|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Special Features
Impunity Watch: IW Headlines
IW Headlines |
- First Phase of Syrian Evacuations Completed Following Agreement to Release Hostages
- Syrian Accountability Project – Idlib Left Breathless: The Chemical Attack in Khan Sheikhoun
- Jurist: The Fist in a Velvet Glove-Hardened Humanitarianism
- U.N. Peacekeepers Ran Sex-Ring in Haiti
| First Phase of Syrian Evacuations Completed Following Agreement to Release Hostages
Posted: 24 Apr 2017 09:46 AM PDT by Yesim Usluca DAMASCUS, Syria — On Friday, April 21st, the evacuation of thousands of Syrian civilians from four besieged areas was completed following a forty-eight-hour delay. The population transfer was resumed after an agreement to release hundreds of government detainees was reached. 30,000 people are expected to be evacuated as part of the population transfer deal (Photo courtesy of ABC News) Friday’s evacuations marked the completion of the first phase of a population swap deal in Syria. Approximately 11,000 individuals, 8,000 from the pro-government towns of Foua and Kfarya and 3,000 from the rebel-held towns of Zabadani and Madaya, were evacuated. Forty-six buses carrying residents from Foua and Kfarya arrived at a suburb of Aleppo, and fifteen buses carrying residents and rebels from Zabadani departed for Idlib. The fate of one of the largest population transfers in Syria’s civil war had been tied to twenty-six hostages who had been held in Iraq by members of the Shiite militia. Evacuees were forced to spend two nights in their buses after a disagreement emerged regarding the release of the hostages. The prisoners, which included members of Qatar’s royal family, were released after Qatar led negotiations for the deal. Under the deal, the Syrian regime will release 500 prisoners which will be transferred to a rebel-held area outside of Aleppo. The evacuation plan, which has been dubbed “demographic engineering” by the opposition, entails the transfer of approximately 30,000 people from their hometowns over a period spanning sixty days. Most of those being evacuated will be from pro-government villages in the northern province of Idlib. The agreement has been protested by rights groups, which stated that the evacuations were a “forcible displacement that is altering the country’s demographics along political and sectarian lines.” The head of the United Nations investigative panel on Syria, Mr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, cautioned that those evacuated into Idlib and Aleppo are “likely to be caught in escalating fighting from increasingly radicalized extremist groups.” Mr. Pinheiro noted that the panel is concerned that a “disaster” will happen in Idlib, and stated that the newly situated individuals “are under serious risk about their lives[.]” He linked the concerns to the strong presence of extremists in the areas of Idlib and western Aleppo. The second phase of the population transfer is scheduled to begin in June. For more information, please see: The Washington Post—UN panel: Syria evacuees likely to be caught in new fighting—21 April 2017 ABC News—In Syria, first phase of population transfer concludes—21 April 2017 TRT World—Syria evacuation resumes after agreement on prisoner swap deal—21 April 2017 BBC News—Kidnapped Qatari hunting party of 26 freed in Iraq after 16 months—21 April 2017 Reuters—Evacuations from besieged Syrian towns end after two-day halt—21 April 2017 |
| Syrian Accountability Project – Idlib Left Breathless: The Chemical Attack in Khan Sheikhoun
Posted: 24 Apr 2017 09:02 AM PDT |
| Jurist: The Fist in a Velvet Glove-Hardened Humanitarianism
Posted: 24 Apr 2017 08:57 AM PDT The Fist in a Velvet Glove-Hardened HumanitarianismFriday 21 April 2017 at 12:16 AM ET edited by Yuxin Jiang JURIST Guest Columnist David M. Crane, Syracuse University College of Law, discusses the necessity of use of force in the Syrian conflict… © WikiMedia (Voice of America News: Scott Bob report from Azaz, Syria.) The cornerstone to the UN paradigm is to settle disputes peacefully, using force only as a last resort. Yet, restoring international peace and security sometimes requires a hardened approach to ensure that peace and security. There are decades of international treaties, custom and precedent that support what I call hardened humanitarianism. When we have to deal with a tyrant, thug, dictator or rogue head of state who turns on his