by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Over 14,000 women in Saudi Arabia have signed an online petition to end the country’s practice of male guardianship.

The official number of signatures on the petition is currently reported as approximately 14,000. However, there are many more signatures that were submitted anonymously due to fear of reprisal from their families or the religious police. Furthermore, approximately 2,500 women have also sent personal messages to King Salman demanding the guardianship law be abolished.

An online women’s rights movement has been building for the past few months, and became more prevalent this summer after Human Rights Watch released a report on the guardianship system. The report found that the guardianship system is “the most significant impediment to realizing women’s rights in the country.” It gave way to the hashtag #IAmMyOwnGuardian, which has become the slogan for the campaign. Activist Aziza Al-Yousef, who has been fighting the guardianship system for a decade, stated that “women should be treated as a full citizen.” Ms. Al-Yousef further noted that the petitioners “want women over 18 or 20 to be treated as adults, to be responsible for their own acts and allowed to make their own decisions.”

Ms. Al-Yousef stated that she tried to deliver the petition to the Royal Court on Monday, September 26^th. However, she was turned away and told to submit the petition by mail. Accordingly, as instructed, activists will now send the petition by mail. There has been no response to the petition by the Saudi Arabia government.

The petition is protesting a Saudi Arabia law in which women are treated as legal minors and close male relatives make important legal decisions on their behalf. The male guardian is typically a woman’s father or husband, if she is married. A widow may be required to seek permission from her son if she does not have any other male relatives of age. Alternatively, uncles and brothers can also serve as the male guardian. Under this law, women are required to obtain their male guardian’s permission to marry, travel, obtain a passport, rent property, file any legal claim, or be treated at a hospital, among other things. Furthermore, many institutions also require the guardian’s permission for a woman to pursue an education or hold a job. Many women report that their guardians extort them for money or other favors. Due to the limited recourse options available to women, some are “trapped with extortionate or abusive men.”

The Saudi Arabia government had agreed to abolish the guardianship system in 2009 as well as in 2013 in response to a review by the United Nation’s Human Rights Council. Although some reforms were instituted at the time, they did not provide basic rights to women.

For more information, please see:

The Guardian—Thousands of Saudis sign petition to end male guardianship of women—26 September 2016

ABC News—#IAmMyOwnGuardian petition to end male guardianship system kicks off in Saudi Arabia—27 September 2016

Daily Mail—Saudi petition seeks ‘full’ rights for women—27 September 2016

CNN—Saudis petition king to end male guardianship system—26 September 2016

Inquisitr—Saudi Women Take Stand Against Male Guardianship, Oppression—26 September 2016

 

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

KUWAIT CITY, Kuwait — Kuwaiti attorney, Adel Abdulhadi, filed a challenge against the constitutionality of the country’s DNA collection law.

In his filing, Mr. Abdulhadi argued that the DNA collection law violates “fundamental human rights and personal freedoms protected and sacred by the Kuwait constitution.” He stated that “compelling every citizen, resident and visitor to submit a DNA sample to the government is similar to forcing house searches without a warrant.” He asserted that the law means “every single person is now considered a suspect until proven innocent.” Mr. Abdulhadi further stated that the government has already started collecting DNA samples from individuals they suspect falsely claimed Kuwaiti nationality.

The DNA collection law, which was passed in July 2015, is expected to go into effect in November 2016. It is the first law of its kind around the world, and would require all Kuwait citizens, expatriates and temporary visitors to provide DNA samples for the government’s database. Furthermore, all Kuwait citizens applying for passport renewals will be required to submit DNA samples. Kuwait officials stated that the law is a security and counterterrorism measure in response to the suicide bombing at a mosque in Kuwait which killed 27 and injured hundreds of others. Officials further indicated that the law will help facilitate solving crime and terrorism cases. Mr. Abdulhadi criticized these explanations by stating “terrorism is in the mindset of the person, and you can’t minimize this by restricting the privacy of people.”

The DNA samples of over 1.3 million citizens, and 2.9 million expatriates and temporary visitors from other countries would be collected through saliva swabs or a few drops of blood. The samples would then be entered into a database and stored in a laboratory at the General Department of Criminal Evidence. Anyone who refuses to provide a sample could be fined $33,000 or sentenced to one year in prison. Furthermore, any individual who is caught faking samples could be sentenced to up to seven years in jail.

