Uncategorized
Despite Newly Passed Avenues for Support to the ICC, the Biden Administration and Pentagon are at Odds in Determining Which Documents to Provide the ICC regarding Putin’s Actions in Ukraine
By: Patrick Farrell
Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Associate Articles Editor
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – As previously reported by Impunity Watch News, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Putin’s arrest due to his role in the atrocities perpetrated during Russia’s war in Ukraine. The public issuing of the warrant was heralded as a significant step for two major reasons. First, in deterring further crimes in Ukraine, and second, widespread support for the indictment has been characterized as a win for the basic principles of humanity. Yet, the Kremlin has directly condemned the ICC’s actions, labeling them as “outrageous and unacceptable” and even rejected the warrant. Given this response, the ICC is now in need of support for the investigation and eventual prosecution. With that said, the Biden Administration is currently at odds with the Department of Defense in determining the nature of the evidence that the United States will share with the ICC regarding Russian atrocities in Ukraine.
Following a National Security Council cabinet-level principals committee meeting on Feb. 3, President Biden has yet to make a decision to resolve the dispute. Although President Clinton signed the Rome Statute in 2000, he never sent it to the Senate for ratification, thus leaving the United States as a non-party to the Treaty. Further, in 1999 and 2002, Congress enacted laws that limited the support that the government could provide the ICC. However, following the bipartisan push to hold Putin accountable, Congress returned to the question of whether to help the ICC. Pursuant to regulations passed by Congress in December 2022, exceptions now exist that allow the U.S. Government to assist with “investigations and prosecutions of foreign nationals related to the situation in Ukraine.” These new laws, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act, the Justice for Victims of War Crimes Act, and the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act contain new elements highlighting the importance attached to supporting accountability for those responsible for atrocities such as these. Most importantly, the amendments in the Consolidated Appropriations Act allow the United States to provide assistance to the ICC Prosecutor’s efforts in Ukraine, even regardless of whether accusations have been made.
Despite these new powers, the Pentagon has maintained the position that the United States should remain separate from the ICC and that the Court should undertake its own investigation, especially since neither the United States nor Russia are parties to the Rome Statute.
Even amidst these internal tensions, national security experts and other government officials see an opportunity in using the ICC as a tool for enforcing accountability. According to John Bellinger, a lawyer for the National Security Council, the U.S. can assist in investigating and prosecuting war crimes by assisting the ICC, which is the successor to the Nuremberg tribunals. In addition, both Senator Lindsey Graham and Attorney General Merrick Garland have reiterated their commitment to helping Ukrainian prosecutors pursue Russian war crimes.
Even after modifications to longstanding legal restrictions which previously stifled America from aiding the ICC, a dispute now exists over whether the U.S. should provide such evidence. Still, it is hopeful that U.S. officials will come to a solution to assist the collaborative effort to bring justice for Russian atrocities committed in Ukraine.
For further information, please see:
Decision to Return Child to Father in USA Did Not Violate Mother’s Rights
By: Sallie Moppert
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer
STRASBOURG, France – The European Court of Human Rights (“ECHR”) handed down a decision on February 21, 2023 that determined no violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights had occurred in the case of G.K. v Cyprus regarding the right to respect privacy and family life. The ECHR found that the district courts in Cyprus had properly considered the arguments of all the involved parties and ruled out any harm to the child before ordering his return to his father in the United States.
Photo Courtesy of In-Cyprus.
G.K., a native of Cyprus, married a US citizen (“Father”) in 2016 and the couple had a son born that same year. One year later in October 2017, G.K. filed a domestic violence complaint against the Father and subsequently sought an order of protection before moving to a safe house. She eventually took her son, now one-year-old, from the US back to Cyprus with the assistance of the Cypriot authorities. The son was granted Cypriot nationality and a passport during this time.
The Father hired private detectives to locate G.K. and their son, eventually tracking them down in Cyprus. In 2018, he requested the US authorities to apply to the Cyprus authorities under the Hague Convention for the son’s return to the US. The Cypriot authorities filed an application and affidavit in the Family Court in Paphos, Cyprus requesting the son’s return to the US. G.K. objected, claiming that the son would be in danger due to the Father’s prior record of violence. The Father refuted these allegations and provided an affidavit that he had a stable job and could successfully provide for his child.
After an adjournment and postponement due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Court eventually ruled that the son should be returned to the US. The Father was determined to be a credible witness with consistent and persuasive testimony and evidence, while G.K.’s version of events was general, vague and contradictory. The Court found that she failed to provide evidence to demonstrate why the son should not be returned to the US. G.K. appealed, and the Family Court of Second instance affirmed.
G.K. argued that her right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was violated due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings and the Court’s decision to return her son to the US without adequately assessing the situation and risks involved. The Court disagreed, stating that the return of the son to the US was not an immediate decision, instead only being made after G.K. had the opportunity to cross-examine the Father, and the domestic courts had considered all the arguments of the parties before making a decision that was in the best interest of the child. The Court also determined that G.K. had not suffered a disproportionate interference with her right to respect for her family life.
