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

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

CAIRO, Egypt — An Egyptian court ruled on Thursday, September 8^th that an Egyptian citizen who is married to an Israeli woman must be stripped of his citizenship.

Ms. Shaimaa Amin had filed a lawsuit demanding that her brother, who had been living in the United Kingdom for twelve years, be stripped of his Egyptian citizenship on the grounds that he is married to an Israeli woman. Ms. Amin claimed that her brother’s political, religious and social views do not “suit Egyptian society,” and that his marriage constitutes a “threat to Egypt’s national security.”

The Court decided that marriages between Egyptians and Israelis constitute a risk to national security. It further held that this is a serious offense which is a sufficient basis for an individual to lose citizenship. It referenced Article 62 of the Egyptian constitution, which grants personal freedoms, including marriage. The Court stated that despite this Article, citizens are not entitled to freedom from all restrictions or the responsibility to “protect society and the state.” It declared that the defendant should have “worked hard to make his wife and son give up their Israeli nationality and come to live in Egypt.” The defendant, Ms. Amin’s brother, defended his decision to marry an Israeli woman. He stated that, unlike the Arab states, Israel was a defender of human rights that was contributing to fighting terrorism.

Ms. Amin’s lawsuit and the Court’s subsequent holding was in line with, and based on, a June 2010 ruling by the Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court, which ordered the Interior Ministry to strip citizenship from Egyptians married to Israeli women. This holding stated that the Interior Ministry must present each case to the Cabinet, which will then make an individualized decision on stripping citizenship based on whether the man married an “Israeli Arab or Jew.” In 2015, the Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court issued a further ruling based on Egyptian Nationality Law, which mandated the Cabinet and Interior Ministry to strip Egyptian nationality from citizens married to Israelis. Per Article 16 of this Law, the Egyptian government can strip citizens of their nationality to protect Egypt’s national security.

For more information, please see:

Reuters — Security threat? Egypt court strips man married to Israeli of citizenship — 10 September 2016

The Algemeiner — Egyptian Court Rules: Marriage to Israeli Grounds for Stripping of Citizenship — 9 September 2016

Ahram Online — Egyptian court rules Egyptians married to Israelis must be stripped of citizenship — 8 September 2016

The Jerusalem Post — Egypt restricts marriage to Israelis — 6 June 2010

by Yesim Usluca
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

DAMASCUS, Syria — Dozens were injured in a suspected chlorine bomb attack by Syrian government forces in the city of Aleppo on Tuesday, September 6^th.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights indicated that barrel bombs were allegedly dropped from helicopters by Syrian government forces on a crowded neighborhood. Use of chlorine in weapons is banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention. Chlorine gas can be fatal in high concentrations. In lower doses, it can damage lungs or cause severe breathing difficulties, vomiting and nausea, among other symptoms.

Syrian activists and volunteer emergency rescue workers stated that the attack caused dozens of cases of suffocation and at least one death. The volunteer rescuers noted that individuals in the area were rushed to hospitals due to severe breathing difficulties following the bombing. The victims’ clothing was reported to smell of chlorine and their symptoms were allegedly the same as those experienced in former attacks. These observations led to the suspicions of a chlorine gas attack. According to reports from the affected area, a majority of the injured individuals were women and children, with a pregnant woman being one of the patients in critical care.

Accusations involving use of chlorine and other poisonous gases are not uncommon in Syria’s civil war. An inquiry conducted in August 2016 by the U.N. and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons found that the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad had used toxic chlorine gas in at least two attacks in 2014 and 2015. The U.N. is further investigating an allegation by the Syrian Civil Defense which accused the government of another chlorine attack in August 2016.

The Syrian government is maintaining its position that it has never used chemical weapons. In August 2013, President Assad agreed to surrender and destroy all chemical weapons and facilities. This resolution authorizes militarily enforceable sanctions for use of any chemical weapons in Syria.

For more information, please see:

New York Post — Dozens recovering after suspected chlorine bomb attack in Syria — 7 September 2016

AlJazeera — Aleppo: Syrian forces blamed for ‘chlorine gas attack’ — 7 September 2016

BBC — Syria conflict: Government helicopters ‘drop chlorine’ on Aleppo — 7 September 2016

USA Today — 2 dead, scores wounded in alleged Syrian gas attack — 7 September 2016