Several international organizations urged the Kuwait government to change or amend the law before it goes into effect. The European Society of Human Genetics declared that the law is a “serious assault on the right to privacy of individuals.” The Society further noted that the law will most likely result in Kuwait’s isolation from scientific research. The United Nations’ Human Rights Committee as well as the Human Rights Watch stated that the law “imposes unnecessary and disproportionate restrictions on the right to privacy.” In addition, scientists and security experts criticized the law as a “huge attack on genetic privacy,” and voiced their concerns over the law while urging Kuwait to amend it.

For more information, please see:

Zawya (Thomsan Reuters)—Lawyer files challenge against constitutionality of the DNA law—22 September 2016

International Business Times—Kuwait lawyer challenges constitutionality of world’s first controversial mandatory DNA collection law—23 September 2016

Middle East Monitor—Kuwaiti lawyers challenge forced DNA sampling law—23 September 2016

New Scientist—Kuwait lawyers fight world’s first mandatory DNA sampling law—22 September 2016

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

DAMASCUS, Syria — On Monday, September 19^th, an aid convoy near the Syrian city of Aleppo was struck by an air strike hours after the army declared the end of a U.S.-Russia ceasefire.

The aid convoy was intended to deliver aid to 78,000 individuals in Aleppo. A U.N. spokesperson confirmed that at least 18 of the 31 trucks in the convoy were destroyed. A witness at the scene indicated that the trucks were parked at a Syrian Red Crescent location when they were hit by approximately five missile strikes. The Red Crescent stated that approximately 20 civilians and at least one of its volunteers were killed in the attacks. It has suspended its operations for three days in protest. It further stated that the attack may have “serious repercussions” for its humanitarian work in the area. The U.N. has also suspended all aid convoy movement in Syria.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights stated that the attacks were carried out by either Russian or Syrian aircraft. U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby noted that the destination of the convoy was “known to the Syrian regime and Russian Federation.” He further stated that the aid workers were “killed in their attempt to provide relief to the Syrian people.” The U.N. Aid Chief, Stephen O’Brien, declared that the “callous attack” would amount to a “war crime” if it was found to be deliberate. Russia has denied that its aircraft or those of its Syrian government allies were involved.

The ceasefire between the U.S. and Russia went into effect on September 12^th. It was the most recent attempt to bring enough peace to the country to allow political negotiations to begin. A key part of the cessation involved humanitarian aid deliveries to civilians in besieged areas. The agreement further entailed halting fighting between government and rebel forces across Syria. If the ceasefire held, the U.S. and Russia were to set up a joint military cell to target the Islamic State group.

Despite an initial drop in fighting following the ceasefire, violence began to escalate late last week. The deal came under strain on Saturday, September 17^th when a coalition strike led by the U.S. hit a Syrian army post near the eastern city of Deir Ezzor. The Syrian Armed Forces General Command issued a statement on Monday, September 19^th declaring that the ceasefire had ended. Following this announcement, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that jets fired strikes, killing and wounding individuals in the Aleppo region. The U.N. Security Council is scheduled to hold a meeting regarding Syria and the ceasefire on Wednesday, September 21^st.

For more information, please see:

CNN—Syrian ceasefire: Is it all over?—20 September 2016

Reuters—Russian aircraft believed to hit Syria convoy, U.S. officials say—21 September 2016

BBC News—Syria conflict: US ‘outraged’ over aid convoy attack—20 September 2016


Middle East Eye—UN outraged at ‘callous attack’ on aid convoy, as Syria ceasefire collapses—20 September 2016

NPR—Syrian Cease-Fire Negotiated By U.S., Russia Goes Into Effect—12 September 2016

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

CAIRO, Egypt — On Saturday, September 16^th, an Egyptian court ordered the assets of five human rights activists and three non-governmental organizations (NGO) to be frozen.

The Zeinhom Criminal Court based its decision on a case that has been pending since 2011, in which the NGOs were accused of receiving foreign funds to “sow chaos.” The case was brought on charges that include “pursuing acts harmful to national interests,” “destabilizing general peace,” or “harming security and public order”. This decision now paves the way for criminal proceedings against these defendants. All of them could face life sentences if found guilty, which is equivalent to a twenty-five-year prison sentence in Egypt.

The individuals and NGOs whose assets were frozen include Hossam Bahgat (founder and former director of Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights), Gamal Eid (head of the Arab Network for Human Rights Information), the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies and its director Bahey el-din Hassan, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center and its director Mostafa al-Hassan, and the Egyptian Right to Education Center and its director Abdelhafiz Tayel. While the assets of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and the Arab Network for Human Rights Information were not frozen immediately, they could be linked to Mr. Bahgat and Mr. Eid and frozen at a later date.

