The Middle East

Egyptian Authorities Crackdown on Anti-Government Protestors

By: Alexandra Casey

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor

CAIRO, Egypt — On September 20, 2019, anti-government protests were held in several Egyptian cities, violating the country’s ban on protesting without a permit. Protesters called on President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to step down following allegations of government corruption. Egyptian authorities have since detained more than 2,000 people in a government crackdown. This response is significant even in a regime that has long targeted dissenters.

Protestors in Cairo, Egypt. Photo Courtesy of NPR.

According to Amnesty International, authorities have arrested everyone from street protestors to prominent government critics and have accused detainees of breaking the country’s broad anti-terrorism laws, spreading fake news, protesting without a license, and joining an illegal organization. Many of the arrests appear to have no connection to the recent protests. After September 20, al-Sisi moved swiftly to rally support. He organized state backed demonstrations praising his current rule and had authorities set up check points to search all cell phones for signs of government criticism.

Prominent journalist and activist, Esraa Abdelfattah, was reportedly arrested by plain-clothes officers and beaten after refusing to unlock her cell phone. Aaron Boehm, a U.S. citizen who had recently arrived in Egypt for a University of Edinburgh study abroad program, was also detained after police officers stopped him in the street and searched his phone. Upon discovering that Boehm sent articles to his friends about the protests, he was put in a vehicle, blindfolded for about 16 hours and interrogated by authorities. While Boehm did not suffer physical abuse, he reported seeing signs of violence against detainees.

The sheer volume of arrests following the September 20 protests combined with al-Sisi’s meager gestures towards addressing citizens’ economic grievances suggest that while Egypt appears stable, unrest may lie just below the surface. Analysts say that al-Sisi’s promise to reinstate subsidies for staples such as rice and pasta will do little to rectify citizens’ disapproval.

Mass arrests have resulted in overcrowding of detention centers, and allegations of torture and ill treatment in detention centers has received attention from the United Nations Human Rights Office. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has also expressed concerns about significant due process violations.

In a statement to press, OHCHR spokesperson, Ravina Shamdasani, reminded the Egyptian government that “under international law people have a right to protest peacefully, and a right to express their opinions, including on social media. They should never be arrested, detained – let alone charged with serious offences such as terrorism – simply for exercising those rights.”

Shamdasani called for immediate release of those who have been arrested and detained solely for exercising their rights and prompt, effective investigation into the allegations of torture and mistreatment.

For further information, please see:

Reuters – U.N. rights office urges Egypt to free blogger, lawyer, journalist – 18 Oct. 2019

UN News – UN human rights office urges Egypt to immediately release detained protestors – 18 Oct. 2019

NPR – Major Crackdown In Egypt Sweeps Up Activists, Children and At Least 1 U.S. Citizen – 12 Oct. 2019

NY Times – Egypt’s Harsh Crackdown Quashes Protest Movement – 4 Oct. 2019

Reuters – More than 1,100 detained in Egypt after protests: rights monitors – 25 Sept. 2019

What is Happening Along the Border of Turkey and Syria?

By: Madison Kenyon 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer 

DAMASCUS, Syria — On Sunday, October 20, Syrian Kurdish forces began their withdrawal from Ras al-Ayn, a town along the Syrian border. This withdrawal is part of a cease-fire negotiated by the United States’ Vice President, Mike Pence, and Secretary of State, Michael Pompeo with Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. This cease-fire began Thursday, October 17, and will end on Tuesday, October 22. By Tuesday evening, the Kurdish forces must not only have all soldiers removed from Ras al-Ayn, but also, they must withdraw from a zone about 75 miles wide and 20 miles deep between Ras al-Ayn and the town of Tel Abyad.

The aftermath of a shelling by Turkish forces on a target in Das al-Ayn. Photo courtesy of NPR.

Despite the Kurdish forces’ withdrawal from this zone, Turkey states that this is not enough. Rather, Erdogan wants the Kurdish forces to withdraw more than 260 miles from the Syrian border.  He has vowed that if the forces fail to do so, he will “continue to crush the terrorists’ heads.” Erdogan’s persistency to remove the Kurds from the Syrian border comes from his belief that the presence of any Kurds along the Turkey border is an “existential threat” to Turkey.

This tension between Turkey and the Kurds stems from years of conflict. The Kurds, a largely Muslim ethnic group, are one of the largest groups of people without a state of their own (despite being promised one after World War I). Due to this, for years, a Kurdish militant group has launched attacks throughout Turkey in an attempt to achieve autonomy. Therefore, Turkey sees the Kurdish forces located in northern Syria as linked to this militant group. Thus, Turkey argues that it wants to create a “safe zone” between the Turkey-Syrian border. It also argues that it wants to resettle at least a million refugees living in Turkey who were displaced by the Syrian war into this zone.