own citizens, the international community or a member state of that community should step forward with a clear and firm position-stop it or force will be used. A tyrant only understands one thing-power. When he feels the sting of consequence for his actions that tyrant begins to focus on that use of force against him. The use of this more hardened approach in using force to stop a tyrant’s actions will cause that tyrant to pause, to consider his next steps. Appeasement in the face of tyranny never works. History is replete with anecdotal evidence of this from the Armenian genocide to the Sudetenland. A hardened policy of seeking a peaceful dialog with the assurance of a forceful resolution, should that dialog fail, makes for a more meaningful discourse. Our international legal and policy system has drawn lines related to protecting civilians in a conflict and banning certain type of weapons systems per se. Most, if not all, states parties have signed onto these norms. We don’t have to be histrionic when a tyrant ignores these clear lines beating our chests with empty words. When that tyrant steps over a line hit them hard, use force, show the world there are consequences! US action against Al Qaeda after they attacked the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania are examples of facing down the lawless elements of our society under the international legal concept of reprisal. In 2005 the world came together to create a doctrine that laid down a marker that declared that the international community has a right to step in to block a tyrant or head of state who is turning against his own citizens committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Called the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the doctrine was a clarion call to arms should there be alleged violations of international law. Unfortunately, R2P has fallen short of the ideal based on the political perception that it is a doctrine that can be easily used by various powers against weaker nation states for alleged violations. Despite this the principle idea of this responsibility to protect citizens from their own leaders remains. The long and tragic kaleidoscopic conflict that is Syria has now gone beyond peaceful resolution. A hardened sense of humanity calls for continued cruise missiles strikes and other military action every time Assad crosses the lines laid out under international norms. Kaleidoscopic conflict is fast becoming a new concept in the dirty little wars of the 21st century. Old doctrines for war fighting and the legal set of rules that surround warfare that have been tested over time are being challenged at all levels. Just when planners think there is a viable course of action developing related to a conflict, such as in Syria, one thing changes and everything changes, hence the term kaleidoscopic. This impacts on what is called the deliberate planning cycle in modern parlance throwing out how international and domestic organizations plan for and deal with conflict on a day to day basis. At the end of the day we are beginning to face situations where there is no solution under current policy and doctrine. This gives us pause as to how to advise world leaders in dealing with any given conflict. This pause can allow a tragedy, such as in Syria, to go on and on without any foreseeable ending. These dirty little wars have a direct impact on how parties to a conflict deal with civilians found in and around the battlefield. One of the key cornerstone concepts of the international humanitarian law is that civilians are to be protected and that the intentional targeting of a civilian is a war crime plain and simple. We see around the globe today parties to a conflict flagrantly ignoring this key legal concept. With no apparent repercussion to these attacks on civilians, actors move about the battlefield with impunity. Again this is the conflict in Syria, but can be seen also in the fighting in South Sudan. This is why a more hardened approach to our humanitarian principle of using force where legally appropriate will cause actors to pause and reconsider wholesale destruction in any given conflict. This hardened approach must be done under law or we weaken our international norms, yet it must be done. Enough is enough in Syria. States parties who for whatever reason give that tyrant support should also be dealt with for their aiding and abetting of international crimes with legal