warned of the “Islamification” of Dutch society.

The debate over face-covering veils has not been confined to Europe. Last week the Canadian province of Quebec introduced a parliamentary measure which would prohibit those in public service employment from wearing facial coverings.  The measure has received overwhelming public support.

For more information, please see:

Al Jazeera – Belgian politicians back veil ban – 31 March 2010

BBC – Belgian committee votes for full Islamic veil ban – 31 March 2010

The Guardian – Belgium moves towards public ban on burqa and niqab – 31 March 2010

Radio Free Europe – Belgian Parliamentary Panel Approves Draft Law Banning Full Veil in Public – 31 March 2010

By Kenneth F. Hunt
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – A Dutch appellate court ruled today that the United Nations has immunity against claims brought by family members of genocide victims for failure to protect Bosnians during the notorious Srebrenica massacre in 1995.

Mothers of Srebrenica, the victims’ rights group suing on behalf of family members of the victims, brought the claim in 2007. The allegation was that Dutch troops sent by the UN to protect the Srebrenica safe haven in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War failed to protect the 8,000 some Muslim boys and men killed during the massacre.

Mothers of Srebrenica argued that the UN and Netherlands should be held responsible, particularly emphasizing UN responsibility for failing to adequately assess the forces necessary to prevent genocide. In fact, the United Nations has admitted error in handling the Srebrenica episode, confessing in 1999 that it expected the small force of 100 troops to be effective in preventing genocide.

In holding that the UN had immunity from prosecution, the court affirmed a 2008 Dutch trial court decision that held that “in international law and practice, the absolute immunity of the UN is the norm and is respected.” The court on Tuesday emphasized that UN immunity is a principle implied in both the UN’s founding conventions and in essential for UN peacekeeping missions going forward.

The decision indicates that the court was sympathetic to the fact “that the mothers and their relatives have suffered atrocities”, but noted that the interests in favor UN immunity outweighed the interests in redressing these wrongs. The court said that the victims can seek further redress against the Netherlands, however.

Axel Hagedorn, an attorney for Mothers, felt that the court should have submitted the case to the European Court of Justice for further deliberation. He told the press that the case extends “far beyond the interest of the Mothers of Srebrenica. This case is all about fundamental European rights.” As such, Mr. Hagedorn said that Mothers will appeal the decision seek redress against the UN from the ECJ.

For more information, please see:

CNN – Court: Srebrenica women cannot sue U.N. – 30 March 2010

DUTCH NEWS – Dutch court upholds UN Srebrenica immunity – 30 March 2010

RADIO NETHERLANDS – Dutch court upholds UN, Dutch immunity in Srebrenica case – 30 March 2010