Previously, the U.S. has backed the Kurds in their defense against Turkey. However, recently, President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing U.S. troops from northern Syria. The Kurds have now had to turn to Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s leader, and Vladimir Putin, Russia’s President, for help in this conflict.

Since President Trump’s decision to withdraw troops from Syria, over 200,000 people have been displaced. Many of these people blame President Trump for this displacement. One 70-year-old Kurdish man, forced to flee from his home in Ras al-Ayn, stated, “This was a clear betrayal by the Americans. The Turks never would have done what they did had the Americans stayed.”

This criticism is what led the U.S. to negotiate this cease-fire. However, despite the Kurds’ current withdrawal, both sides claim that the other side still repeatedly violates the cease-fire. For example, Turkey’s Defense Ministry stated that the Kurds killed one of its soldiers today during an attack.

It is hard to believe that this cease-fire will make any real difference in this conflict. Rather, the world is awaiting to see what happens at the Turkey-Syrian border Tuesday evening once the cease-fire ends.

For further information, please see: 

Time – Kurds Begin to Evacuate Besieged Syrian Border Town – 20 Oct. 2019

Washington Post – The Latest: Kurdish Fighters Pull Out of Syrian Border Town – 20 Oct. 2019

Bloomberg – Syrian and Kurdi News: Trump Approach to Turkey Syria Incursion – 20 Oct. 2019

Los Angeles Times – ‘How Long Can We Live Like This?’: Kurds in Growing Refugee Camp Plead for Help, End to Losses, Suffering – 20 Oct. 2019

CBS News – Turkey’s Involvement in Syria’s Civil War: The Complicated History of How We Got Here – 15 Oct. 2019

The ICC Prosecutor’s Road to Justice for Afghanistan

By: Madison Kenyon 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer 

KABUL, Afghanistan — On September 17, 2019, the Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court (ICC) granted in part the request of the prosecutor for Leave to Appeal the Chamber’s earlier decision, which rejected the prosecutor’s request for authorization to investigate into the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Pre-Trial Chamber originally rejected this authorization because it believed that an investigation at the current stage of the situation would not serve the interests of justice. Thus, on June 7, 2019, the prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, filed for leave to appeal this decision.

International Criminal Court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda. Photo courtesy of the ICC.

This procedural history stems from the preliminary examination, which began in 2006, by the Office of the Prosecutor of the situation in Afghanistan. Specifically, the prosecutor examined alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes that have occurred in Afghanistan since July 1, 2002, with particular focus on alleged crimes that occurred on May 1, 2003. The prosecutor asserts that the results of this examination prove the following: (1) crimes against humanity and war crimes by the Taliban and their affiliated network; (2) war crimes by the Afghan National Security Forces, and in particular, members of the National Directorate for Security and the Afghan National Police; (3) and war crimes by members of the United States’ armed forces and the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Overall, through this examination, the prosecutor determined that there is a reasonable basis to proceed with an investigation into this situation and thus made the request for authorization to investigate on November 20, 2017.

The prosecutor asserts that, at a minimum, the crimes against humanity that have been committed include: murder; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty; and persecution against an identifiable group or collectivity on political and gender grounds. Along with this, the prosecutor states that the war crimes that have been committed include: murder; cruel treatment and torture; outrages upon personal dignity; intentionally directing attacks against civilians; intentionally directing attacks against personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping mission; internationally directing attacks against protected objects; rape and other forms of sexual violence; using, conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen; and killing or wounding treacherously a combatant adversary. Further, regarding the United States’ involvement in the situation in Afghanistan, the prosecutor states that there is a reasonable basis to believe that members of the U.S. armed forces and members of the CIA committed acts of torture, cruel treatment, outrages upon personal dignity, and rape and sexual violence against conflict-related detainees in Afghanistan and other locations.

Although the Pre-Trial Chamber granted the prosecutor leave to appeal its earlier decision, this does not mean that it will also grant the prosecutor authorization to investigate further into the situation in Afghanistan. Due to the evidence produced by the prosecutor from her preliminary examination, if the Chamber again refuses to grant authorization to investigate further, it may leave many to wonder if the court is actually concerned about the “interests of justice” or if it is actually trying to avoid upsetting an international powerhouse like the United States.