sanctions. We charged President Charles Taylor with aiding and abetting a conflict, among other modes of liability, in next door Sierra Leone, and he was convicted on those charges I signed in an indictment against him on an aiding and abetting theory. The aiding and abetting mode of liability in international criminal law is alive and well and certainly can be touted as a possible ramification for a country who aids a party to a conflict that gasses its own people with sarin. Russia’s complicity in that gas attack sets Putin and his regime up for political sanction and possible legal action in the future. Certainly, dialog and appropriate diplomatic discourse should continue. An end to the Syrian conflict must be the goal, hopefully a peaceful end, yet the hardened fist of a legal use of force to protect humanity should be a viable course to bolster that dialog. The missile strike on the airfield in Syria changed the political discourse on how the world’s is looking at the quagmire that is the Syrian conflict. Regardless of how one feels about the motives or the rationale behind the strike, it is posited that Assad, with the advice of Russia and Iran will think carefully about another sarin gas attack. If they know that force could be used again in reprisal for clear violations of international norms such as gas, perhaps they will refrain. This is the outcome that is hoped in using this new concept of hardened humanitarianism. Suggested citation: David M. Crane, The Fist in a Velvet Glove-Hardened Humanitarianism, JURIST – Forum, Apr. 20, 2017, http://jurist.org/forum/2017/04/David-Crane-hardened-humanitarianism.php This article was prepared for publication by Yuxin Jiang, a Senior Editor for JURIST Commentary service. Please direct any questions or comments to her at commentary@jurist.org |
| U.N. Peacekeepers Ran Sex-Ring in Haiti
Posted: 24 Apr 2017 06:00 AM PDT By Sarah Lafen
Port-au-Prince, HAITI — Over 100 U.N. Peacekeepers stationed in Haiti are implicated in a child sex ring. According to an investigation which focused on the presence of the Peacekeepers across the world over the past 12 years, over 2,000 allegations of sexual abuse by Peacekeepers were reported. From 2004 to 2007 in Haiti, over 134 Sri Lankan Peacekeepers exploited an average of nine children per day. While 144 Peacekeepers were sent home after an internal U.N. report on the abuse, none have been sent to jail. A woman who was raped and impregnated by a Peacekeeper wipes her tears during an interview (Photo Courtesy of AP). One teenage Haitian boy said he was gang-raped in 2011 by Uruguayan Peacekeepers who filmed the assault on a cell phone. The report also revealed that dozens of Haitian women were also raped, while dozens of others engaged in “survival sex” with the Peacekeepers. One victim girl told U.N. investigators that from ages 12-15 she had sex with about 50 Peacekeepers, including a “Commandant” who paid her 75 cents. Haitian lawyer Mario Joseph is working towards getting compensation for victims of a cholera outbreak, which has been linked to Nepalese Peacekeepers, that killed an estimated 10,000 people. Joseph is also trying to get child support for a dozen Haitian women who were impregnated by Peacekeepers. Joseph asked people to “Imagine if the U.N. was going to the United States and raping children and bringing cholera,” noting that “[h]uman rights aren’t just for rich white people.” U.S. Senator Bob Corker agreed with Joseph, and recalled his own disgust at the hearing of the U.N. sexual abuse cases uncovered last year in Africa. Corker commented that “If [he] heard that a U.N. peacekeeping mission was coming near [his] home in Chattanooga, [he would] be on the first plane out of here to go back and protect [his] family.” This past March, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced several new measures to help combat sexual abuse by Peacekeepers. However, the report had little impact and never materialized. This sex-ring scandal comes on the heels of the April 13th vote by the U.N. Security Council to end the Peacekeeping mission in Haiti. On the same day, Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., mentioned the scandal in her remarks to the U.N. Haley asked “[w]hat do we say to these kids? Did these peacekeepers keep them safe?” The U.N. has no jurisdiction over Peacekeepers, which means the countries who provide the troops are left responsible for their punishment.