For further information, please see:
Human Rights violations alleged against the Republic of Benin
By: Wendy Neeley
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer
Benin – On December 20, 2022, Eric Noudehouenou filed an application against the Republic of Benin with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Noudehouenou alleges several human rights violations against the respondent parties and asserts that many of these violations and actions were prohibited by previous judgments of the court. The allegations include violations of “respect for life and physical and moral integrity”, the “right to a fair trial”, the “right to freedom of opinion and expression”, the “right to freely associate with others”, and the “right to participate freely in the conduct of public affairs of one’s country”.
Noudehouenou filed the application on behalf of himself and other citizens of the Republic of Benin. Notably, the application states that Noudehouenou has been given power of attorney for Reckya Madougou. Madaougou was arrested while protesting the presidential election in 2021 which was prohibited by an earlier judgment of the court.
Benin is a West African country formerly known as Dahomey. It is underdeveloped and is ranked among the world’s poorest countries, but it has seen significant economic growth over the past few years. Although it is one of Africa’s more stable democracies, there is still some political unrest, as evidenced by the protests that resulted in the arrest of Madougou.
The application filed by Noudehouenou requests that the court enforce the judgments that would have prevented the 2021 Presidential Election and erase all of the effects of the election. He claims that not acting with urgency on the matter will cause irreparable harm. Additionally, the application calls for the suspension of Madougou’s detention. The circumstances around the arrest and trial have some questioning the conviction of acts of terrorism. Additionally, the application claims that Madougou is being held in appalling conditions and has not been allowed to communicate with her lawyers privately.
After reviewing the application, the court found that they can no longer take any measures regarding the 2021 Presidential election since it has already occurred, and the measures sought are not moot. Additionally, the court found no justification for the request for the suspension of the detention warrant for Reckya Madougou. Accordingly, and absent any further proceedings, she will be required to carry out her sentence of twenty years of imprisonment.
For further information, please see:
ACtHPR – Houngue Eric Noudehouenou v. Republic of Benin, 20 Dec. 2022
BBC News – Benin country profile – 16 Jan. 2023
Reuters – Benin opposition leader sentenced to 20 years in prison – 11 Dec. 2021
IACHR Calls Honduras to Protect Human Rights Defenders After at Least Five Murders this Year
By: Marie LeRoy
Impunity Watch News Staff Writer
HONDURAS — The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) demands that Honduras investigate the murders of Human Rights Defenders “effectively and with due diligence” after yet another vicious murder this year.
At least five human rights activists, who focused on environmental rights, have been reported to have been murdered this year in Honduras. According to the IACHR, some of the activists have been targeted because of their involvement in the protests against the “operation of an open-pit oxide mine” in an aera in Guapinol, Honduras that had been designated as an “forest reserve”. Open pit mining can pollute rivers and contaminate water which directly effects the rural communities in Honduras relying on the river. The activists claim that the mining allowance was illegally granted because of the “forest reserve” status of the land and therefore should be stopped. The mining company and local authorities have responded to these protests by allegedly targeted around thirty-two leaders of these environmental groups and “falsely accusing them of crimes”.
Local police and prosecutor in Honduras have attempted to attribute these deaths to incidences of local violence unrelated to the Human Right Defenders’ protests. Some reports by the local police have stated that the victims’ deaths were a result of a “botched mugging” although the victims were found with their cellphones and money.
The lack of efforts by the police, prosecutors, and authorities to investigate and protect these Human Rights Defenders, and to even attempt to “cover up” the crimes, has not gone unnoticed. Human Rights Defenders in Honduras have had a longstanding history of being violently targeted in attempts to silence them in their opposition and their organizations. The way in which these Human Rights Defenders’ have been routinely targeted include acts of intimidation, including intimidating messages, harassment, and death threats, to outright acts of violence, including acts up to and including murder.
These acts on Human Rights Defenders can result in fewer and fewer individuals willing to advocate for these causes as well as similar important causes. The effects of the decline in advocacy seeps into every aspect of life, polluting and decaying entire communities’ quality of life until Human Rights in general are a thing of the past. The IACHR demands Honduras “take all measures necessary to protect the rights to life, integrity, and safety of human rights defenders” to ensure the continuation of advocacy in Honduras.
For further information, please see:
Aljazeera – UN calls for probe into killing of two Honduran environmentalist- 12 Jan. 2023
IACHR- Press Release IACHR Condemns Murders of Right Defenders in Honduras- 14 Feb. 2023
The Guardian – Honduran environmental defenders shot dead in broad daylight – 11 Jan. 2023
ProtectDefenders.edu – Honduras: Violent attacks & murder of human rights defenders—9 Feb. 2023