Egypt had begun looking into foreign funding in early 2011 during a crackdown against civil society groups after an 18-day uprising that ended Hosni Mubarak’s 30-year rule and left the military in charge. At the time, Egypt had come under international fire when it raided Egyptian and Western NGOs in Cairo on suspicion of illegal financing, including the U.S. National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute.

Following Saturday’s ruling, NGOs and Egyptian human rights activists have stated that they are “facing the worst assault in their history” during a campaign to remove the liberties that were won in the 2011 uprising. In response to the court’s decision, Mr. Eid stated that the decision was expected, but that the NGOs and activists “will carry on despite living under threat.” He further declared “we will not live in complicity with a police regime that hates human rights, the 2011 revolution and democracy.” Amnesty International declared the ruling “a shameless ploy to silence human rights activism,” and further stated that it is a “reprehensible blow to Egypt’s human rights movement.”

For more information, please see:

Middle East Eye—Egypt court freezes assets of top human rights defenders—17 September 2016

World Bulletin—Egypt freezes assets of human rights defenders, NGOs—17 September 2016

Amnesty International—Egypt: Asset freeze is a shameless ploy to silence human rights activism—17 September 2016

BBC News—Egypt Court freezes assets of human rights workers and NGO’s—17 September 2016

AlJazeera—Egypt court freezes assets of rights defenders and NGOs—17 September 2016

 

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

JERUSALEM, Israel — On Sunday, September 11^th, the Israel Supreme Court rejected the Israeli Medical Association’s appeal on the force-feeding law that had been passed in July 2015.

Through the appeal, the Israel Supreme Court authorized force-feeding prisoners who are on a hunger strike. The court held that the law is constitutional and “legal under Israeli and international law.” The judges stated that saving lives “remain a priority” as the state is “responsible for the lives of its prisoners.”

The Assembly of Palestinian Doctors in Europe issued a statement declaring that the force-feeding law amounts to a “legitimization of murder.” The Assembly asserted that the law violates the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Malta 1991, which states “forcible feeding is never ethically acceptable.” It further stated that force-feeding violates the 1975 World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo, which provides that “force-feeding is a crime and form of torture.” The statement further drew attention to the potential risk of death involved with force-feeding, noting that several Palestinian prisoners had lost their lives as a result of this practice. The Assembly also urged international health institutions and human rights organizations, such as the United Nations, Red Cross, and Doctors Without Borders, to condemn the decision and pressure the government to repeal the law.

In recent years, numerous Palestinians initiated collective and individual hunger strikes. Some obtained an early release while others secured better incarceration conditions provided that they end their strike.

In July 2015, Israeli legislators voted to allow the force-feeding of hunger striking prisoners. The reasoning behind this legislation was to prevent Palestinian detainees from using fasting as a means of securing an early release from prison. Mr. Yoel Hadar, a legal adviser to the Ministry of Public Security, had stated that force-feeding would only be used in extreme cases and that Israeli doctors would not be compelled to comply. The law requires the prison commissioner to request the court’s permission to force-feed a prisoner “if a doctor recommends doing so,” and if there is an “imminent danger of severe deterioration in the prisoner’s health.” The law further stipulates that prison officials are allowed to use “reasonable force.”

Upon its passage, several human rights organizations had condemned the law. Palestinian prisoner rights activists declared that the law robbed detainees of their only means to protest incarceration. The Israeli Medical Association identified the move as “torture,” stating that force-feeding could not be accomplished without endangering the prisoner and causing suffering. United Nations officials also condemned the law, declaring that hunger strikes were a “non- violent form of protest used by individuals who have exhausted other forms of protest to highlight the seriousness of their situations.” The Ministry had stated that the decision was based on humanitarian concerns of preventing prisoners from harming themselves and pressuring Israeli authorities.

For more information, please see:

Middle East Eye — Israel court rejects appeal on force-feeding hunger strikers — 12 September 2016

AlJazeera — Israel rejects appeal against force-feeding prisoners — 11 September 2016

Palestine News Network — Israeli force-feeding law incitement to murder — 14 September 2016

Middle East Monitor — Israeli doctors urged to refuse force-feeding of hunger-strikers — 14 September 2016

The New York Times — Israel Allows Hunger-Striking Prisoners to Be Force-Fed — 30 July 2015