For more information, please see: Telesur — UN Peacekeepers Gave Haitian Kids Snacks to be Part of Sex Ring — 15 April 2017 Foreign Policy — U.N. Peacekeepers Ran a Child Sex Ring in Haiti — 14 April 2017 Independent — UN Peacekeepers in Haiti Implicated in Child Sex Ring — 14 April 2017 Associated Press — AP Exclusive: UN Child Sex Ring Left Victims but no Arrests –12 April 2017
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Impunity Watch. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. |
Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: Atrocity Alert
| Atrocity Alert, No. 51, 19 April 2017 | No Images? Click here | |
Atrocity Alert is a weekly publication by the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect highlighting and updating situations where populations are at risk of, or are enduring, mass atrocity crimes.
|
| Syria
On 14 April at least 126 people, including over 60 children, were killed in an attack targeting a convoy of evacuees from the besieged pro-government towns of Fouah and Kefraya. No one has claimed responsibility for the car bomb at a checkpoint in Rashidin where a handover of evacuees was due to take place. In an 18 April Press Statement the UN Security Council (UNSC) labeled the attack an act of terrorism. The government, and many Syrian opposition organizations, have condemned the attack. The evacuees were being transferred under a local ceasefire agreement whereby the mainly Shia residents of Fouah and Kefraya, who have been besieged by opposition forces, would be evacuated in return for safe passage for residents from the mainly pro-opposition towns of Madaya and Zabadani. It was estimated that more than 30,000 people would be relocated during the exchange. Any local ceasefire agreements reached between the Syrian government and opposition parties that result in the involuntary transfer of civilian populations constitute a violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). However, in response to the war crime at Rashidin, the UNSC should demand UN access in order to monitor any voluntary evacuations and ensure the well-being of civilians. The UNSC previously demanded similar access for UN monitors to eastern Aleppo via Resolution 2328. The attack on evacuees in Syria came two days after Russia vetoed a UNSC draft resolution that would have condemned the 4 April sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun and obligated the Syrian government to comply with recommendations of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Joint Investigation Mechanism. The 12 April vote marked Russia’s eighth veto of a draft resolution regarding the situation in Syria since the conflict began in 2011. Bolivia also voted against the draft resolution, while China, Ethiopia and Kazakhstan abstained. Ten UNSC members voted in favor of the resolution. By vetoing an impartial international investigation into the deadly attack at Khan Shaykhun, Russia has weakened the global prohibition of chemical weapons under international law.
|
Photo credit: Reuters Media
UN Photo/Manuel Elias
|
| Democratic Republic of the Congo
The UN has discovered 17 additional mass graves in the Kasai Central Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), bringing the total number documented in the Kasai region since January to 40. As noted in Atrocity Alert of 29 March, violence between security forces and the Kamuina Nsapu militia poses an escalating risk to civilians in the region, with more than 400 people killed since last August. The UN’s Joint Human Rights Office in the DRC (UNJHRO) and UN Police investigated the latest mass graves, which were reportedly dug by members of the DRC’s armed forces (FARDC) after clashing with presumed militia members between 26-28 March. At least 74 people, including 30 children, were killed during the fighting. During the same week, FARDC soldiers reportedly shot dead 40 people, including 11 children, during door-to-door searches for militia members in Kananga. It is essential that the DRC government conducts credible investigations into these killings and takes expeditious action to diffuse the conflict in the Kasai region. The government should also actively cooperate with UNJHRO investigators and facilitate their access to all mass grave sites. Any members of the FARDC proven to have participated in unlawful killings should be held accountable, regardless of their rank.
|
Photo Credit: Aaron Ross, Reuters
|
| Connect With Us | ||
|
|
||
| Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies The Graduate Center, CUNY 365 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5203 New York, NY 10016, USA Phone: +1 212-817-1929 Copyright © 2017 Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect |
|
| Preferences | Unsubscribe | |
Opinio Juris: In Defense of Humanitarian Intervention
In Defense of Humanitarian Intervention
[Jennifer Trahan is Associate Clinical Professor, at The Center for Global Affairs, NYU-SPS, and Chair of the American Branch of the International Law Association’s International Criminal Court Committee. The views expressed are those of the author.]
Postings on Opinio Juris seem fairly squarely against the legality of the U.S. missile strike last week into Syria. Let me join Jens David Ohlin (blogging on Opinio Juris) and Harold Koh (blogging on Just Security) in making the contrary case.
