News

Saudi man to be Paralyzed as Punishment for 10 Year old Crime

By Ali Al-Bassam
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Saudi Arabian Ministry of Justice sentenced 24 year old Ali al-Khawahir to paralysis from the waist down after finding him guilty of stabbing his friend in the back ten years ago.  The act resulted in his paralysis.  Al-Khawahir can avoid the punishment if he pays $270,000 in compensation to the victim.

A Saudi court sentenced a man to be paralyzed. (Photo Courtesy of Russia Today)

Amnesty International condemned the sentencing, calling it an act of “retribution,” and saying  that it is “outrageous” for the Kingdom to carry out.  The rights group also said that the punishment was “tantamount to torture.”  In a statement released last Tuesday, it pleaded with Saudi Arabia to not carry out the sentence.  “Paralyzing someone as punishment for crime would be torture,” said Ann Harrison, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director at Amnesty International.  “It is time the authorities in Saudi Arabia start respecting their international legal obligations and remove these terrible punishments from the law.”  It called the punishment an act of “qisas,” a retribution case, in which “other sentences passed have included eye gouging, tooth extraction, and death in cases of murder.”

Where the punishment of a crime demands “an eye for an eye,” a victim can demand retribution, request financial compensation for his suffering, or grant a conditional or unconditional pardon to the defendant.  When thieves are punished, they are commonly sentenced to amputation of the right hand.  When a defendant is punished for committing “highway robbery,” the punishment for such a crime is cross amputation, where the defendant’s right hand and left foot are both severed.

A spokesperson speaking on behalf of Britain’s Foreign Office said that London was “deeply concerned” by the sentence, and called it “grotesque.”  The spokesperson also said that such punishment “was prohibited under international law.”  Amnesty International also made a comment about Saudi Arabia’s potential violation of international law, saying “… the paralysis sentence would contravene the U.N. Convention against Torture to which Saudi Arabia is a state party…”

The Saudi Gazette reported that al-Khawaher has been awaiting his punishment for the last ten years.  “Ten years have passed with hundreds of sleepless nights…” said al-Khawaher’s mother.  She also said the compensation for the victim’s family had doubled but was later reduced.  Even reduced, she says that she cannot even pay a tenth of what is owed to save her son from being paralyzed.

Al-Khawahir was only 14 when he stabbed his friend in 2003.  As a result of the stabbing, he is paralyzed from the waist down.  Amnesty International claims that Saudi Arabia had made a similar sentence to another defendant in 2010, but it is unknown whether the punishment was carried out.  The Saudi Ministry of Justice denies that they even considered punishing the defendant in that case with paralysis.

For further information, please see:

Al Arabiya — An eye for an eye for a Spine? Saudi man Sentenced to Paralysis — 4 April 2013

BBC News — Saudi Paralysis Sentencing ‘Grotesque’ — 4 April 2013

The Guardian — Saudi Arabian Paralysis Sentence ‘Grotesque’, says Foreign Office — 4 April 2013

Russia Today — ‘Torture’ Punishment: Saudi Sentence man to be Paralyzed — 4 April 2013

CNN — Reported Saudi Paralysis Sentence ‘Outrageous,’ Rights Group says —  3 April 2013

Sudan Grants Amnesty to Political Prisoners

By Ryan Aliman
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

KHARTOUM, Sudan – On Tuesday, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir officially declared that all political prisoners will be freed.

Opposition leaders were arrested in January for allegedly planning to oust the government. (Photo courtesy of BBC News/AFP)

Described by the press as a “surprise move”, the President’s decision was carried out on the same day by releasing the first batch of political prisoners. This batch consisted of seven opposition leaders, six men and a woman, who were arrested without any formal charge last January. They were detained for three months at Khartoum’s Kober prison.

“Today, we announce a decision to free all the political prisoners and renew our commitment to all political powers about dialogue,” President Al-Bashir said during the announcement. “We confirm we will continue our communication with all political and social powers without excluding anyone, including those who are armed, for a national dialogue which will bring a solution to all issues.”

Last month, President Al-Bashir told a Qatari magazine that he will step down at the next election in 2015. He admitted that his 20-year rule was “more than enough” and Sudan finally needed “fresh blood”. Political analysts say that releasing the political prisoners may be the President’s attempt to salvage his reputation.

The International Criminal Court charged Al-Bashir for genocide and war crimes four years ago making him the only sitting president wanted by the ICC.

“He is considering his legacy having indicated he will not run in 2015,” said Alex Vines, head of the Africa program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. “This is about the redefinition of Sudan following the independence of the South. Bashir knows old strategies need to be reformed. It is also a clever way to respond to growing unified opposition.” Vines also mentioned that the President will stay true to his promise and will release more prisoners in the following weeks.

