Will Justice Prevail After Jean-Claude Duvalier’s Return to Haiti?

By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti – Amnesty International and other human rights groups want legal investigation and prosecution for former dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier.  Duvalier unexpectedly returned to Haiti in 2011 after spending 25 years in exile.  During his 15 years as dictator in Haiti, thousands of people were tortured, killed, or went missing.  Some support Duvalier’s recent return, but many more seek justice.

Thousands of people were killed, tortured, or went missing during Jean-Claude Duvaliers 15-year presidency in Haiti.  (Image courtesy of CNN)
Thousands of people were killed, tortured, or went missing during Jean-Claude Duvalier's 15-year presidency in Haiti. (Image courtesy of CNN)

Jean-Claude Duvalier became president in 1971 at the age of 19, earning him the nickname, “Baby Doc.”  He took over for his father, Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, according to The Washington Post.  After serving as a dictator for 15 years, he was exiled to France and did not return until January 2011.

Amnesty International recently published a report encouraging the current authorities to seek prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier.  According to CNN, Amnesty International’s 40-page report highlights the arbitrary detentions, torture, deaths in custody, killings and disappearances of Haitians during Duvalier’s 15 years in power.  Special Advisor at Amnesty International, Javier Zuniga went on to describe the abuse as systematic and widespread and that some of the actions “amount to crimes against humanity.”

Haitian authorities already indicted Duvalier for embezzlement, theft of public funds and crimes against humanity committed during his presidency according to Amnesty.org.  Further,  CNN reports that the embezzlement case alleges hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the national treasury.  Amnesty International has already provided copious amounts of documented abuses to aid in the prosecution.

Not all Haitians are seeking legal repercussions however.  At an Amnesty International conference with authorities, protestors showed up in support of Duvalier, criticizing Amnesty as “imperialists” who wanted to divide the country, as reported by The Washington Post.

The bigger hurdle seems to be Haiti’s judicial system in general.  Many are questioning why Duvalier has been back in the country for 8 months without any legal repercussions.  Amid a seemingly stalled investigation, concerns for Duvalier’s health have come into play.  As reported by The Guardian, he was recently hospitalized for chest pains and many fear he will die before justice will be served.

According to The Guardian, Duvalier is currently under a very loosely enforced version of house arrest.  He is reportedly living lavishly in a suburb of Port-au-Prince, visiting friends and even attending jazz concerts.

“The cases of human rights abuses we documented in Haiti are likely to be only a small proportion of what really happened during Duvalier’s rule,” said Zuniga.  Amnesty International and other human rights groups will continue to seek justice for the impunity created under Duvalier’s rule.

For more information, please visit:

Amnesty International — Haiti Urged to Bring Jean-Claude Duvalier to Justice — 22 Sept. 2011

CNN — Human Rights Group: Bring Duvalier to Justice in Haiti — 22 Sept. 2011

The Guardian — Will “Baby Doc” Duvalier Ever Face Justice in Haiti? — 22 Sept. 2011

The Washington Post — Protestors in Haiti Reject Amnesty International Report on Former Dictator — 22 Sept. 2011

Oman Court Jails Newspaper Editors Over Government Corruption Allegations

By Tyler Yates
Impunity Watch Reporter, Middle East

MUSCAT, Oman — A court in Oman has ordered two senior journalists to be jailed for five months after they insulted the justice minister.  The court also ordered the closing of Ibrahim al-Maamary Yussuf and al-Haj’s newspaper, Azzaman, for one month.

Al-Mukeebli, an Omani civil servant, was also sentenced to five months in jail, presumably for giving information to the newspaper about the case.

The three men were convicted of “insulting” Justice Minister Mohamed al-Hanai and his under secretary of state by accusing them of “fraud, deception, and prevarications.”

The insults were published in Azzaman, and were included in a May 14 article alleging corruption inside the justice ministry.  Specifically, the article accused the justice minister and his deputy of refusing to grant salary and grade increases to al-Mukeebli, described as a longtime civil servant.

In response to the article the justice minister brought charges of slander against the newspaper, which led to the court’s ruling.

Ahmed al-Ajmi, the defense lawyer for the three men, has succeeded in getting them freed on bail and the order closing the newspaper suspended, until an appeal on 15 October.

The newspaper will continue to operate until the appeal decision is reached.

The case has given rise to complaints about media suppression in the Gulf Arab nation, which underwent pro-reform protests earlier this year.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has called on the appeals court to immediately overturn the lower court’s decision, citing that the charges appear to violate international standards of freedom of expression, including the right to criticize government ministers.

“Journalists should be permitted to report freely about the government without fear of criminal charges and retribution,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at HRW. “Omani authorities shouldn’t use the courts to silence independent publications critical of the government.”

Freedom of expression is guaranteed under international human rights law.  The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) holds that “everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression…to seek, receive, and impart information, and ideas of all kinds.”

