North America & Oceania
Internationally Recognized Advocate for Migrant Human Rights on the US-Mexico Border Dies at 72
Mexican Journalists Covering Government Corruption and Drug Trade Kidnapped and Murdered
By Sovereign Hager
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
DURANGO, Mexico – Mexican crime journalist Eliseo Barron Laguna was found dead, with signs of torture on Tuesday, May 26. He is the second journalist killed in the state of Durango in less than a month. Carlos Ortega was shot dead as he was investigating police corruption in Durango. The next day Fidel Perez Sanchez, a crime reporter in Vera Cruz was reported missing. Mexico’s war on drugs and public corruption has made journalism increasingly dangerous.
The State Prosecutor’s office for Durango reported that armed men barged into Barron Laguna’s home late on Monday, beat him in front of his wife and daughter, and kidnapped him. Laguna has been a reporter for the publication La Opinion de Torreon for 11 years. His last article was about police corruption.
Traffickers have been known to harass journalists who report on drug gangs and attacks on the media have increased since Calderon launched his army-backed assault on the drug cartels at the end of 2006. Drug-related violence has killed 2,300 people in Mexico this year.
Mexico is considered the second most dangerous place in the world for journalists, after Iraq. Ten journalists have been killed this year alone, and at least eight have been killed for reasons directly related to their work. Most of the targeted journalists covered organized crime or the government.
Research by The Committee To Protect Journalists (CPJ) found that local and state authorities in Mexico have been ineffective at solving press-related cases and at times have been complicit in the crimes. The text of the CPJ report can be found here.
A bill imposing penalties for crimes against “journalistic activity” has stalled in the Mexican Senate. Meanwhile, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for a swift and efficient prosecution and resolution to the cases of murder and kidnapping of journalists. So far the police have made no arrests related to these recent killings and have made no public determination that the killings were related to the individuals’ work as journalists.
Canadian Supreme Court Denies Constitutional Rights to Afghan Detainees Abroad
By Sovereign Hager
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
OTTAWA, Canada – The Canadian Supreme Court declined to decide if non-Canadians transferred by Canadian troops to Afghan custody should be extended constitutional rights. The rejection of the appeal application brought by Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Union effectively upheld a lower court ruling that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not protect non-Canadians abroad.
A lawyer for the two rights groups expressed disapproval of the ruling by pointing out that “just about every other democratic country has affirmed that military detainees held on foreign soil have human rights protections in their domestic courts-including the United States.” Human rights groups insist that torture of detainees in Afghanistan is “endemic,” and that Canadian soldiers should not take part in prisoner transfers if there are grounds to believe the detainees will be tortured.
Rights groups say that the potential for Canada to extend Constitutional protections abroad came when Canadian courts held that the rights of Omar Khadr, a Guantanamo detainee were violated. However, the Federal Court of Appeals explicitly stated that the Khadr decision had no impact on the Afghan detainee case. The Court of Appeals opinion in this case cited Afghan sovereignty with respect to military affairs as a reason for their holding. The Supreme Court, by custom, did not give a reason why they refused to hear the case.
Despite the ruling, a public inquiry by the Military Police Commission into these allegations is scheduled to begin Monday in Ottawa. Rights groups remain adamant that when military police transfer captive insurgents to Afghan authorities known to torture their detainees, they fail to live up to international obligations.
U.S. Woman Gang-Raped in Iraq Seeks Justice by Overcoming a Mandatory Arbitration Clause
By Nima Nayebi
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
NEW ORLEANS, United States – The fifth circuit heard arguments recently in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, a Texas resident and former KBR employee who alleged she was gang-raped by Halliburton employees in 2005 while working in Baghdad’s “Green Zone.”
Jones sued Halliburton and several of its subsidiaries in 2005, but Halliburton insisted that she was bound by contract to submit all claims arising from the alleged rape to private arbitration. Jones argued that the arbitration clause of her contract did not apply to a claim involving rape, “because it is not a work-related matter.”
Fifth circuit Judge Keith Ellison wrote: “This court does not believe that plaintiff’s bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer.”
While in the Green Zone, Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR housed Jones in predominantly male living quarters. Jones reported being harassed just two days after arriving there, but her request for different living barracks was dismissed. She was told “to go to the spa” instead.
Just two days later, firefighters working for Halliburton allegedly drugged and brutally raped Jones, causing severe injuries which required reconstructive surgery. No criminal charges were filed against her assailants because the Coalition Authority limits the power of the Iraqi government in prosecuting foreign contractors.
Jones’ experience in Iraq led her to inaugurate the Jamie Leigh Foundation, a “nonprofit organization dedicated to helping United States citizens and legal residents who are victims of crime while working abroad for government contractors and subcontractors.” Jones had also been an outspoken critic of the Fair Arbitration Act of 1925 (FAA), which is currently under Congressional scrutiny.
The fifth circuit’s decision will allow others who have been similarly victimized to challenge employment contracts which have kept them from suing in court.