News

Declassified Documents Reveal Late General Pinochet Planned on Overturning 1988 Referendum Results

By Pearl Rimon
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

SANTIAGO, Chile — Recently declassified documents revealed that the late Chilean military leader, Augusto Pinochet, wanted to stay in power despite losing a referendum in 1988. Pinochet died in 2006, before he could be brought to trial for numerous charges for corruption and various human rights abuses.

General Pinochet. (Photo Courtesy of AP)

The documents reveal that Pincohet urged his closest military allies in his attempt to overthrow the results. Pinochet’s allies refused and he was forced out of office. His plan was to use military force to seize the country’s capital, Santiago.

In 1990, citizens elected a civilian government to replace Pinochet. The documents released from the U.S. National Security Archive reveal that Pinochet said he would do “Whatever was necessary to stay in power.” He confided in his advisers, “I’m not leaving, no matter what.” U.S. officials warned Chilean leaders against violence if Pinochet used force to stay in office.

The declassified papers reveal that Pinochet was angered after the October 5th 1988 referendum and attempted to overturn the results by summoning members of the military government.  Air Force commander, Fernando Matthei rejected Pinochet’s plans for throwing out the results, and other generals followed suit. A CIA informant present at the meetings said, “Pinochet was prepared on the night of 5 Oct to overthrow the results of the plebiscite,” this information is located in a report by the State Department titled: “Chilean junta meeting the night of the plebiscite.”

The papers also reveal that the anti-Pinochet referendum campaign was supported by the U.S. government despite its early support of the military government due to its overthrow of former president Salvador Allende.

The country voted for a civilian government in 1989, and in 1990, Patricio Aylwin became the country’s first democratic president.The former military government of Chile is estimated to have killed more than 3,000 people between 1973 and 1990.

Pinochet died while under house arrest. The country is divided on how to view Pinochet’s regime, to some he is seen as a violator of human rights due to outlawing political parties, forcing thousands into exile, and having a brutal police force. Pinochet’s loyalist see him in a positive light due to Chile’s growth in economic prosperity.

The newly declassified papers were released at the same time as the movie “No”,  centering on the campaign that caused Pinochet’s downfall. The film was nominated in Sunday’s Academy Awards for Best Foreign Film.

For more information, please see:

Global Post — US pressed Pinochet to accept defeat: documents – 24 Feb 2013

South China Morning Post —

Declassified papers show Pinochet tried to ‘cling on to power’ in 1988 – 24 Feb 2013

 BBC News — Chile’s Gen Pinochet ‘tried to cling to power’ in 1988 – 23 Feb 2013

Times Standard — Report: Chile’s Pinochet wanted anti-vote violence – 23 Feb 2013

 

Qatari Poet’s Life Sentence Reduced to 15 Years by Qatari Court of Appeals

By Ali Al-Bassam
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

DOHA, Qatar — Last Monday the Qatari Court of Appeals ruled to reduce the life sentence of poet Muhammed Rashid al-Ajami, who goes by the name ibn al-Dheeb in his poetry, to fifteen years.

The Qatari Court of Appeals reduced Al-Ajami’s (pictured here) life sentence to 15 years. (Photo Courtesy of Al Arabiya)

Originally, al-Ajami was sentenced to life last November for composing and reading out a poem which allegedly incited “the overthrow of the ruling system.”  The poem, written in 2010, allegedly criticized the Emir, Sheikh Hamad al-Thani.

Human rights activists however claim that the actual poem that angered authorities was written in 2011, in which al-Ajami wrote about authoritarian rule in the region.  His poem, titled “Tunisian Jasmine,” which al-Ajami recited and later uploaded to the internet in January 2011, expressed support for the uprising that occurred in Tunisia, saying: “We are all Tunisia in the face of the repressive elite.” In the poem, he also denounced “all Arab governments” as “indiscriminate thieves.”  In a clear reference to Qatar, a home to a major U.S. base, al-Ajami wrote “I hope that change would come in countries whose ignorant leaders believe that glory belies in U.S. Forces.”

Dr. Nejib al-Naimi, al-Ajami’s lawyer, said that the five judges were unanimous in their decision, but he plans to take the case to the Court of Cassation, Qatar’s highest court, where a final hearing will be held on al-Ajami’s sentence.  During the case, al-Naimi asserted that “there was no evidence al-Ajami had recited the poem he is being tried for in public,” which was the central claim that the prosecution raised, and that he only read it “at his apartment in Cairo.”

Al-Ajami was said to have been visibly disappointed with the court’s ruling and looked agitated while he was escorted out of the courtroom.  Reuters reported that al-Ajami shouted out “there is no law for this,” as he was led out.  Al-Naimi said that “the appeals court was apparently politicized and does not differ much from the court of first instance.”

Dr. Ali bin Fetais al-Marri, Qatar’s Attorney General, said that he was also “not happy” with the judgment.  “As a chief prosecutor, I look forward to restoring the sentence to a life term.”

