By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 YUCATAN, Mexico – Litigators, Raul Lugo Rodríguez and Jorge Fernandez, from the Indigenous Group insist that Ricardo Ucan Seca’s fundamental human rights were violated because he was not provided with defense counsel that spoke in his Indigenous Mayan language during Ucan Seca’s trial. Ucan Seca has been detained in the Social Rehabilitation Center of Merida since 2000. Ucan Seca filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the Mexican State alleging violations to the American Convention for Human Rights.

The State of Yucatan argued to the IACHR that fourteen judges, both state and federal, determined that Ucan Seca is guilty of Bernardino Chan’s homicide. However, in 2007, the Commission on Human Rights for the State of Yucatan identified irregularities by the defense counsel, Blanca Segovia Ruiz, in Ucan Seca’s trial.  

The Honorable Florentín Meléndez of IACHR asked the State to provide documentation to prove that the defense counsel was able to speak Maya when the defense counsel litigated Ucan Seca’s defense. IACHR also requested more evidence of the due process procedures when Ucan Seca was determined guilty by the trial court.    

Alejandro Negrin, Executive Director of the Council on Human Rights in Mexico, sought to become a mediator between the State and Ucan Seca, to bring a quicker resolution to the matter since Ucan Seca has been imprisoned for the last ten years. Nonetheless, Negrin testified to IACHR that in Ucan Seca’s case there was compliance with the American Convention for Human Rights and there were no rights violated.

For more information, please see:

Diario de Yucatán – Discrimina el Estado al pueblo – 6 November 2009

Tribuna – Ratifica Gobierno condena a indígena – 6 November 2009

Terra – Gobierno mexicano accede a buscar solución en caso debido proceso a indígena – 5 November 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an “essential crime fighting tool” because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun – Throwing Away the Key – 4 November 2009

Newsweek – 18 And a Life to Go – 4 November 2009

Washington Post – Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – 29 October 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

WASHINGTON, D.C., United States – On November 12, the United States Supreme Court will hear two cases on the issue of whether a juvenile can be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Advocates for the defendants argue that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The two cases the Supreme Court will hear originated in Florida. In Sullivan v. Florida, a thirteen year old was convicted of of armed robbery and rape. In Graham v. Florida, a seventeen year old was convicted of armed robbery. Both defendants had previous prior criminal records at the time they committed their crimes. They were both sentenced to life in prison without parole because of the seriousness of their offenses. Neither of the crimes resulted in death. Florida currently incarcerates seventy-seven out of the one hundred eleven juveniles sentenced to life in prison without parole in the United States for crimes that did not result in death.

Advocates for both Sullivan and Graham will argue that a life sentence without parole for a juvenile convicted of a non-homicidal crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Only ten other countries in the world allow juveniles to be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Only the U.S. and Somalia have not signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which bans the sentence of life imprisonment without parole for children. The attorneys for both defendants also will use scientific and psychological information to show the sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. According to one study, for instance, adolescents and children are more susceptible to peer pressure and focused on short term rewards. Therefore, they should not be subject to the same sentences as adults.

Those arguing against Sullivan and Graham state that the sentences they received may have been harsh but were constitutional. They argue that the sentence is an “essential crime fighting tool” because of the high crime rates of juveniles. For example, according to a 2002 World Health Organization survey, the number of murders committed by U.S. juveniles was comparable to Colombia and Mexico. Supporters of the sentence also argue that it is needed to hold those who committed the crimes responsible.

For more information, please see:

Baltimore Sun – Throwing Away the Key – 4 November 2009

Newsweek – 18 And a Life to Go – 4 November 2009

Washington Post – Supreme Court Will Consider Life Sentences for Juveniles – 29 October 2009

By Brenda López Romero
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

 DURANGO, México – Durango Governor Ismael Hernandez Deras has just issued a statement that journalist Bladimir Auntuna Garcia’s killing will be investigated by the Special District Attorneys Office against Aggression to Journalists. The Governor lamented the journalist’s death and said that the state government would fully support an investigation of the homicide. Hernandez Deras committed himself to follow up on the results from the DA’s investigation.

Gabriela Gallegos Ávila, President of the World Association for Women Journalists expressed concerns that there was no guarantee that the government would do its job, properly investigate, and bring justice to Auntuna Garcia. Further, Gallegos Avila is worried about the safety of journalists to practice in their fields.

Within the last year alone there have been four journalist homicides in Durango and only two of them have been resolved. In the Tiempo de Durango, a group of communications specialists wrote a joint article to condemn the homicides and to demand the government fully investigate and resolve the murders and safety issues.

Local print, radio, and television reporters agree that the message of Auntuna Garcia’s death is to induce intimidation for journalists in Durango. There was a police leak that the deceased journalist wrote a message before his killing that stated: “this happened for passing information to the military and writing about more than I should, take care of what you write, and do not pass information to anyone or what happens to me can happen to you. Sincerely Bladimir Antuna.”

A print reporter indicated that the message was a warning to journalists. He confided that the criminals were reaching their objective: “to terrorize all those that worked in media communications from reporters to directors.”

The National Comisión on Human Rights (NHCR) denounced the violence against reporters in Mexico and demands the government make an efficient investigation. NCHR will conduct its own investigation.  

For more information, please see:

El Universal – CNDH dara seguimiento a crimen de periodista de Durango – 4 November 2009

La Jornada – La PGR atraerá el caso del asesinato de Bladimir Antuna – 4 November 2009

Vanguardia – Inicia CNDH queja de oficio por homicidio de un periodista en Durango – 4 November 2009

 

By Stephen Kopko   

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

NEW YORK, United States – The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on Monday that a Canadian man cannot sue former United States government officials for civil damages. Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, claimed that he was held in the United States by law enforcement and then transported to Syria where he was tortured.

In 2002, Arar was apprehended at JFK Airport by law enforcement. U.S. and Canadian officials suspected Arar had links to Al Qaeda. He was held in New York for thirteen days and then transported to Syria. Arar was imprisoned in Syria for one year and claimed he was tortured. He was released in 2003 and returned to Canada. The Canadian government later acknowledged they provided the U.S. with faulty information about Arar’s links to terrorism. The government also compensated Arar with ten million dollars.

The U.S. used the practice of extraordinary rendition to detain and then to transport Arar to Syria. Extraordinary rendition is the government policy of transporting suspects of terrorism to other countries for detention and interrogation. The suspects are not charged with a crime or provided with a legal hearing. The policy has been used by U.S. intelligence agencies since the mid-1990s. It was employed by the Bush Administration after the September 11, 2001 attacks as a tool to fight the war on terror.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that questions regarding extraordinary rendition and the remedies that stem from its usage are legislative questions. It also said the separation of powers would be violated if the Court found an appropriate remedy where one did not exist. Further, the Court stated that if it was to ask questions regarding extraordinary rendition, U.S. foreign relations would be compromised and other countries would be less willing to exchange or cooperate in interrogating terrorists.

In his dissent, Judge Barrington Parker countered the majority’s separation of powers argument, writing that the judiciary has the power to hear the case and issue a remedy because of the system of checks and balances. Judge Guido Calabresi wrote that the majority’s opinion was in “utter subservience to the executive branch.”

For more information, please see:

MSNBC – Appeals Court: Detained Canadian Cannot Sue the U.S. – 2 November 2009

New York Times – Federal Appeals Court Rejects Rendition Suit by Maher Arar – 2 November 2009

USA Today – Court: Victims of ‘Extraordinary Rendition’ Can’t Sue U.S. Unless Congress Approves – 2 November 2009