THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) sentenced a man this week for refusing to testify against former Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj, who was charged with crimes against humanity for his actions while in the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) during its conflict with Serbian forces in 1998-1999.
Shefqet Kabashi did not give any reasons for his failure to testify for the second time in the trial of former Kosovo prime minister Ramush Haradinaj (Photo Courtesy of UN News Centre).
Shefqet Kabashi pleaded guilty on August 26 to two counts of contempt of court for his failure to testify in Haradinaj’s original trial in June 2007. Coincidentally, only four days before pleading guilty on August 17, Kabashi refused to testify once again in Haradinaj’s present retrial. The retrial had been scheduled for the sole purpose of obtaining Kabashi’s testimony. He gave no reasons for his current decision not to testify, though some Serbian media sources have reported witnesses being intimated and even murdered to prevent the dissemination of evidence. ICTY has denied those reports.
In handing down the ruling at The Hague, Judge Alphons Orie said that Kabashi had “deprived the trial chamber of the evidence relevant for an effective ascertainment of truth” in Haradinaj’s trial.
Kabashi served as a KLA guard during the 1998-1999 period, when Haradinaj, along with his subordinates Idriz Bala and Lahi Brahimaj, allegedly committed multiple crimes against Roma, Serb and Albanian civilians in the village of Jablanica in western Kosovo. Haradinaj subsequently garnered acclaim in Kosovo and served as the country’s prime minster until his 2005 indictment by ICTY.
When Kabashi refused to testify on June 5, 2007, in Haradinaj’s first trial, witness intimidation was cited as a possible motive. In the judge’s recent ruling on Kabashi’s refusal to testify in the re-trial, the judge discounted the defense’s claims of Kabashi’s frustration and war experience as motives for his actions. However, the ruling cited post-traumatic stress disorder made worse in a prison environment as a mitigating factor.
Haradinaj was acquitted in 2008 on charges including murder, rape, torture, abduction, cruel treatment, imprisonment, and forced deportation. The appellate court partially reversed his acquittal, calling for a retrial because of the original trial’s failure to obtain testimony from Kabashi and other witnesses.
By Alexandra Halsey-Storch Impunity Watch Desk Reporter, Europe
THE HAGUE, Netherlands – On Tuesday September 13, the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (“SNAP”), a Chicago-based non-profit organization, and the Center for Constitutional Rights (“CCR”), a New York City-based non-profit organization, filed an 80-page complaint accompanied by 20,000 pages of evidence to the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) urging the investigation and prosecution of the Pope and three other top Vatican officials who “tolerated and enabled the systemic and widespread” concealment of child sex abuse.
How close is too close? (Photo Courtesy of Human Restore).
The ICC is a criminal court, independent from the functions of the United Nations. The Court is governed by the “Rome Statute,” which are a set of international laws, ratified by 117 countries including Italy, Germany and Belgium. The United States is not a signatory.
Florence Olara, a spokesperson from the ICC prosecutor’s office has said that those reviewing the complaint and supporting evidence will first consider whether the crimes fall under the Court’s jurisdiction. There has been some speculation from international law experts suggesting that the ICC will dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, meaning that the court does not have the statutory authority to hear the case.
Article 5 of the Rome Statute reads in relevant part that, “the jurisdiction of the court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The court has jurisdiction in accordance with this statute with respect to…crimes against humanity.” Furthermore, “crimes against humanity” are defined as, in relevant part, torture or rape (among others) or “other forms of sexual violence of comparable gravity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of that attack.”
While the Vatican and the numerous Archdiocese Centers around the world have deemed sexual abuse to generally mean “inappropriate touching,” in an attempt to down-play the horrifying allegations, perhaps a Grand Jury in Philadelphia clarified the term best when it said, “sexual abuse does not just mean ‘inappropriate touching.’ We mean rape. Boys who were raped orally, boys who were raped anally, girls who were raped vaginally. But even those victims whose physical abuse did not include actual rape—those who were subjected to fondling, to masturbation, to pornography—suffered psychological abuse that scarred their lives and sapped the faith in which they had been raise.” For those crimes, Vatican officials “should be brought to trial like any other officials guilty of crimes against humanity.”
In their complaint, SNAP and CCR have argued that the sexual abuse against tens of thousands of children in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Mexico, and the United States among others, constitutes a “serious crime” that “concerns the international community as a whole.” Pam Spees, an attorney with CCR explained that, “national jurisdictions can’t really get their arms around this. Prosecuting individual instances of child molestation or sexual abuse has not gotten at the larger systemic problem here. Accountability is the goal, and the ICC makes the most sense given that it is a global problem.”
Furthermore, the complaint further alleges that, “the [named] Vatican officials charged in this case are responsible for rape and other sexual violence and for the physical and psychological torture of victims around the world both through command responsibility and through direct cover up of crimes,” explained Spees.
Specifically, the complaint and accompanying evidence identifies “intentional cover-ups and affirmative steps taken that serve to perpetuate the violence and exacerbate the harm.” For example, various policies and practices were (and still are) in place that allowed high-level officials to move offending priests from “parish to parish with no warning to parishioners and others with whom [the priests] came in contact.
