Magnitsky’s Mother Sues Russian Judge for the Denial of Access to Justice

Press Release originally sent 23 Oct 2011
by The Hermitage Fund

23 October 2011 – Mrs. Natalia Magnitskaya, mother of the 37-year old anti-corruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died in a Russian pre-trial detention center two years ago after being subjected to torture and denied medical treatment, has sued a senior Moscow judge for the denial of access to justice. A hearing of her lawsuit is scheduled for Monday, 24 October, 13:30 at the Moscow City Court (8 Bogorodsky Val).

Mrs. Magnitskaya is suing Judge Igor Alisov, Chairman of the Tverskoi District Court in Moscow, for failure to consider her legal action to stop the prosecution by Russian authorities of her dead son, a prosecution denounced as barbaric and medieval by friends of her late son. In refusing to accept Mrs. Magnitskaya’s claim, Judge Alisov said that the criminal prosecution of a dead lawyer does not violate his mother’s rights and does not obstruct her access to justice.

Explaining the grounds for her lawsuit against Judge Alisov, Mrs. Magnitskaya says:

“Judge Alisov, in his position as Chairman of Tverskoi District Court, deprived me of the right to protection from courts. I believe he was obviously aware that this denial of justice was against the law. I consider his actions as a hidden form of mockery and manifestation of his conflict of interest.”
“Earlier, the Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia issued an unlawful and unconstitutional decree to prosecute my dead son making me a participant in that criminal proceeding. The fact that it is directly relevant to my rights is evidenced by summonses for questioning that I have received from Interior Ministry Investigator Sapunova who personally prosecuted my son,” says Mrs. Magnitskaya in the lawsuit.

On 30 July 2011, Deputy General Prosecutor of Russia (whose name has been withheld by authorities from the public and the Magnistky family) ordered the reopening of the prosecution against Mr. Magnitsky, who had been dead for 20 months by then. This was done under the pretext of a recent Constitutional Court ruling which allowed cases to be reopened against deceased defendants on application from their relatives for the purposes of reinstating their good name and rehabilitation. However, Mr. Magnitsky’s relatives did not apply for the case to be reopened. Instead of rehabilitation, the case is being used by the Russian Interior Ministry to prosecute Mr. Magnitsky after his death, using the same evidence that the Russian President’s Human Rights Council concluded was fabricated, and led by the same team of investigators that the Human Rights Council concluded in its report in July 2011 had a gross conflict of interest. Prior to his arrest in October 2008, Mr. Magnitsky testified against these investigators for their role in the theft of his client’s companies and the embezzlement of $230 million of public funds. He later gave testimony from detention regarding their role in the cover-up of these acts.

Instead of prosecuting the officials named by the Human Rights Council for the false arrest of Mr. Magnitsky on trumped-up charges, Russian authorities are now prosecuting Mr. Magnitsky. As part of this case, in August and September 2011, Mr. Magnitsky’s mother was summoned for questioning as a witness by the same Russian Interior Ministry officials who arrested Mr. Magnitsky to silence him and who tortured Mr. Magnisky or authorised his torture while he was  in custody.

On 5 September 2011, Mrs. Magnitskaya filed a lawsuit against the Deputy General Prosecutor for prosecuting her son after his death.

On 12 September 2011, Judge Igor Alisov refused to consider Mrs. Magnitskaya’s lawsuit against the Deputy General Prosecutor claiming—despite a very detailed filing setting out the grounds for her suit—that she was not a party to the proceedings and she did not justify how her rights have been violated by the reopening of the case against her son.

On 20 September 2011, Mrs. Magnitskaya filed a lawsuit against Judge Igor Alisov for failure to consider her lawsuit against Deputy General Prosecutor.

The lawsuit against Judge Alisov will be heard on Monday, 24 October, in the Moscow City Court. Mrs. Magnitskaya is represented by her counsel, lawyer Nikolai Gorokhov.