However, members of other opposition groups were not too impressed with the President Al-Bashir’s decision. According to Farouk Abu Issa, a leader of a coalition of 20 opposition groups, “hundreds” of other prisoners are still in police custody. “It is a step forward but we are waiting for many other steps,” he pointed out.

By Amnesty International’s calculations, at least 119 other political detainees remain incarcerated under “degrading and inhumane conditions.”

Amnesty International’s Jean-Baptiste Gallopin said that the measures taken by Al-Bashir to uphold and protect human rights are actually “very limited”. “A series of recent laws that allow Mr Bashir’s security forces great leeway in defining and clamping down on dissent must be repealed to show true commitment to reform,” he said. “If you look at this in the broader legal context that allows the authorities to carry out the repression that we see in Sudan, there is little sign that that is going to change,” Gallopin added.

 

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Sudan frees Abdul Aziz Khalid and other political prisoners – 2 April 2013

Global Post – First political prisoners freed under Sudan amnesty – 2 April 2013

Middle East Online – Amnesty underway in Sudan: First political prisoners freed – 2 April 2013

The Telegraph – Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir frees political detainees in surprise amnesty – 2 April 2013

Yahoo News – Sudan’s Bashir starts freeing prisoners, polishing up legacy – 2 April 2013

Putin Orders Ban on Foreign Adoptions to Homosexual Couples

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia – Russian President, Vladmir Putin, ordered a ban on foreign adoptions to homosexual couples.

Russian president, Vladimir Putin, wants to ban the adoption of orphans by foreign same-sex couples. (Photo Courtesy of RT)

The issue of same-sex couples adopting sparked in Russia when the French National Assembly approved a bill that legalized marriage and adoption by same-sex couples. As a result, Pavel Astakhov, a Russian children’s rights ombudsman, declared he believes Russian orphans should only be placed with heterosexual couples.

However, despite this movement, Nikolay Alekseyev, a Russian gay rights activist, believes Putin’s and Astakhov’s new ban will be unsuccessful. He states, “It’s purely a political move aimed to show that the government is consistent in its decisions.”

The Russian Foreign Ministry declared a planned to verify the possible “psychological damage” inflicted on Russian orphan, Yegor Shabatalov. An American woman, who lived in a same-sex marriage, adopted Yegor Shabatalov.

Russian Foreign Ministry’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Konstantin Dolgov, believes that after the two women split, the son was drawn into a bitter dispute and the relationship is “rather questionable from the point of view of morality.”

Nadezhda Khramova, head of the ‘All-Russian Parents’ Assembly’ movement, says there should be a complete ban of foreign adoptions, as “it is technically difficult to verify the adoptive parents’ sexual orientation and their legal status can be a marriage of convenience”.

This recent foreign adoption ban accompanies an already implemented law that makes it illegal for Russian children to be adopted by Americans, regardless of sexual orientation.

However, although many Russians are opposed to the American ban, Russians hold a firm stance against homosexual behavior. For example, last August, Moscow’s highest court upheld the city’s ban on homosexual pride parades.

Public polls from 2010 showed that 38% of Russians believed that homosexuality is a “bad habit” and 36% said it was “a sickness or result of a psychological trauma.” Nevertheless, 41% of Russians believe that laws should not “discriminate” against homosexuals.

Putin’s recent bans on foreign homosexuals from adopting Russian children has sparked various reactions.

One commenter stated, “I challenge anyone on here to cite a single scientific study that shows that gay adoption has any negative effects compared to straight adoption, and no, the Bible doesn’t count, because we don’t live in a theocracy. Go to Saudi Arabia if that’s what you want.”

Another stated, “This is best for the children. They must be kept safe even if it hurts some feelings. Putin is smart.”

The Ministry of Education and Science, which deals with issues concerning orphans and adoptions, will fulfill the adoption ban. However, the ministry has not received instructions.

For further information, please see:

RFE/RL – Russians March Against Foreign Adoptions – 4 April 2013

The Advocate – Putin Wants to Stop Foreign Gay Couples From Adopting Russian Children – 1 April 2013

Christian News – Russian President Orders Ban on Foreign Adoptions to Homosexuals – 30 March 2013

RT – Putin Orders Ban on Adoptions By Foreign Same-Sex Couples – 28 March 2013

Human Rights Abuses at U.S. Prison in Iraq, According to British Troops

By Mark O’Brien
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, United States — British troops spoke out on Monday about human rights abuses of Iraqi detainees by American forces at a secret US detention facility in Baghdad.

British troops claim they witnessed human rights abuses of Iraqi detainees carried out by American soldiers at a secret US facility in Baghdad. (Photo Courtesy of Al Arabiya)

The whistleblowers, who included soldiers and airmen from the Royal Air Force and the Army Air Corps, claimed they witnessed various forms of torture after the US-led invasion in 2003.