Human rights officials, who attended al-Ajami’s appeal, criticized the conviction, saying that “his trial was marred by irregularities, with court sessions held in secret.”

Qatar, whose human rights record has been criticized in the past, insists that the sentence was not an abuse of freedom of speech but is punishable because it is an “illegal call to overthrow political regimes.”  Under Article 130 of the Qatari Penal Code, the charge for inciting to overthrow ruling systems is punishable by death.  Naimi, a former Qatari Justice Minister who also was a member of Saddam Hussein’s defense team, said that according to the charges, his client should have faced a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

The Court of Cassation will make its final ruling on Al-Ajami in 30 days.

For further information, please see:

Al Arabiya — Qatar Cuts Jail Term for Maverick Poet to 15 Years: Lawyer — 25 February 2013

BBC News — Qatari Poet Life Sentence Reduced to 15 Years — 25 February 2013

Gulf News — Qatar Slashes Life Term Against Poet to 15 Years — 25 February 2013

Al Jazeera — Qatari Poet’s Sentence Reduced to 15 Years — 25 February 2013

 

Britain’s Top Cardinal Steps Down After Sexual Allegations

By Alexandra Sandacz
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

LONDON, United Kingdom – The United Kingdom’s top cardinal, Keith O’Brien, is to step down as an archbishop after news reports of inappropriate behavior toward various priests in the 1980s surfaced. Furthermore, he will not to take part in the election of the next pope to succeed Pope Benedict XVI.

Cardinal Keith O’Brien steps down as archbishop after allegations of “inappropriate behavior” surface.

Cardinal O’Brien’s announcement comes a day after a the British newspaper, The Observer, reported that three priests and one former priest brought allegations against O’Brien that date back 30 years.

One former priest claims Cardinal O’Brien made an inappropriate approach towards him in 1980, after night prayers, when he was a seminarian at St Andrew’s College, Drygrange. Furthermore, he resigned as a priest when Cardinal O’Brien was first made a bishop.

Another complainant says while he was living in a parish, inappropriate contact took place between him and O’Brien. A third complainant stated that he consistently experienced “unwanted behavior” by the cardinal in the 1980s. Lastly, the fourth complainant claims the cardinal used night prayers as an “excuse for inappropriate contact”.

James Robbins, BBC’s world affairs correspondent, reported that for years, the Vatican squashed criticism of other cardinals who might have been involved in covering up sexual abuse. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is attracting attention for his role in the cover-up of sexual abuse by priests.

However, the recent accusations will be taken more seriously because Cardinal O’Brien was allegedly involved directly in improper behavior towards other priests.

Ironically, Cardinal O’Brien is famous for his outspoken defense of Catholic teaching on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality.

Last year, Stonewall Scotland, a gay rights group, named O’Brien “Bigot of the Year” after he said gay marriage was a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”.

Catherine Deveney, author of the relevant Observer piece, stated her story was important because the Cardinal set a very adamant “moral blueprint” for the way other people should lead their lives.

She further stated, the four accusers were “men of integrity” who had “done a difficult thing and acted according to their conscience”.

Although Cardinal O’Brien contested the allegations, he stated he would not attend the conclave because he not wish media attention in Rome, during conclave, to be focused on him. Consequentially, Britain will have no voice in the conclave to choose Pope Benedict’s successor.

For further information, please see:

BBC – Cardinal Keith O’Brien Resigns as Archbishop – 25 February 2013

CNN – Scandal Threatens to Overshadow Pope’s Final Days – 25 February 2013

The Guardian – Cardinal Keith O’Brien Resigns – Full Statement – 25 February 2013

USA Today – Britain’s Cardinal Keith O’Brien to Skip Papal Elections—25 February 2013

Haitian Ex-President Shirks Court Date For Human Rights Abuses

By Brendan Oliver Bergh
Impunity Watch Reporter, South America

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Jean-Claude Duvalier, Haiti’s former dictator known as “Baby Doc” return to Haiti was not the homecoming he might have expected. Fleeing the country in 1986 fearing political upheaval and pressure from the United States the ex-president returned to Haiti in early 2011 after a 25 year exile. Upon his return a Haitian court has levied charges of embezzlement; however human rights groups have demanded that he not be excused for his regimes human rights abuses.

Ex-President Jean Claude Duvalier return from exile in Haiti is potentially facing human rights charges. (Photo Courtesy of BBC)

Duvalier took the office of “President for Life” at age 19 after his father, Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier in 1971. Baby Doc ruled Haiti with his brutal militia in order to maintain control of the country.

Some people speculate that Duvalier’s return may have been for legal impunity. While a January 2012 Haitian court declared that Mr. Duvalier would have to stand trial on the count of embezzling public funds, the court also declared that the statute of limitations had run out on the charges of murder, torture and forced disappearances.

