By: Wendy Neeley

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NEW YORK, United States – On September 14, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States in a 5-4 decision denied the stay of a permanent injunction on behalf of Yeshiva University. This decision came just five days after Justice Sotomayor granted an order that the injunction be stayed. Justice Sotomayor was one of the justices in the majority that reversed the decision without prejudice.

Yeshiva University filed an emergency application to the Court to seek relief from the injunction from the New York trial court. The injunction is “requiring the University to treat an LGBTQ student group similarly to other student groups in its student club recognition process.” Yeshiva, in its emergency application to the supreme court, contended that complying with the order “would violate its sincere religious beliefs about how to form its undergraduate students in Torah values.” The University is arguing that the injunction is a violation of its First Amendment and Free exercise rights. The YU Pride Alliance first brought a claim of “sexual orientation and gender discrimination” to the New York trial court in April 2022. In the reply to the emergency application, YU Pride claimed that the University has, over the course of years, “refused to allow the Pride Alliance (and its predecessors) to operate as an official club solely because of the sexual orientation of the club’s members and its LGBTQ inclusive mission.”

The trial court relied on New York City Human Rights Law to decide on the injunction and found that “Yeshiva is not a religious entity and has no right to control how its religious beliefs and values are applied on its campuses.” Due to the denied emergency stay the University is required to comply with the injunction although they have other legal avenues available to them to have the decision reversed. For now, according to the Yeshiva University news website,
Yeshiva University and the YU Pride Alliance “have independently agreed that a stay should be entered to allow Yeshiva University to appeal a ruling against it without the threat of sanctions.”

 

For further information, please see:

Supreme Court of the United States – Yeshiva v. YU Pride, No. 22A184 (2022)

Supreme Court of the United States – Emergency Application for Stay – Yeshiva v. YU Pride, No. 22A_ (2022)

Supreme Court of the United States – Response to Application – Yeshiva v. YU Pride, No. 22A184 (2022)

Supreme Court of the United States – Order of Temporary Stay – Yeshiva v. YU Pride, No. 22A184 (2022)

YUNews – Both Sides in Yeshiva University Lawsuit Agree to a Stay – 22 Sept. 2022

NBCNEWS – Supreme Court rejects Orthodox Jewish university’s emergency request to deny official recognition to LGBTQ student group – 14 Sept. 2022

By: Rachel H Sanders

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Articles Editor

STRASBOURG, France – Armenia was found guilty of right-to-life violations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights for the 2009 death of an Armenian national conscript. This decision was the result of a protracted legal fight after the complainant brought a case for his son, 22-year-old Ashot Malkhasyan who was found to have been put unjustifiably in danger through compulsory military service leading to his death.

The unjustifiable danger was predicated by Malkhasyan’s diagnoses of: (i) cardial incompetence; (ii) reflux oesophagitis; (iii) laceration of the mucous membrane of the cardia; (iv) Mallory-Weiss syndrome; (v) superficial gastritis and established bleeding; (vi) hiatal hernia; and (vii) Gilbert’s syndrome. Despite numerous submissions of Malkhasyan’s medical records, each highlighting the severity of these diseases, the Arabkir military commissar, A.U., initially refused to allow Malkhasyan a thorough medical examination.  In fact, the A.U. stated that Malkhasyan would be found fit for conscription even with an exam.

This A.U.’s assertion was proven true when the Erebuni Medical Centre delivered its final diagnosis of gastrointestinal motility disorders induced by psychological stress; a diagnosis which did not acknowledge any of the previous diagnoses nor the results of medical tests carried out that week by the center. Additionally, the A.U. ordered the removal of several documents from Malkhasyan’s medical records. The day after this diagnosis, Malkhasyan was sent to military service with no recourse. As a result, after approximately ten days, on July 5^th, 2009, Malkhasyan died from his diseases which were later reconfirmed at autopsy.