When NATO intervened in Kosovo in 1999, member states did not have UN Security Council approval; yet all NATO members supported the intervention designed to stave off ethnic cleansing. True, many did not defend it as “humanitarian intervention” per se, except Belgium, which made the case for the legality of humanitarian interventions in briefing to the International Court of Justice. Still, all NATO members endorsed the military action.
Humanitarian intervention has also been cited as the legal justification for UK and US no fly zones in Iraq, and to justify ECOWAS’s interventions in Liberia in 1990 and Sierra Leone in 1998, prior to UN Security Council approval, which was later forthcoming.
And, after the Assad regime used sarin gas in August 2013, resulting in an estimated 1,400 victims, the UK was prepared to act under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, arguing that the 3 criteria for intervention were met:
- There is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;
- it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and
- the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (ie the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).
So, despite many who would argue there is no such thing as “humanitarian intervention” or it is dead subsequent to the development of the responsibility to protect (R2P), humanitarian intervention keeps being invoked.
Why? Because there are times that UN Security Council dysfunctionality in voting, serves to shield the commission of atrocity crimes. China shielded President Bashir of Sudan while his armed forces coordinated with the Janjaweed militias to commit genocide in Darfur, and Russia has been shielding the Assad regime while it uses sarin and chlorine gas, not to mention other indiscriminate weapons and targeting of civilians. (We should not be outraged only at the regime’s chemical weapons use.)
Therefore, when R2P tells us that “pillar 3” forceful intervention requires UN Security Council approval, as it does, it is failing to do what it set out to achieve—to protect a people in peril from grave atrocities.
Remember, in 1999, Kofi Annan asked the General Assembly:
If, in those dark days and hours leading up to the [Rwanda] genocide, a coalition of States had been prepared to act in defence of the Tutsi population, but did not receive prompt Council authorization, should such a collation have stood aside and allowed the horror to unfold?
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty gave a helpful response in 2001, not only setting criteria for intervention, but also, noting that if the UN Security Council failed to act, one should not be surprised if others did. The Secretary-General’s 2004 High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change then went on and also set similar criteria for intervention (as had the Independent International Commission in Kosovo (the “Goldstone Commission” before it).
So for those who claim we don’t know what humanitarian intervention is, these sources and the criteria they articulate suggest that we have a pretty good understanding of it. If we need more clarity as to its parameters to ensure the doctrine is not susceptible to abuse, then, rather than rejecting the doctrine entirely, it should be up to us international lawyers to figure them out.
R2P then backs off its promising start and ultimately concludes that UN Security Council approval is required for any forceful intervention. So, basically in answer to Kofi Annan’s question what to do when there is no UN Security Council approval, it answers: get UN Security Council approval. This cannot suffice.
Borne out of frustration with this dilemma, the French adopted their initiative “not to veto” in the face of mass atrocity crimes, and 112 states have joined the Accountability, Consistency and Transparency (ACT) Code of Conduct to act in the face of mass atrocity crimes. These were both extremely useful initiatives.
Yet, three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council will agree to neither initiative—Russia, China, and the U.S. I do not lump these countries fully in the same boat, because the US often makes clear the importance of deterring atrocity crimes, while not formally joining the initiatives, which it should.
The day that these hold-out P3’s join the French or ACT initiative, we no longer need to talk about “humanitarian interventions,” because the UN Security Council will be able to function as it was designed under the UN Charter, to both maintain international peace and security and to protect human rights (one of the purposes of the UN).
Another fallacy is that we read the veto as if absolutely anything can be vetoed, when the veto sits within the context of the UN Charter, which imposes obligations; we should explore further what is a legitimate versus an illegitimate veto that should be treated as null and void. The General Assembly could request an advisory opinion from the ICJ on this.