While the statute of limitations may have run out for murder according to Haitian courts, Amnesty International and Navi Pillary, the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights was quick to point out that there is no limitation for international crimes such as torture, extrajudicial executions, and violations under international law. Pillary continued that Haitian authorities must not allow crimes and abuses from the regime go unpunished, as crimes done in an official capacity do not bar a sovereign from claiming immunity from the civil or criminal jurisdictions of foreign states.

Ex-President Duvalier was supposed to stand before a Court of Appeals judge earlier this month to see if he would stand trial for human rights abuses. The ex-President already missed a January 31st and February 7th hearing date which would have decided whether or not he would face a Haitian court for human rights abuses for crimes committed under his regime.

The exiled leaders’ refusal to attend a hearing where he might be charged with crimes against humanity has been seen as an affront to his victims and their families. There have been suggestions from Haitian human rights groups that he be seized and stripped of his diplomatic passport so he would meet his next court date and not flee the country. So far the former president has not been penalized for his blatant skirting of the law and its procedures.

For more information, please see:

ABC – Haiti’s ‘Baby Doc’ Summoned To Court After No-Show – 21 February 2013

BBC – Haiti’s ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier Avoids Appearing In Court – 21 February 2013

El Confidencial – Jean Claude Duvalier Also Appeared In Court This Time Haiti – 21 February 2013

Noticias Sin – Duvalier Haitian Court Orders Be Carried Hearing Next Week – 21 February 2013

Courts Expand Gay Adoption in Germany, Austria

By Madeline Schiesser
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

KARLSRUHE, Germany – In a historic step, Germany’s highest court last week handed down a ruling which will strengthen gay couples’ adoption rights.  The same day, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against an Austrian policy that had denied certain adoption rights to gay couples.

Last Tuesday, High Courts in Europe handed down decisions expanding adoption rights of gay couples in Germany and Austria. (Photo Courtesy of Spiegel International)

The German Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to adopt the adopted or step-child of his or her registered partner, a practice known as successive adoption.  German laws allow for the adoption of a same-sex partner’s biological child, while a married heterosexual person can already adopt a partner’s adopted children.

Germany does not permit marriage between homosexual couples, but homosexuals have had the right to form civil partnerships since 2001.  The government has been accused of procrastinating on the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage when compared with other countries such as France and the United Kingdom, which are actively addressing the issue.  However, Chancellor Merkel’s spokesman said the government views the ruling “with great respect” and is in the process of considering how to comply with it.

Giving the government until June 2014 to amend the law in conformance with the ruling, the Court explained, “The exclusion of successive adoption by registered partners violates the general principle of equality.”

The Court further reasoned, “In marriage as in a civil partnership, adoption provides the child in the same way with legal security and material advantages in terms of care, support and inheritance law.”

However, the ruling stopped short of allowing same-sex couples to adopt children as a couple.  Much to the frustration of Germany’s main gay rights group, under the ruling, same-sex couples are restricted to adopting the same child on an individual basis.

The case was brought before the Court by a doctor from Münster who had been denied the right to adopt her long-term partner’s adopted Bulgarian daughter.

Volker Beck, an openly gay senior lawmaker with the opposition Green Party, greeted the ruling enthusiastically as “a breakthrough in equal treatment.”  He has announced that the Green Party will propose a draft law in the German Parliament to grant gay couples equal adoption rights with heterosexual couples, including tax breaks.

By contrast, an Austrian lesbian couple went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to earn the right to jointly be recognized as the parents of one of the partner’s biological son.

While Austrian law allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt the biological child of one’s partner, no such right was extended for homosexual couples.  The Austrian government argued before the Court that the purpose of its current law were to uphold a traditional family model.

However, the ECHR ruled against the Austrian government, finding its adoption legislation discriminated based on sexual orientation.  The court stated, “No convincing reasons had been advanced to show that such difference in treatment was necessary for the protection of the family or for the protection of the interests of the child.”

The court further asserted, “there is not just one way or one choice when it comes to leading one’s family or private life,” emphasizing that the government had failed to show that an LGBTI couple could not adequately provide for the needs of a child.

Martin K.I. Christensen, Co-Chair of the International Lesbian and Gay Association-Europe’s Executive Board said: “We hope that this judgment will pave the way towards the removal of the remaining legal barriers for [LGBTI] families in Europe.”

For further information, please see:

Amnesty International – Austria: Reform Needed After European Court Adoption Victory for Lesbian Couple – 19 February 2013

Huffington Post – Germany’s Gay Adoption Rights Strengthened By Court – 19 February 2013

Pink News – European Court of Human Rights Rules that Austria’s Adoption Laws Discriminated Against Lesbian Couple – 19 February 2013

Returns – German Court Expands Adoption Rights of Gay Couples – 19 February 2013

Spiegel International – Court Ruling: Germany Strengthens Gay Adoption Rights – 19 February 2013