For further information, please see: 

International Criminal Court – Afghanistan: ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II Authorises Prosecutor to Appeal Decision Refusing Investigation – 17 Sept. 2019

International Criminal Court – Situation in Afghanistan: Summary of the Prosecutor’s Request for Authorisation of an Investigation Pursuant to Article 15 – 20 Nov. 2017

International Criminal Court – The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, Requests Judicial Authorisation to Commence an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan – 20 Nov. 2017

ICC Prosecutor Must Re-examine Attack After Appeal Chamber’s Decision

By: Madison Kenyon 

Impunity Watch Staff Writer 

MORONI, Comoros — On September 2, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected the prosecutor’s appeal against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I on the Application for Judicial Review by the Government of the Union of the Comoros of November 12, 2018. This was a majority decision, however there were two dissenting judges.

Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa presiding over the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court on September 2, 2019. Photo Courtesy of the ICC.

This issue arose from an attack of a vessel ship, known as the Mavi Marmara, that occurred on May 31, 2010 by the Israeli Defense Forces. This ship contained 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid that a group of pro-Palestinian activists were bringing to Gaza. During this attack, nine people were killed and about 50 others injured.

In May 2013, the Union of Comoros, a party of the Rome Statute, sent a referral to the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor to investigate this attack. However, after a preliminary examination, on November 6, 2014 the prosecutor issued her decision not to investigate any further. She stated that although the acts committed constituted war crimes, which the ICC has jurisdiction over, the acts did not have “sufficient gravity to justify further action by the ICC.” In order for the prosecutor to open an investigation, it is required by the Rome Statute that she conclude that the alleged crimes are of sufficient gravity. Thus, she stated, “…I have to be guided by the Rome Statute, in accordance with which, the ICC shall prioritize war crimes committed on a large scale or pursuant to a plan or policy.”

Although it is the prosecutor’s decision to investigate further into a case or not, on July 16, 2015, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the ICC requested the prosecutor to reconsider the decision not to investigate. Two years later though, on November 29, 2017, the prosecutor reiterated her earlier decision, stating she will not investigate further. Yet, on November 15, 2018, the Pre-Trial Chamber I went one step further, and directed the prosecutor to reconsider her decision.

This decision to direct the prosecutor is what led to the prosecutor’s appeal and this decision by the Appeals Chamber. Due to the September decision by the Appeals Chamber, the prosecutor must now once again reconsider whether she will investigate further into this attack by the Israeli Defense Forces. The Appeals Chamber however, made sure to clarify that this decision does not take away the prosecutor’s power to ultimately decide whether or not to initiate an investigation.

Despite this clarification, this decision by the Appeals Chamber leads one to question whether this is truly the case. It will be interesting to see how the court responds if the prosecutor decides once again not to investigate further.

For further information, please see: 

International Criminal Court – Situation of the Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: ICC Appeals Chamber Rejects the Prosecutor’s Appeal – 2 Sept. 2019 

International Criminal Court – Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on Concluding the Preliminary Examination of the Situation Referred by the Union of Comoros: “Rome Statute Legal Requirements Have Not Been Met” – 6 Nov. 2014 

The Guardian – Israeli Attack on Gaza Flotilla Sparks International Outrage – 31 May 2010

 

EHCR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request to Block Denmark Deportation

By: Brianna Ferrante
Impunity Watch News Reporter

RABAT, MOROCCO- The European Court of Human Rights has unanimously rejected Moroccan Said Mansour’s appeal against being deported from Denmark for his terror-related convictions in fear of being subjected to torture.

 

Said Mansour prior to his deportation from Denmark. Photo courtesy of Carl Redhead

A court in Denmark had previously convicted Mansour in July of 2015 on charges related to the editing and publishing of three books and multiple Facebook posts considered to be terrorist propaganda.

The works were written and distributed by Mansour for the purposes of praising Osama Bin Laden and encouraging readers and followers to join an al-Queada affiliate in Syria known as the al-Nursa Front. Mansour was sentenced to four years in prison and had his Denmark citizenship revoked.

Additionally, the Moroccan ambassador to Denmark has previously stated Mansour is suspected for his alleged involvement in a 2003 terror attack that claimed the lives of 42 people in Casablanca. Since his release from prison, he was deported to Morocco on January 4th.

Mansour’s appeal to the ECHR was premised on Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights, which he alleged his deportation would directly conflict with.

Article 3 prohibits anyone from being subjected to torture, inhumane or degrading treatment of punishment. Mansour argued that he would be in danger in the north African country, due to his publicized criticisms of its king and the government.

The ECHR rejected this claim unanimously, relying  on international reports that the human rights situation in Morocco has generally improved over several years, and that the authorities have been working to improve and increase compliance with internationally mandated human rights standards.

For more information, please see:

The Local Denmark- European Court of Human Rights Upholds Danish Deportation of Former Citizen Who Incited Terror. February 14, 2019. 

Morocco World News- ECHR Rejects Said Mansour’s Request Against Deportation. February 15, 2019.

Yaabiladi English- European Court of Human Rights Endorses Mansour’s Deportation. February 15, 2019.