In the meanwhile, the UK has the right approach (as well as the Danish), that we have to leave a small carve out for the legality of humanitarian intervention, when narrowly construed. (The US has previously sometimes invoked what sounds like humanitarian intervention, while not fully formally endorsing the doctrine.)
Humanitarian intervention, narrowly construed, then clearly also would not constitute the crime of aggression, which is poised to activate this December 2017 before the International Criminal Court. (Anything in a legal “grey area” is excluded from that definition—and, at minimum, humanitarian intervention (sometimes supported and sometimes invoked) is within that legal grey area. The U.S., a non-State Party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, would be exempt from the crime’s jurisdictional reach, even if it does activate.)
It is unclear if the US’s missile strike was intended to fall within the doctrine of humanitarian interventions, as we don’t have a statement of the legal basis, which the U.S. should make clear, as well as what if any follow up plan it has. Harold Koh is right when he writes: “Going forward, all of this will require not just bombs, but diplomacy; not just tweets, but thoughtful diplomatic proposals; not just ‘America First,’ but genuine American multilateral leadership.” Just Security, 4/7/17.
One approach would be appointing a special envoy to pursue diplomatic negotiations, including partition of the country, similar to the partitioning of Bosnia under the Dayton Peace Accords. Republika Srpska iwithin Bosnia was given entity status, yet its military and political leaders were later tried by the Yugoslav Tribunal for atrocity crimes. Clearly, diplomacy and war crimes trials are not mutually exclusive.
President Obama’s “red line” in response to which the US and international community did nothing was shameful. Yet, an argument can be made that at that point in time there was an alternative — to require Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons stocks. And, indeed, some, but clearly not all, of those stocks were destroyed pursuant to the legal regime established. So, by now, what could have been a viable alternative has been pursued, and Assad failed to adhere to it.
It is important to also note that humanitarian intervention can take many forms, and need not mean full-scale intervention, which should always be the last resort. Other forms would include limited no fly zones, protection of civilians in refugee camps, and establishing humanitarian corridors.
Furthermore, unilateral intervention is always the least best alternative. Certainly, endorsement by a regional organization (such as NATO or ECOWAS – as was done in the past), or even multilateral action not endorsed by a regional organization would be preferable. And, if there must be unilateral intervention, it should occur under close consultation with key US allies.
It is far too easy to insist on legal perfectionism and a strict readings of the UN Charter as we sit comfortably typing at our computers. We should not utterly shut the door on a doctrine designed to prevent atrocity crimes when all other means are failing, as they have been in Syria. I agree with Jens David Ohlin that we are “too focused on state sovereignty to the exclusion of any other legal categories” including “the right to be free from genocide and crimes against humanity.” The principles of humanity that have been a guiding principle since the time of Hugo Grotius, and the 1899 Martens clause, should still guide us today to seek a more responsible legal approach, one that does not prioritize sovereignty over humanity.
PILPG:War Crimes Prosecution Watch Volume 12, Issue 2 – April 3, 2017
 Founder/Advisor
Michael P. Scharf |
War Crimes Prosecution Watch
Volume 12 – Issue 2
April 3, 2017 |
 Editor-in-Chief
James Prowse Technical Editor-in-Chief
Samantha Smyth |
War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type “subscribe” in the subject line.
Opinions expressed in the articles herein represent the views of their authors and are not necessarily those of the War Crimes Prosecution Watch staff, the Case Western Reserve University School of Law or Public International Law & Policy Group.
