By Kevin Kim
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

TUNIS, Tunisia – Amnesty International is calling on the international community to communicate the Tunisian authorities to end the human rights violations on the 20th year anniversary of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali’s rule. During his 20 year tenure, Tunisia has been accused of various human rights violations including arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and other ill-treatment, unfair trials, harassment and intimidation of human rights defenders and curbs on freedom of expression and association. Amnesty International believes Tunisia’s positive economic performance should no longer excuse the country from violating human rights.

Most recently, a Tunisian court jailed a former Guantanamo Bay detainee for three years on terrorism charges. Although Lotfi Lagha, who spent his last five years in the detention center at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba, insisted that he has never been involved in any terrorist activity, the 40-year-old was found guilty. It is also alleged that he was mistreated by the Tunisian authorities while in detention after being sent home. In addition to Lagha, eight detainees who remain at Guantanamo have been convicted in Tunisia of crimes in absentia.

Additionally, and unfortunately for Lahga and many others, discussion of human rights in the media is taboo under Ben Ali government. The government tightly controls the press and broadcasting, and journals are screened by the authorities before publication. And those who undertake coverage of sensitive topics are subject to harassment and intimidation like journalist Slim Boukhdir, whose passport was taken away since 2004.

Moreover, even though Tunisia’s online population has grown dramatically in the past seven years, freedom of expression is nowhere to be found as Internet monitoring is omnipresent. In 2005, Mohammed Abbou was sentenced to three years in jail for a blog he wrote comparing torture in Tunisia to the U.S. abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Some rights group claim Tunisia’s internet policies “among the most repressive in the world.”

Amnesty International claims the human right situation in Tunisia has significantly deteriorated since the introduction of the 2003 anti-terrorism law. The organization believes the law’s vague definition of terrorism has been used by the Tunisian security forces to perpetuate crimes against humanity.

For more information, please see:

Amnesty International – Human rights briefing for 20th anniversary of President Ben Ali’s rule – 2 November 2007

Bloomberg – Tunisia websurfers learn criticism of leader ‘cannot be found’ – 2 November 2007

AllAfrica – Journalist goes on hunger strike after being denied passport – 2 November 2007

Reuters – Tunisia jails ex-Guantanamo prisoner for 3 years – 24 October 2007

BBC News – Country profile: Tunisia – 9 October 2007

The top aide to Iraq’s Finance Ministry, Qutaiba Badir al-Din Mohammed, was gunned down along with his driver in Baghdad.  The government has not commented on the death.

Also in the northeast province of Diyala,  10 people were killed.  The fighting arose through clashes between insurgents and policemen and the 1920’s Revolution Brigade.  The fighting claimed an eight year old child and women as collateral damage.  The victims were killed in seemingly random acts of violence.  For example, a policeman was killed in a drive by shooting.  Also, a bomb killed three people including a young child.

Associated Press- Iraqi Official Gunned Down in Baghdad- 4 November 2007

By Vivek Thiagarajan
Impunity Watch Senior Desk Officer, Middle East

BAGHDAD, Iraq- On Tuesday, the Iraqi government proposed legislation to remove immunity for independent government contractors like Blackwater USA.  This draft law would overrule the Order 17 by L. Paul Bremer on June 27, 2004, which gave all private contractors and others associated with Bremer immunity from Iraqi law.

Bremer was the Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance for Iraq and Administrator of the Coalitional Provisional Authority.  In essence, he was the top U.S. official in charge of Iraq and reported to the U.S. Secretary of Defense until the handover to the Iraqis for self governance.

The act, if passed, would only apply to future acts.  It probably will make the hiring of government contractors such as Blackwater USA much more difficult, because of the contractors’ reluctance to be held to Iraqi law.  Blackwater USA and other contractors were specially utilized because of their different rules of engagement, which typically allowed them more discretion when facing hostile situations than the official military.  However, this incentive will be dropped because the contractors will be held at higher standards by the Iraqi government than the official U.S. soldiers.

The U.S. government, however, may try to extend the immunity to the government contractors.  Since the legislation is not retroactive the lift on the ban could not apply to the Blackwater USA agents involved in the September 16 shooting where 17 Iraqis were killed.  If those agents acted wrongfully the conduct would fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.  However, it will be difficult for a fact finder to hold the agents liable because most of the agents who testified were granted immunity for those actions.  Concurrently, Blackwater’s owner maintains that his company was justified in their actions on September 16, and Blackwater not guilty of any wrongful misconduct.

Every government must show a firm commitment to protect its citizens.  This law lifting immunity for contractors is necessary for the Iraqi government to show its willingness to protect its citizens irregardless of outside pressures.  Although the immunity ban would not be retroactive, if enforced, it can set a clear precedent of greater protection for Iraqi civilians from future contractors.