Malkhasyan’s father brought a claim post-mortem to the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”) after the charges he had filed against the Head of the Conscript Assembly Point Medical Commission and two members of the Central Medical Commission were dismissed as being time-barred effectively ending all criminal proceedings into the matter. An initial investigation ordered by the Minister of Defense found that, had the A.U.  and the Central Medical Commission properly examined Malkhasyan’s medical records, he would not have been found fit for conscription. Despite this, as of July 2014, the investigator had discontinued all proceedings forcing the applicant to submit multiple complaints as well as appeals to the Armenian courts. It took until June 2015 for the Court of Cassation to issue an order quashing the decision to terminate the case, which resumed in in November 2015.  However, by July 2017, the investigator fully ended all proceedings without indictments despite finding that the A.U. had overstepped his public authority.

The complainant submitted the case to the Court claiming violations of Articles 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). The Court held that military authorities and medical professionals involved in Malkhasyan’s conscription disregarded his medical history which led to the decision that he was fit for military service.  Additionally, the Court found that the lengthy and ineffective eight-year investigation did not satisfy the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2. The Court concluded that Armenia violated both the substantive and procedural limbs of Article 2 of the Convention and required the country to pay the applicant 35,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages and EUR 2,500 in costs and expenses.

 

For further information, please see:

Aravot – European Court’s judgement on the death of a conscript in Armenian army: military authorities put his life in danger – 11 Oct. 2022

ECHR – Military authorities put conscript’s life in danger by finding him fit to perform military service despite serious health issues – 11 Nov. 2022

By: Marissa Freeman

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations, Senior Articles Editor

TEHRAN, Iran – The wearing or not wearing of the hijab has been a controversial topic in Iran for many years, mainly because the way Iranian women dress is very different based on their socioeconomic, religious, cultural, and political backgrounds.  The use of the hijab first became the subject of legislation in 1936 by Monarch, Reza Shah. Shah wanted women to remove their veil or “hijab” under his “unveiling” order. Shah’s vision of modernity included changing what Iranian women had to wear. As such, from 1941-1979 there were no laws requiring Iranian women to wear hijabs. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution reintroduced the idea of hijab guidelines and since April 1983, Iranian women have been legally obligated to wear their hijab in public–including non-Muslims and foreigners visiting Iran. It is important to note, however, that the crimes of “bad hijab” or “improper hijab” are not defined by law, therefore, morality police are given wide discretion and may “crackdown” on women at their choosing. If a woman is found to be improperly wearing her hijab in public, she is usually escorted by the morality police to a class where she is mandated to sign a form assuring that she will never commit such an offense again. These women are also forced to learn Islamic values as a means of “rehabilitation”.

During the past few decades, Iranian women’s groups (and men) have protested, seeking change in the current hijab laws. Iranian women have fought this notion of “proper dress” by wearing the clothing and makeup they choose to, putting themselves at risk of criminal punishment. This resistance and unrest in Iran has skyrocketed following the death of Mahsa Amini–a twenty-two-year-old woman–while in the custody of Iran’s morality police. Amini was accused of improperly wearing her hijab or “cover” and was taken by Iranian morality police where she was beaten into a state of unconsciousness. Sadly, Amini passed away, succumbing to a heart attack as a result of her severe injuries. Following Amini’s death, thousands have joined protest efforts throughout Iran. In response to these demonstrations, Iranian security forces have responded with live ammunition– killing, injuring, and arresting protesters. As of September 27, the death toll was 41, but this number has likely increased.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (“OHCHR”)–the leading United Nations (“UN”) entity in the area of human rights–has expressed great concern with Iran’s violent response to the growing hijab protests. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has publicly pleaded with Iranian security forces to stop using “unnecessary or disproportionate force”. Further, the OHCHR has publicly reminded Iranian authorities to “fully respect the rights to freedom of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association, as a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.” With this rise in protests and public support from UN members, there is hope among Iranians that the mandatory hijab laws will be reformed in accordance with modern belief.

 

For further information, please see:

The Conversation – Hijab law in Iran over the decades: the continuing battle for reform – 7 Oct. 2022

Deadline – Hackers Interrupt Iranian State TV News Bulletin In Protest Following Death of Mahsa Amini – watch – 9 Oct. 2022

MSNBC – Why Mahsa Amini’s death could be a turning point for women in Iran – 30 Sept. 2022

UN News – Iran: UN condemns violent crackdown against hijab protests – 27 Sept. 2022