- All Africa: Central African Republic: Raped, Injected With Poison, Entire Family Murdered – One Woman’s Story in CAR
- Press TV: UN peacekeepers, armed men occupy schools in CAR: HRW
- Relief Web: CAR’s mutating violence threatens recent political progress
- The Guardian: Seven Dead in Worst Attack on Aid Workers Since South Sudan War Began
- Reuters: South Sudan Rebels Blame Government for Killings of Aid Workers
- Middle East Eye: Sudan’s Bashir to Attend Arab Summit in Spite of War Crimes Allegations
- New York Times: 7 Congo Army Officers Charged With War Crimes in Massacre
- International Justice Monitor: Appeals Judges Maintain Restrictions on Ntaganda’s Communications
- International Justice Monitor: Sentencing in ICC’s First Witness Tampering Trial Due Tomorrow
- International Justice Monitor: ICC Judges Hand Bemba €300,000 Fine, Defense Lawyers Get Suspended Sentences
- The Guardian: Congolese warlord sentenced over witness bribing in Hague court first
- The Globe and Mail: Congo war-crime victims win compensation in landmark ruling
- BBC: Militia fighters decapitate 40 police officers in DR Congo
- International Business Times: Key Witnesses in Laurent Gbagbo’s ICC War Crimes Trial Quizzed About Security Forces Training
- BBC: Ivory Coast’s Former First Lady Simone Gbagbo Acquitted
- The Washington Post: Attack in Central Nigeria Kills at Least 17, Official Says
- UNHCR: UNHCR Concerned About Return of Nigerian Refugees from Cameroon
- Reuters: Blasts Kill Four, Injure 18 in Northeastern Nigeria, Police Say
- United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime: Nigeria: EU, UNODC and CTED Partnership Boosts Human Rights-Compliant Measures Against Terrorism
- AfricaNews: Mali Government Sets Date for Peace Forum Amid Resistance
- ReliefWeb: Perilous Terrain: Humanitarian Action at Risk in Mali
- Al-Jazeera: Tuareg Factions to Boycott Mali Peace Conference
- Human Rights Watch: Uganda – investigation needed into violence in Kasese
- AllAfrica: The Monitor: Uganda: Activists Ask Government to Implement Anti Child Sacrifice Laws
- The New York Times: U.S. ‘Probably Had a Role’ in Mosul Deaths, Commander Says
- The New York Times: Suicide Truck Bomber Kills at Least 15 in Baghdad
- The New York Times: F.B.I. Arrests Iraqi Refugees Related to American’s Kidnapper
Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Police Officials’ War Crimes Trial Opens
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Croat Fighter Indicted for Persecution of Orasje Serbs
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Croat Fighter Acquitted of Livno Killings
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Serb Soldier Indicted for Rogatica Torture
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Serb Policemen, Soldier Charged with Rogatica Attack
- Balkan Insight: Karadzic Contests Prosecution Appeal for Tougher Sentence
- Times Live: Six Bosnian Croats to appeal UN war crimes convictions
- B92 : Russians offer guarantees for Mladic ‘s release
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Croat Ex-Military Chief Appeals for Acquittal
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Croat Deputy Commander Denies Ethnic Cleansing
- Balkan Transitional Justice: Bosnia, Croatia Asked to Help With Payment of Hague Defendant’s €2.8m Debt
- Balkan Insight: Bosnian Croat Ex-Official Denies Mass Prisoner Abuses
- Balkan Insight: Prosecutors Demand Longer Sentences for Bosnian Croat Leaders
- Balkan Insight: Montenegrin Officer Held for War Crimes in Croatia
- Balkan Insight: Kosovo Serb Leader Asserts Innocence as Retrial Begins
- Balkan Insight: Kosovo Witnesses Recall Expulsions by Serbian Forces
- Balkan Insight: Kosovo Special War Crimes Court Adopts Rulebook
- Balkan Insight: Croatian Dam ‘Repeatedly Attacked’ During 1990s War
- Balkan Insight: Belgrade Prosecutor Demands Jail for Serb Fighters