“I saw one man having his prosthetic leg being pulled off him, and being beaten about the head with it before he was thrown onto the truck,” one British military officer was quoted as saying in The Guardian.

Other allegations included claims that Americans at Camp Nama—a secret center at Baghdad International Airport—gave Iraqi prisoners electric shocks, brutally beat Iraqi prisoners, and locked them in dog-like kennels.  The prisoners reportedly were routinely hooded before allegedly being subjected to these tortures and were interrogated in sound-proof shipping containers.

“The prisoners were taken into a hangar to be bagged and tagged, a bag put over their heads and their hands plasticuffed behind their backs,” another soldier told The Guardian.  “Everyone’s seen the Abu Ghraib pictures, but I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

Indeed, these new allegations follow the scandal over abuses at the US-run Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the beating death of civilian Baha Mousa by British forces in 2003.

The Guardian’s investigation highlighted that the joint American-British special forces unit, called Task Force 121, was responsible for detaining Iraqis believed to have information about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.  No such weapons were ever discovered in Iraq.

“The methods [of abuse] were so brutal that they drew condemnation not only from a U.S. human rights body, but from a special investigator reporting to the Pentagon,” The Guardian reported.

When confronted about the new allegations, Geoff Hoon, Britain’s defense secretary at the time, said he had no knowledge of the secret US camp or anything that may have transpired there.

“I’ve never heard of the place,” Hoon reportedly said when asked about the involvement of British troops in providing support services to help detain inmates at Camp Nama.

Although there is no indication that British troops helped carry out any of the alleged abuses at the camp, Britain’s Ministry of Defense refused to say whether it was aware of concerns about human rights abuses there.

A California-based investigative organization, called Project Censored, estimates that more than one million Iraqis were killed as a result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country.

For further information, please see:

Al Arabiya — Baghdad’s Camp Nama: Brutal Prison Torture During Iraq War Revealed — 2 April 2013

Kuwait News Agency — Human Rights Abuses at Detention Centre — 2 April 2013

Press TV — UK Troops Reveal Torture at Secret US-Run Prison in Iraq — 2 April 2013

Daily Mail — British Forces ‘Witnessed Electric Shocks, Beatings and Dog Kennel Torture of Iraqi Prisoners in Secret US Prison in Baghdad’ — 1 April 2013

The Guardian — Camp Nama: Baghdad’s Secret Torture Facility — 1 April 2013

Bolivia Threatens to Withdraw from the Inter-American Commission of Human RIghts

By Pearl Rimon
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

SUCRE, Bolivia – Bolivian President Evo Morales has made recent comments about the country’s withdrawal from the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR).

Bolivian President Evo Morales (Photo Courtesy of AP/Peter Kramer).

This announcement came immediately after the IAHCR ‘s hearing on the construct of a road through the Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory.

“We are seriously considering withdrawing from the commission,” Morales said, according to The Associated Press. “We have our dignity and sovereignty to put in place in these kinds of institutions,”

President Morales’ stance is similar to Ecuadorean President’s Correa’s, who is advocating a series of reforms to the IACHR. One of Correa’s reforms is to change IAHCR’s headquarters in Washington D.C. The Commission “has offices in the United States and that country has not ratified any human rights treaty,” said Morales. President Correa and the Bolivian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) received approval for the proposal to block the Organization of American States (OAS) rapporteur’s office from pushing reports on freedom of expression, block the office from independent financial support and place it under control from member states. The OAS is made up of ambassadors from member states.

The ALBA members have threatened to withdraw from the human rights organization if their proposal was not met. ALBA took advantage of the weakening support for the human rights system in South America. The OAS is in charge of writing the restructuring for the organization that encompasses the ALBA’s recommendations.

Morales has accused the OAS of coming to Bolivia for the purpose of defending governments “that were massacring the Bolivian people.”

OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza said that he would oppose efforts to weaken human rights. However, in response to the ALBA’s recommendations, Insulza proposed a statutory overhaul to govern the IACHR. His recommendations are for the governments to decide the IAHCR monitoring, force delays in the organization’s  findings and restrict the power to issue precautionary measures.

Isuluza has said, “  “The OAS and its member states need an autonomous and strong commission and an autonomous and strong court of human rights. But these bodies also need to take into consideration, in the course of their work, the points of view of the democratic governments of the hemisphere.”

The Inter-American system for the protection of human rights occurred after the adoption of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in 1948. The Commission of Human Rights was created in 1959.

Venezuela withdrew from the American Convention on Human Rights in September.

 

For further information, please see:

Christian Science Monitor — Victory for human rights in Latin America? – 25 March 13

 Al Jazeera — The IACHR against colonialism – 23 March 13

 Fox News Latino — Bolivia Threatens To Pull Out of International Human Rights Organization – 22 March 13

Americas Quarterly — Human Rights Under Siege in the Americas – 12 February 13