By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

MEXICO CITY, Mexico – The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) ruled today that the Mexican State is responsible for the triple femicides that occurred in 2001 in Juarez and Chihuahua. Mexico was legally sanctioned for damages and reparations in the amount of of $847,000 for the victims families. 

The Mexican government was accused of the murders of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, fifteen years old; Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, seventeen years old, and Claudia Ivette González, twenty years old.

Additionally, the Court ruled that Mexico must remove the barriers to the suit for these three murders and was ordered to raise a monument within a year in memory of the victims and maintain a permanent website with information on all the women, teenagers, and girls that have disappeared since 1993.

IACHR also condemned Mexico for the killing and disappearance of women that have occurred since 1993.  The Court considered the homicides as “alarming” and ruled that Mexico violated anti-discrimination rights of women and children, the right to life, integrity, personal liberty, integrity of the victims families, and did not meet its duty and obligation to protect its citizens. 

The Court acknowledged that Mexico had “realized a recognition of partial responsibility … but had not adopted reasonable measures, in accordance to the circumstances of the case, to find the victims alive.”  Furthermore, the Court stated that there was a common denominator in all the cases, the fact that all the victims were females. Mexico attributed the homicides to various motives, but conceded that the overriding factor was the “influence of the culture of discrimination against women.”

The Secretary of State stated “that it was worth mentioning that most of the orders of the judgment refer to actions that the fed and state government have already implemented.” 

For more information, please see:

Los Angeles Times – Court Cites Rights Failure by Mexico in Juarez Killings of Women – 11 December 2009

The Associated Press – OAS Court Condemns Mexico Probes of Women Slayings – 11 December 2009

The New York Times – Mexico: Rebuke on Investigation of Murders – 11 December 2009

By Stephen Kopko   

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States President Barack Obama accepted the Nobel Prize for Peace in Norway today. Obama accepted the award after asking Congress for an additional thirty thousand troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. During his acceptance speech, Obama gave his reasons for increasing the number of troops to continue the war in Afghanistan. 

In October, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the President the Nobel Prize for Peace. The award surprised many people around the world. Obama had only been in office less than a year before he was awarded the coveted prize. Obama was also surprised by the committee’s decision. After being notified of the recognition, Obama stated that he did not deserve to be in the company of past Peace Prize winners. He was humbled by the selection and would use it to promote important international objectives. These objectives include nuclear nonproliferation, settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and correcting the downturn in the global economy. 

Obama’s acceptance speech today focused on the current conflict in Afghanistan. Obama began his speech by saying that he was honored and humbled by being considered and recognized for the Peace Prize. He then stated that he admired past winners of the award that promoted nonviolent movements including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Obama then turned attention to the situation in Afghanistan. He stated that evil exists in the word and that he must defend the people of the United States against that evil, stating: “A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al-Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms.” 

Obama’s speech also outlined his definition of just war. He stated that the use of force is not cynical, but is a “recognition of history.” He then outlined three ways in which war is just. According to Obama, when a nation acts in self defense, in helping or aiding an invaded nation, and when acting in a humanitarian capacity after a nation murders its own citizens, force could be used. Obama also stressed how the United States should act when it is faced with using force. Wars should be fought according to the “rules of conduct.” He rejected the use of practices such as torture and the murder of innocent people. 

For more information, please see:

Christian Science Monitor – Left and Right, Pundits Applaud Obama Nobel Peace Prize Speech – 10 December 2009

MSNBC – Accepting Peace Prize, Obama Defends War – 10 December 2009

CNN – Nobel Peace Prize is “Call to Action” – 9 October 2009

By Brenda Lopez Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Obama Administration moved to settle a contentious case as “an important step towards reconciliation … I heard from many in Indian Country that the Cobell suit remained a stain on the nation-to-nation relationship I value so much” stated President Obama. He also said that he was proud the step had been taken. The Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said “this is an historic, positive development for Indian country.”

The Native American plaintiffs alleged the Interior Department mismanaged billions of dollars in national resources income from their lands. The Cobell class action lawsuit was filed in 1996. The government deal would provide $1.4 billion for 300,000 tribe members as compensation and set up a $2 billion fund to buy land from them.

The issue began with the 1887 Dawes General Allotment Act, which divided reservations into individually allotted parcels per Indian family, creating massive amounts of “surplus” land, usually very rich in natural resources, that was then handed over to white-owned industries. The federal government promised to compensate for the land loss. However, private land ownership is largely a foreign concept within Indigenous societies, peoples that generally view land as a communal asset.

Given that history, issues eventually arose over the adequate compensation that was promised. The class argued that the government, which was to oversee the Indian trust, actually mismanaged billions of dollars in oil, gas, grazing, and timber royalties.

(PHOTO: Ms. Cobell, Courtesy of BBC News)

The named plaintiff, Elouise Cobell (citizen of the Blackfoot Nation) welcomed the settlement, but she said there was “no doubt” the final amount was “significantly” less than what was actually deserved by Native Americans.  Based on their calculations, they estimate that they are owed $47 billion. Nonetheless, Cobell stated: “today is a monumental day for all of the people in Indian Country that have waited so long for justice.” Cobell also remarked, “did we get all the money that was due us? Probably not… but there are too many individual Indian beneficiaries that are dying every single day without their money.”

The Department of Interior plans, as part of the settlement, to buy back individual trust interest from individuals to free up lands for the benefit of tribal communities, but conceded that some class members would likely be distrustful of selling their interests. As an incentive to sell, the deal includes funding set aside up for to five percent of the value of the interests to go to higher education and vocational scholarships for Indigenous students.