Oman is not party to the ICCPR, but the covenant serves as an authoritative guideline that reflects the international standard.  Accepted international standards only allow restrictions of the press in extremely specific circumstances, for example cases of slander or libel against private individuals or speech that threatens national security.

For more information, please see:

Human Rights Watch — Oman: Newspaper Verdict Aims to Silence Dissent — 23 Sept. 2011

The National — Oman jails newspaper editor for slandering justice minister — 22 Sept. 2011

BBC News — Oman editors jailed for ‘insulting’ justice minister — 21 Sept. 2011

Boston Globe — Oman paper shut for month over corruption series — 21 Sept. 2011

Times of Oman — Oman journalists get jail terms for insulting minister — 21 Sept. 2011

An End to an Era of Silence: U.S. Repeals Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy

By Ryan T. Elliott
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America/Oceania

WASHINGTON D.C., United States — The policy “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) was officially repealed Wednesday. The history of the policy is an interesting one. The repeal marks a major step forward for the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community. However, at the time of its enactment, the policy was viewed as a progressive step forward because it allowed individuals to serve in the military regardless of their sexual orientation.

DADT repeal becomes effective as of September 20, 2011
DADT repeal becomes effective as of September 20, 2011. (Photo courtesy of Liberty Voice)

The policy was a product, and some may say a compromise, of the Clinton Administration. The policy became a legal reality under 10 U.S.C. § 654 on December 21, 1993. The Clinton Administration also issued a Defense Directive, which provided that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.

The policy’s well-known name is derived from its provisions, which allowed gay men and women to serve in the armed forces so long as they did not reveal their sexual identity.  The government’s rationale for the policy has often been explained in terms of the negative impact that gays, lesbians and bisexuals serving openly would have on the morale, discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essential to military capability.

The “Don’t Ask” provision of the policy mandated that military officials were not to ask members to reveal their sexual orientation. This meant that superiors couldn’t investigate service members without witnessing prohibited behavior or receiving credible evidence of homosexual behavior.  Meanwhile, the “Don’t Tell” provision meant that members could be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual, or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities.

The two other, less well-known, provisions followed later. They included the “Don’t Pursue” and “Don’t Harass” provisions. The “Don’t Pursue” provision simply established the basic requirements that would be necessary in order for officials to initiate an investigation. And due to unauthorized investigations and harassment, the policy was expanded to include a “Don’t Harass,” which really applied to all service members, and directed a zero tolerance provision of harassment or violence against service members.

At its outset, the policy was thought to be an even-handed approach that would allow gays and lesbians to enlist and serve in the armed forces. However, history confirmed that the policy was anything but impartial. In fact, the policy created an environment where no one was punished for asking, but where the military discharged nearly 14,000 troops from the military for “telling.”

Realizing the unfairness of this policy, in 2008, President Obama campaigned on the promise to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” But this promise only began to gain real momentum and garner national attention after the Pentagon released a report on the issues associated with a repeal of DADT. The report gathered information from more than 100,000 surveys returned by service members and their spouses. The major findings of the study were: (1) allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly posed a “low risk” of disruption; and (2) nearly 70 percent of active-duty and reserve forces saw little or no problem with ending DADT.

However, in a 13-page section of the report, dozens of quotes reflected the attitudes of the remaining 30 percent. Among these views, the Washington Post reported that these individuals expressed fears about: (1) contracting AIDS; (2) getting leered at in the showers; (3) disturbing critical bonding at barbecues and bar outings; (4) affronts to religious beliefs; and (5) that this is not the appropriate time to make major changes in the military when we are at war and our men and women overseas.

Despite these divergent views, it is clear the latter is now in the minority. Last year, a California federal judge, Virginia Phillips, ruled that the DADT policy violates service members’ free-speech and due process rights. Now, the law that for nearly 18 years has banned gay Americans from openly serving in the armed forces was repealed Tuesday. This repeal comes nine months after Congress voted to end the law that began during the Clinton Administration.

While President Obama signed the repeal into law last December, its provisions required time for the Pentagon to prepare for the policy changes. For the estimated 65,000 gay members currently serving in the military, the years of debate and months of preparation are finally over. For the first time in the history of the United States, gay service men and women can serve openly in the armed forces without fear of being discharged.

For more information, please see:

Is the Constitutionality of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Still at Issue? – 21 September  2011

With Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ An Era Ends  20 September 2011

“The Legal Brief” — May 2010

261 DADT Discharges in 2010 – 25 March 2011

Obama calls for ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal –27 January  2010

Obama Signs Away ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – 22 December  2010

Senate Repeals Ban Against Openly Gay Military Personnel – 18 December 2010

New bill introduced to end ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ – 11 December  2010

Voices from the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ report of troops who oppose repeal – 30 November 2010

 

Protests in China Over Land Seizures

By: Jessica Ties
Impunity Watch Reporter, Asia

BEIJING, China – Protests continue into a fourth day in China where residents are expressing anger that land taken by the government has remained idle for years.