- The New York Times: U.S. ‘Probably Had a Role’ in Mosul Deaths, Commander Says
- The New York Times: Suicide Truck Bomber Kills at Least 15 in Baghdad
- The New York Times: Pentagon Releases Photo to Rebut Contention It Bombed a Mosque
- The New York Times: U.S. Military Investigating Reports of Civilian Deaths in Syria Airstrike
- Yemen News Agency: Hundreds of thousands rally against US-Saudi war crimes, economic blockade
- Press TV: Amnesty: US, UK arms deals fueling Saudi war crimes in Yemen
- The Sydney Morning Herald: Australia selling military equipment to Saudi Arabia during brutal Yemen conflict
- Human Rights Watch: Yemen: Attack on Refugee Boat Likely War Crime
- VOA Khmer: Khmer Rouge Court Reparation Plan Sparks Criticism
- Khmer Times: UN Vows Khmer Rouge Trial Aid
- Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Khmer Rouge was left by Wayside
- The Daily Star: Platt: Activity around media tipoff no coincidence
- The Daily Star: STL defense questions covert network narrative
- The Daily Star: Defense questions accuracy of cellphone coverage maps in STL
- The Daily Star: STL defense pokes holes in Platt testimony
- bdnews24: Investigators’ statement on war crimes charges against Moosa unclear: Imran
- Dhaka Tribune: Mymensingh man first to surrender to war crimes tribunal
- Dhaka Tribune: Law minister: ICT investigating role of 195 Pakistani soldiers
- IANS Feed: Police lay siege to two militant hideous in Bangladesh
- The Independent: Burma Rohingya Muslims: UN launch investigation into claims security forces are torturing and raping minority group
- The Star: Myanmar army chief defends military campaign in Rakhine
- teleSUR: Guatemala Cuts Immunity to Lawmaker in Indigenous Massacre Case
- Yahoo News: Guatemala asks Interpol to watch out for war crimes suspect
- International Business Times: US War Crimes In Iraq? Russia Wants UN Meeting After Airstrike Kills 200 Civilians In Mosul
- Miami Herald: Pentagon Picks National Security Lawyer to Run Guantanamo War Court
- Human Rights Watch: Venezuela’s Human Rights Obligations under Scrutiny in Geneva
- The Republic: UN: Deaths of human rights leaders in Colombia show pattern
- Colombia Reports: Santos and FARC evaluate Colombia’s 100 days of ‘peace’
- Human Rights Watch: Colombia: Civilians Killed in Riverside Community
- Colombia Reports: Colombia’s Congress approves transitional justice system in 2nd round
- The Washington Post: Gambia to set up truth commission and offer reparations
- The Queen’s University Journal: Queen’s Truth & Reconciliation Commission Task Force reveals final report
- The Himalayan Times: Conflict victims allowed to move SC against TRC Chairman Gurung
- NPR: Germany Deports Native-Born Terrorism Suspects, In A First
- BBC: Twitter shuts 377,000 ‘terrorism’ accounts
- Reuters: Syrian negotiator puts ‘terrorism’ at center of Geneva talks
- USA Today: Facebook, Google, Twitter pressured to more to fight terrorism on platforms
- The Washington Post: Prosecutors charge man with murder as an act of terrorism in New York stabbing
- Independent: Westminster attack: Details of 82 seconds of terror revealed as victims’ inquests open
- Reuters: Seven added to U.S. terrorism list, including jailed British preacher
- The Business Times: Singapore endorses roadmap to fight piracy
- Maritime Executive: Somalia Wants More Help from NATO
- Maritime Executive: Abu Sayyaf Kidnaps Captain, Chief Engineer from Ro/Ro
- ABC News: Somali pirates seize trawler, likely for hijackings: Police
- Hellenic Shipping News: Warships from Spain, France and Italy join counter piracy patrols off Somalia
- Ghana News Agency: Traditional rulers schooled on gender-based violence
- The Huffington Post: Canada: Marilyn Gladu: Gender-Based Violence Report Will Include Suggestions on Tackling Rape Culture
- Refinery29: 5 Shocking Stories of Gender Violence In Bangladesh
- News Deeply: Surviving the Sexual Violence Crisis in South Sudan