Judge Alisov is the same judge who in March 2011 absolved from any responsibility all of the officials named by Sergei Magnitsky as perpetrators of the $230 million theft. The judge instead convicted an ex-felon, previously convicted for burglary, of what has been called the largest financial crime in Russian history. This was done in a special proceeding that examined no evidence. Judge Alisov sought no compensation of the embezzled $230 million from the convict.

For further information please contact:

Hermitage Capital

+44 207 440 17 77
info@lawandorderinrussia.org
http://lawandorderinrussia.org

Facebook: http://on.fb.me/hvIuVI
Twitter: @KatieFisher__
Livejournal: http://hermitagecap.livejournal.com/

PILPG Piracy Working Group: UNSC Adopts Res. 2015 on Somali Piracy

Press Release originally sent 24 Oct 2011
by Public International Law and Policy Group

Unanimously adopting resolution 2015 (2011), the Council requested the Secretary-General, in conjunction with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), to further consult with Somalia and regional States on the kind of international assistance required to help make such courts operational, as well as the procedural arrangements required for the transfer of apprehended pirates, and to provide to the Council within 90 days detailed implementation proposals for the establishment of such courts.

Further, by the text, the Council underlined the importance of such courts having jurisdiction to be exercised over not only suspects captured at sea, but also anyone inciting or intentionally facilitating piracy operations.  This would include key figures of criminal networks involved in piracy who illicitly plan, organize, facilitate, or finance and profit from such attacks.

Recognizing that any increase in prosecution capacity must necessarily be accompanied by a related increase in prison capacity, the Council called upon both Somali authorities, UNODC, UNDP and other international partners to support the construction and responsible operation of prisons in Somalia in accordance with international law.

The Council called upon Member States, regional organizations and other appropriate partners to support efforts to establish specialized anti-piracy courts in the region by making or facilitating arrangements for the provision of international experts, including those from the Somali diaspora.

Police Detain up to Seven People for Protesting Land Confiscation

By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

 NAYPYIDAW, Myanmar – Burmese authorities have detained and charged up to seven individuals, including a Burmese rights lawyer, following a peaceful demonstration opposing the confiscation of farm land.

Seven people were detained for protesting land confiscation in Burma (Photo Courtesy of ABC News).

The detainees were arrested following a staged sit-in that occurred in front of the government housing department in Yangon and were charged with unlawful assembly and refusing to comply with a police order to disperse. These charges carry a potential sentence of six to twelve months in prison for those charged.

The detained rights attorney, Pho Phyu, was taken by police to an unknown location where the vice police chief allegedly engaged in negotiations with him. Pho Phyu has been an advocate in the campaign for farmer’s rights and has used his legal expertise to help farmers petition the government to prevent their land from being seized from them by with little or no compensation in return.

Pho Phyu explained the reason for the protest when he stated, “we have approached parliament for help but nothing happened, so we decided to take to the street.” He also explained that, “at first, they promised that joint-venture farming would be carried out between the farmers and private businessmen on these lands but nothing happened.”

In addition to dispersing the crowd of approximately 100 individuals, the police also confiscated the group’s signs and banners.

The protesters alleged that government authorities have seized about 10,000 acres of land and did not adequately compensate the owners in return. This figure was confirmed by the deputy agriculture minister who has testified that several thousand acres of farmland have been confiscated for urban development and mechanized farming. In return for the land, the government’s housing department paid the farmers only 20,000 kyat, or twenty-six American dollars, per acre.

Approximately half of the workforce in Myanmar is employed in the agriculture sector but farmers do not generally have the money or legal resources to challenge the evictions compelling them to accept the offers made by the government.

Protests in Myanmar during the reign of the military government were rare and brutally suppressed by the military.

The land grab protests, however, come shortly after the government’s promise of democratic reforms following the acquisition of power by an elected government. The government’s reaction to the protest has been seen as a test of the new government’s commitment to reform. The lack of violence used in dispersing the protesters was seen by some as a positive sign of the government’s commitment to reform.