For more information, please see:

BBC News- Blackwater men ‘given immunity’- 30 October 2007

BBC News- Iraq to end contractor immunity- 30 October 2007

Houston Chronicle (AP)- Iraq bill would lift contractor immunity- 30 October 2007

International Herald Tribune- Immunity deals offered to Blackwater guards- 29 October 2007

COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY ORDER NUMBER 17 (REVISED)- STATUS OF THE COALITION PROVISIONAL AUTHORITY, MNF- 27 June 2004

By Kevin Kim
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

BAKU, Azerbaijan – An Azerbaijani newspaper editor was sentenced on Tuesday to eight and a half years in prison over an article on Iran. The Court for Grave Crimes convicted Eynulla Fatullayev, the founder and editor of the now extinctReal Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan Daily newspapers, on charges of terrorism, incitement of ethnic hatred and tax evasion. The decision came amid a steady rise in the Azerbaijan authorities’ harassment of independent press this year.

This is the second time Fatullayev has been brought to trial this year. In April, he was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for dubious libel charge.

His lastest trial focused on terrorism charge in which an article in Real Azerbaijan listed various facilities in Azerbaijan to be in danger of retaliation if the government chooses to support the American military action against Iran. Even though the former Soviet republic pledged that it will not assist U.S. in its operation, people along the border live with constant rumors over the possibility that the United States could use their territory to attack neighboring Iran. The charge of inciting racial hatred also derived from this article when he warned that this policy could revive ethnic tension within Azerbaijan.

Furthermore, Fatullayev was fined more than 200,000 Manat (approximately $235,000) for alleged tax evasion.

Fatullayev’s lawyer believes that neither the terrorism and its related charges nor the tax evasion charge can be substantiated with plausible evidence. Rights group around the globe also questions how the commentary could be construed as advocating ethnic hatred and warrants a criminal prosecution. In addition, his lawyer believes that reported calcuation behind the tax evasion charge was erroneous.

Fatullayev denounced the verdict as politically motivated. Fatullayev is known in Azerbaijan for his frequent criticism of the government. Consequently, he has been a victim of harassment and intimidation for many years. His father was once kidnapped and the kidnappers threatened to kill both Fatullayev and his father unless he stopped publishing his newspapers. His father was eventually released, but the kidnappers remained at large. Fatullayev and his family also received many death threats but Azerbaijan authorities refused to investigate these claims.

A US based rights organization rated that Azerbaijan is among the world’s worst ten states for press freedom.

For more information, please see:

Associated Press – Azerbaijan editor jailed over article – 1 November 2007

Amnesty International – Prisoner of conscience sentenced to a further eight and a half years’ imprisonment – 1 November 2007

Reporters Without Borders – Long jail term for newspaper editor confirms Azerbaijan’s poor ranking in world press freedom index – 31 October 2007

Human Rights Watch – Outspoken editor sentenced to eight years and six months – 30 October 2007

Reuters – Azeri court quadruples jailed reporter’s sentence – 30 October 2007

By Laura Zuber
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

HEBRON, West Bank – On October 29, nearly 300 Palestinians living on the Israeli side of the separation barrier were handed eviction orders by Israeli soldiers.  Soldiers broke up the encampment and told the 27 families to move to Idhna village, located on the other side of the barrier.  No comment is available from Israeli authorities.

The separation barrier, approved by the Israeli government in 2002, is a combination of concrete wall, barbed wire, and fencing separating Israel from the West Bank.  Israel maintains that the purpose of the barrier is security; to prevent bombers from entering Israel.  Israel began building the separation barrier in 2002 and has completed 56% of the planned route.  Of the 260 km remaining, 100 km are currently being disputed in Israeli court and 160 km are still in the planning phase.

Some Israelis, Palestinians, and the international community condemn the barrier as contrary to international law and causing serious humanitarian crises.  Their argument rests on the fact that the barrier is not built on the “Green Line” – the internationally recognized border between Israel and the West Bank – but rather “snakes” into Palestinian lands in the West Bank.  The route creates niches of Palestinians villages surrounded by the barrier, limiting the resident’s access to the West Bank and more importantly, their farmland.

According to the Ministry of Defense, as of March 2007, there were 39 petitions concerning the separation barrier waiting to be heard by Israel’s Supreme Court; 28 of them involved objections to the planned route.  In September 2007, the court ordered Israel to re-route the barrier in the Bilin area. The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that the planned route was “highly prejudicial” against the villagers and ordered that an alternative route be mapped out.

The Israeli Supreme Court held that the villagers were being discriminated against by having their land seized and their olives trees cut down for construction.  While Bilin residents celebrate, the Israeli Supreme Court has rejected petitions in the past, holding that Israel’s security interests outweigh the negative impacts on Palestinians when no alternative route exists.  However, in 2004, the International Court of Justice held that building the barrier along the planned route is contrary to international law and construction of the wall on occupied territory should be suspended.

For more information, please see:

Jerusalem Post – Fence section completion since July: 0 – 31 October 2007

AFP – Israel evicts Palestinians on “wrong” side of barrier – 29 October 2007

AFP – Court orders Israel to re-route barrier – 4 September 2007

Ministry of Defense – Status report – legal aspects of the Security Fence – 1 March 2007

International Court of Justice – Advisory Opinion – 9 July 2004