In order for the settlement funds to become available Congress must pass legislation appropriating funds and approving the deal. Salazar said he hoped that this would occur before the end of the year.

For more information, please see:

BBC News – US to Pay $3.4bn to Settle Native Americans Land Case – 8 December 2009

Bozeman Daily Chronicle – American Indians at MSU Praise Cobell Settlement – 8 December 2009

Indian Country Today – Obama Administration Moves to Settle Cobell – 8 December 2009

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OHIO, United States – Kenneth Biros, a convicted murderer from Ohio, was executed today. Ohio prison officials used only one drug to perform the lethal injection. Normally a three drug cocktail is used to execute those who are condemned to death. It was the first time in the United States that a state has administered the death penalty using only one drug.

Biros was convicted of murdering Tami Engstrom in 1991. After murdering Engstrom, Biros spread her body parts around the Ohio and Pennsylvania area. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.  Biros’ death sentence was supposed to be administered in 2007. However, the U.S. Supreme Court delayed his execution to allow him to appeal the use of Ohio’s death penalty procedure. That procedure included injecting three different drugs into the prisoner. He argued that the three drug procedure caused extreme pain which violated the Eighth Amendment. Since Biros’ challenge, Ohio has reformed its death penalty procedure. 

Under Ohio’s new death penalty procedure, one drug is administered to the inmate instead of three. That drug, sodium thiopental, is the same drug that is used to euthanize animals. The new procedure is supposed to be less painful than the previous procedure. Both defense attorneys and injection experts agreed that the new procedure would not cause pain. However, there were concerns that the new procedure would take longer than the three drug procedure. 

Approximately ten minutes after Biros was injected with the drug, he passed away. Prison officials stated that they had two other drugs on standby in case the new procedure did not work. It was the first time that a state has used one drug to administer an execution. Before injecting the drug, prison officials struggled to find a vein in which to inject the drug. It took the officials thirty minutes to find a usable vein. 

Before the execution, Biros argued that his execution should be stayed on many different grounds. First, he argued that Ohio has not fixed its death penalty procedure that resulted in the stay of execution of Romell Broom. Prison officials eventually stopped the execution of Broom after two hours because they could not find a vein to inject the drugs. Broom’s execution was delayed by the governor of Ohio. Also, Biros argued that the new one drug procedure was untested and amounted to human experimentation. He argued that the new drug can wear off too quickly and prisoners could wake up and feel pain as the procedure progresses. Finally, Biros questioned the competency of Ohio’s executioners. 

The Supreme Court denied Biros’ request for a stay this morning. Previously, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Biros’ arguments for a stay. Currently, thirty-six states allow for the death penalty to be administered as a sentence. Thirty-five of those states use the three drug procedure.

For more information, please see:

CNN – Ohio Executes Inmate Using Single-Drug Method – 8 December 2009

The Guardian – Ohio Becomes the First U.S. State to Execute a Prisoner Using a Single Drug – 8 December 2009

MSNBC – Ohio Executes Killer with One-Drug Injection – 8 December 2009

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

TORONTO, Canada – The Vancouver City Council approved changes to the Olympic bylaws on Thursday, December 3, in response to concerns of civil rights advocates who feared the bylaws would place too heavy a burden on free speech rights. The Council has reduced the impact of the rules considerably. However; many feel the rules are still too restrictive of free speech.

The bylaws are provisions set up by the Vancouver City Council to serve as temporary measures during the Olympic Winter Games to be held there in 2010. The bylaws will make it easier for authorities to curb public disturbances during the games and quickly remove illegal signs. Anti-Olympic and free speech activists however have raised concerns that the temporary changes could be used to curb decent and limit the ability of protestors to convey their message.

Vancouver originally passed the bylaws in July. After public outcry over the provisions the city decided to revisit the rules and change some of the provisions.

One of the revisions has changed restrictions on sign posting so it only applies to commercial signs designed to capitalize on the game illegally. Originally, the rule applied to all signs and would have made it easy for police to remove any sign in a few days, a task which could take a month to accomplish under the city ordinances. Activists feared that this would be used to remove any signs used by protestors during the games.

The revised provision will have no effect on any protestor materials. Any signs used by protestors can only be removed under the city ordinance. As a result any protestor sign sought to be removed would remain up until after the games had ended.

Other provisions which had generated concern still remain in place. A ban on megaphones and noisemakers in designated Olympic areas remains unchanged and a ban on creating public disturbances was changed slightly to read to a ban on unreasonably interfering with the ability of others to enjoy the games.

City Manager Penny Ballem said “If somebody is creating a huge disturbance or disrupting entertainment or disturbing people who are there to enjoy the legitimate activities that we put into place, then we would have the ability, as you would in any other public place, to ask them to leave and if they persist to actually be able to remove them from the property.” The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and local police have both said that they will not use the bylaws to target protesters.

The failure to revise these provisions continues to generate concern among activist. David Eby of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association raised concerns at the City Council meeting  that criminal codes are already in place to deal with public disturbances and the new bylaws are unnecessary.

Two groups have previously filed lawsuits over the restrictions posed in July. Eby said that the new rules have addressed most of the issues raised in the complaint but did not say if the lawsuit would be dropped.

For more information, please see:

Xtra.ca – Vancouver City Council Somwhat Relaxes Olympic Security Bylaws – 4 December 2009

Canadian press – Vancouver Passes Bylaws Critics Say Will Limit Speech During 2010 Olympic games – 3 December 2009

Metro  News – Vancouver Passes Bylaws Critics Say Will Limit Speech During 2010 Olympics – 3 December 2009