 

For more information, please see:

ABC News – Myanmar Police Charge Seven for Staging Land Protest – 28 October 2011

BD News – Farmers in Rare Myanmar Protest – 27 October 2011

Radio Free Asia – Police Breakup Rare Protest – 27 October 2011

Reuters – Myanmar Police Shut Down Rare Protest – 27 October 2011

Lithuania Sued for Violating Human Rights at CIA Black Sites

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France – London-based human rights organization INTERIGHTS the International Centre for Legal Protection of Human Rights, and a team of United States-based lawyers filed a complaint on Thursday, October 27, 2011 against Lithuania on behalf of alleged al Qaeda terrorist, Abu Zubayadah at the European Court of Human Rights.

Abu Zubaydah, after his capture, suffered severe torture at the hands of CIA and European officials in the darkness of the CIA "black sites" (Photo Curtesy of ABC News)

The complaint sets forth that Lithuania failed to protect Zubaydah against various human rights abuses that occurred in a secret CIA detention facility on Lithuanian territory. The complaint also contends that the Lithuanian Prosecutor General “prematurely” closed a “superficial criminal investigation” which could have led to evidence showing Lithuania’s role in the human rights violations.

According to The New York Times, a statement issued last week stated that Lithuanian prosecutors have declined to reopen an investigation despite new information on the Zubaydah’s case provided by the rights groups.

Zubaydah was captured in March 2002 in Pakistan, where he was initially interrogated. Later, he was moved to a secret CIA detention facility in Thailand and thereafter to Morocco. Eventually, in February 2005, Zubaydah was relocated to Lithuania. Today, he is held at Guantanamo Bay where he “continues to languish in a legal vacuum” even though the United States has “no intention of initiating any legal action” against him.

A 2002 legal memorandum issued by Jay S. Bybee, the Justice Department’s head of the Office of Legal Counsel, describes Zubaydah as one of al Qaeda’s leaders, being a senior lieutenant to Osama bin Laden. He “managed a network of training camps” and was involved in every major terrorist operation carried out by al Qaeda before his capture. At the time of his capture, it was alleged that he was the most senior al Qaeda member to be caught since the September 2001 attacks.

Interestingly, according to INTERIGHTS’s press release on October 27, 2011 “all such allegations were formally withdrawn after Abu Zubaydah was finally afforded legal counsel.” The release goes on to say that, “the U.S. no longer even alleges that Abu Zubaydah was a member of al Qaeda or that he supported al Qaeda’s radical ideology. It no longer alleges that he was Osama bin Laden’s senior lieutenant. Nor does it allege that Abu Zubaydah had any role in, or knowledge of, any terrorist attack planned or perpetrated by al Qaeda, including the attacks of 11 September 2001.”

In 2009, a Justice Department memorandum from April 2005 was released detailing Zubaydah’s prolonged incarceration. It describes Zubaydah, upon being captured, was stripped of his clothes and held in a cold cell. Thereafter, Zubaydah revealed important information pertaining to al Qaeda, including information that led to the capture of Ramzi Binalshibh. Despite officers’ beliefs that Zubaydah had revealed everything he knew, CIA officials demanded that waterboarding be used to coerce more information. Zubaydah experienced waterboarding 85 times, yet he came forth with no new information.

The CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program (“RDI”) consisted of a world-wide network—something like a “spider’s web”—of disappearances, secret detentions, and otherwise illegal inter-state transfers of detainees suspected of having knowledge of or being an active member of terrorist groups, and in particular, al Qaeda. Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for the Council of Europe” has maintained that the RDI program has deeply violated the systems of justice and human rights protection.  There is “no doubt,” Hammarberg said, “that all 3 elements of this program have entailed systematic violations of human rights” for which the United States and European countries should be held accountable.

Danny Silverstone, the Executive Director of INTERIGHTS commented on Thursday, saying, “This is a unique case, shedding light on how the CIA’s extraordinary rendition, detention and interrogation programme operated. Although created by the U.S., this programme could not have been implemented without the active collaboration of numerous other countries around the world. This case is about Lithuania’s responsibility for its participation in serious violations of human rights, including torture, enforced disappearance and secret detention, and for its failure to conduct effective investigation into the existence of a secret CIA prison on its soil.”