Protests of land takings in China have led to violence by both protestors and government authorities (Photo Courtesy of Radio Free Asia).
Protests of land takings in China have led to violence by both protesters and government authorities (Photo Courtesy of Radio Free Asia).

Police have been exercising control of Guangdong’s Lufeng city as citizens protest not only the government’s taking of farmland but also the inadequate compensation paid by officials.

 Reportedly, the protesters had only received 500 yuan per person, the equivalent of 78 American dollars, in compensation. The amount of compensation is shockingly low when compared to the $156 million paid by developers for the most recently seized plots.

According to Lufeng city officials, the land has been sold to be used for the development of industrial parks and high priced housing. There have also been reports that developers intend to use the land to build a luxury holiday resort, tourism villas and a neon-lit nightclub.

One protester, Chen, stated that the police “…have been sitting on that land and not using it, while more than 10,000 people in our area have no land to cultivate.”

A local resident and protest participant, Yang, estimated that between 3,000 and 4,000 people took part in the first day of protest which began on Wednesday following reports that more than 800 acres of the land that had been taken from farmers had been sold.

By Thursday several hundred armed officers and riot police were dispatched to disperse protesters.  Violence increased following the detention of several protesters by police as fellow protesters attacked the police station and overturned two police cars in demanding release of those who had been detained.

According to a local resident, the four individuals who were detained haven’t been released and the police have become increasingly violent, sending several people to the hospital including two thirteen year old children who were seriously harmed.

Chen described the nature of such attacks:  “[a]t about 10:00 a.m. [Thursday], the villagers were having a meeting, when [the police] suddenly drove up and starting beating people.”  

The villagers retaliated against police violence by vandalizing four police cars, besieging government buildings, overturning SWAT team vehicles and attacking police officers. The clashes resulted in more than a dozen protesters being injured by police batons.

It has also been reported that residents have attacked local businesses, including a factory and a livestock farm. On Friday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside of government offices, banging gongs, chanting and carrying banners reading “Return our farmland!”

Thousands of protests, many of which become violent, by local communities in China are sparked each month by official land acquisitions that result in lucrative offers for officials while the landowner receives little compensation in return.

 

For more information, please see:

Reuters – Land Grab Protest in S. China Simmers for 4th Day – 24 September 2011

The Wall Street Journal – Riots Erupt Over Land in China – 24 September 2011

The New York Time – Farmer’s in China’s South Riot Over Seizure of Land – 23 September 2011

Radio Free Asia – Protests Intensify After Clashes – 23 September 2011

“Responsibility to protect has arrived,” UN Secretary-General says

By Polly Johnson
Senior Desk Officer, Europe

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered remarks at a roundtable discussion on Friday in New York (Photo Courtesy of UN News Centre).
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon delivered remarks at a roundtable discussion on Friday in New York (Photo Courtesy of UN News Centre).

NEW YORK, United States – United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stressed the importance of the “responsibility to protect” populations from genocide, war crimes, and atrocities at the Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Responsibility to Protect: Responding to Imminent Threats of Mass Atrocities, held in New York yesterday and co-hosted by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Guatemala, in association with the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.

Ban, who delivered remarks at the meeting, began by noting that Responsibility to Protect, which has become known as “R2P” is at a “critical moment,” as since its endorsement by the World Summit in 2005, “this doctrine has gone from crawling to walking to running.”

R2P’s mission and doctrine is rooted in protecting populations from crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and atrocities. The roundtable discussion was meant to share ideas, discuss responses and policy instruments, and initiative effective and coordinated international responses.

Focusing his remarks on how to put R2P’s mission into action, Ban noted that information and assessments about states under stress must be shared. “Effective prevention requires early, active and sustained engagement,” he said, adding that R2P and the international community “need to look at our development, capacity-building and peace-building programmes through the lens of atrocity prevention to be sure they are healing fissures within societies, not deepening them.”

Ban cited specific examples. He noted that in Libya, “the international community found the will and the means to respond.”

However, such responses are not the norm.  He cited Syria and Juba as examples of places where authorities have failed to meet their responsibility to protect.

Ban’s office will collaborate with other UN groups to conduct training sessions on genocide prevention and the R2P in South Sudan, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Colombia and Cambodia, among other places.

Mr. Ban concluded hopefully, commending the “remarkable progress to date” and sustained efforts contributing to the momentum. “Let us do our utmost to ensure that this umbrella of protection covers all who need it.”

For more information, please see:

UN News Centre – Responsibility to protect principle must cover all who need it, Ban says – 23 September 2011

UN Secretary-General Office of the Spokesperson – Secretary-General’s remarks at Breakfast Roundtable with Foreign Ministers on “The Responsibility to Protect: Responding to Imminent Threats of Mass Atrocities” – 23 September 2011

Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect – Joint Statement: Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on Responsibility to Protect: Responding to Imminent Threats of Mass Atrocities – 23 September 2011

Ministerial Roundtable Discussion on
Responsibility to Protect: Responding to Imminent Threats of Mass Atrocities