 

For more information, please visit:

The New York Times – Lithuania: Terrorism Suspect Files Case Over C.I.A. Rendition Claim – 27 October 2011

INTERIGHTS – Abu Zubaydah, Victim of CIA’s Extraordinary Rendition, Seeks Accountability at the European Court of Human Rights – 27 October 2011

 

Growing Evidence of War Crimes in Libya; International Calls for Investigation

By Tyler Yates
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

TRIPOLI, Libya — The bodies of 267 people were discovered in Sirte, the birthplace of Qaddafi.  A source from the Red Cross noted that most of the dead appeared to be Qaddafi supporters.  The finding highlights what seems to be growing evidence of war crimes that occurred in the almost nine month Libyan conflict.

Medical and Militia officials prepare to remove corpses from a mass grave (Photo Courtesy of the International Business Times).

Officials told a local newspaper that it appeared the people were executed and then buried in mass graves.

The finding is just one in what has become a series.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) recently uncovered 53 bodies in an abandoned Sirte hotel.

95 other bodies were discovered at the site where Qaddafi was captured.  HRW said that most of those individuals had been killed in fighting or as a result of NATO airstrikes, however at least 10 of the bodies showed evidence of having been executed.

In September, a mass grave was discovered near the infamous Abu Salim prison in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.  It contained the remains of 1,200 bodies.  According to the accounts of former innmates the Qaddafi forces spent three hours shooting prisoners.

Medical officials in Sirte reported that the bodies of 23 anti-Qaddafi fighters were identified in mid-October.

The Libyan conflict has led the international community to conclude that both Qaddafi’s forces, and the anti-government rebel forces have been guilty of war crimes.

Amnesty International has noted that while Qaddafi’s forces did commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, members and supporters of the opposition, loosely structured under the National Transitional Council (TNC), are also guilty of war crimes and human rights abuses, “albeit on a smaller scale.”

Its report stated that members and supporters of the Libyan opposition “unlawfully killed” more than a dozen Qaddafi loyalists between April and July, and that some rebel supporters had “shot, hanged and otherwise killed through lynching dozens of captured soldiers and suspected mercenaries.”

The family of the deceased Qaddafi are planning on filing a complaint for war crimes against NATO with the International Criminal Court (ICC).  Their claim is based upon the idea that it was NATO’s actions since February 2011 that led to Qaddafi’s death.

There are numerous questions surrounding the death of Qaddafi who appeared to be alive at the time of his initial capture by the TNC. He died from a shot in the head, but the circumstances of how that happened have yet to be revealed.

Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, the son of the deceased dictator, is, according to officials in the TNC, attempting to arrange transportation to fly him out of his current refuge and into the custody of the ICC.  The decision was likely influenced by the violent killing of his father at the hand of the Libyan rebels, a fate he is attempting to escape.

The ICC is attempting to confirm this story so it can work out the best way to move the younger Qaddafi safely to the Hague.

The TNC is weighing its options with regards to trying the younger Qaddafi, though they did make it clear that if he was captured in Libya he would be tried according to traditional Libyan law.

The international community is putting the TNC under increasing pressure to lead investigations into the possible commission of war crimes by both sides.  It would be difficult for the TNC to bring their own supporters to court without facing a serious public backlash, however not holding the guilty responsible would just continue the human rights abuse impunity that acted a great motivator for the revolution.

The identity of the new Libya has yet to be formed, and a huge power vacuum is still looming in Tripoli.  The way it handles the clean up of its revolution will be a big indicator to what direction it is headed.

For more information, please see:

CNN — Lawyer: Gadhafi family to file war criminal complaint against NATO — 27 Oct. 2011

Reuters — Gaddafi son seeks flight to Hague war crimes court — 27 Oct. 2011

International Business Times — Hundreds of Gaddafi Supporters Killed in New ‘War Crime’ — 26 Oct. 2011

The Nation — Libya After Qaddafi — 26 Oct. 2011

NPR — Foreign Policy: Was Killing Gadhafi A War Crime? — 24 Oct. 2011