Perhaps most disturbing, is that the same or similar practices and policies have been found in virtually every country where cases of sexual violence have been brought to light.
On the other hand, international law expert Mark Ellis from the International Bar Association has argued in response to SNAP’s complaint that a “widespread or systemic attack” is really a “policy, in which the government or authorities are planning the attack. When you look at the concept of why and how the ICC was created,” he says, “I just don’t think this fits.”
In the past, Pope Benedict, speaking on behalf of the Vatican, has expressed “shame and sorry” over the tragic accusations of sexual abuse made by victims about priests; but, he has also maintained that priests are appointed by bishops and not the “Vatican hierarchy,” in an attempt to divert responsibility.
In response to the filing of this particular complaint, Vatican spokesperson Federico Lombardi did not release a comment to the press.
Regardless of whether or not the ICC dismisses the complaint or authorizes further investigation, the New York Times has called this current complaint the “most substantive effort yet to hold the Pope and Vatican accountable in an international court for sexual abuse by priests.” Even if the ICC does dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, as Mark Ellis pointed out, “the filing does something that’s important. It raises awareness.”
By Brittney Hodnik
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America
OTTAWA, Canada – Students at the University of Montreal may be facing a human rights complaint after dressing up in blackface. A group of business students was taking part in a track and field event and wanted to dress up like Olympic runner, Usain Bolt, from Jamaica. The students say that Bolt “is a role model for them” and it was “harmless fun” according to The Calgary Sun. Many others believe that the situation was racist, offensive and wrong.
Students at the University of Montreal's business school dressed up in black face at a track and field event. (Image Courtesy of NewsOne.com)
The students were dressed in Jamaican-flag-colors, completely covered in black body paint, and were shouting “smoke more weed,” according to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (“CBC News”). In addition, other Rastafarian stereotypes were implied and the students were holding up a stuffed monkey.
A McGill University law student, Anthony Morgan walked by the campus and saw the event. He said that from what he could tell, he “was the only black person there” and he “felt extremely uncomfortable in [his] own skin,” reported CTV Montreal. Morgan says he is considering filing a human rights complaint for the offensive use of blackface.
Blackface has significant negative connotations. Historically, whites used blackface to make a mockery of African-Americans and demean them. Even if the students did not mean to be offensive, it came across as such. CBC News quoted Justice Canada as saying, “This event presumably was planned for weeks. Didn’t ANYONE think this might have been offensive and racist?”
Others, such as David Jorgensen said that the act was clearly “in poor taste” but “these immature young adults are entitled to their freedom of expression, no matter how distasteful [other] people may find it,” reported CBC News. In fact, Morgan himself says that he does not want the students to be punished but rather he “hopes the university will try and educate these students on the historical context of blackface and to make them do research on Jamaican culture,” according to The Calgary Sun.
“They had reduced all of who I am and the history of Jamaica and culture of Jamaica to these negative connotations of weed smoking, black skin, rastas,” Morgan told CBC News.
The University will organize an intercultural-relations session for those involved and will use the event” as an occasion for learning,” reported The Calgary Sun. As of now, no further disciplinary action is planned by the business school. Morgan said that he hopes that Quebec’s human rights commission will do an independent investigation into the event.
Postcard distributed by Amnesty International (Photo Courtesy of Amnesty International).
By Daniel M. Austin
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia – On Friday, September 16, human rights group Amnesty International and the European Parliament called on the Eritrean government to release 11 former government officials who have been held incommunicado since 2001. The 12 detainees have not had any contact with the outside world since their arrest and none of the detainees have been formally charged with a crime since their detention began. Amnesty International is using the 10 year anniversary of the detainees’ arrest to remind international observers of President Isaias Afewerki’s repressive regime including the butal tactics that have been used to stifle freedom of expression and silence opposition figures.
The 11 detainees are described by Amnesty International as “prisoners of conscience.” The former government officials include Vice President Mahmoud Sherifo, Foreign Minister Haile Woldetensae, military Chief-of-staff Ogbe Abraha and several other officials who criticized President Isaias Afewerki and asked for democratic reforms.
Amnesty International is demanding: “The Eritrean authorities must immediately and unconditionally release 11 prominent politicians, including three former cabinet ministers, who have been held incommunicado without charge for 10 years.” Along with calling for the release of these prisoners, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director for Africa, Michelle Kagari is calling on the Eritrean government to provide the detainees with appropriate medical care, access to attorneys, and family members of the detainees with the location or prison where they loved ones are being held.
Along with calling for the release of these prisoners, Amnesty International is also highlighting the prison conditions under which these detainees are being housed. Amnesty International describes the prison system in Eritrea as “notoriously dire.” In particular, inmates are housed in underground cells or in shipping containers, subject to extreme desert temperatures.
According to an Eritrean government official, Presidential adviser, Yemane Gebreab, the 11 people held in connection with the 2001 incident were not calling for government reforms but were arrested for threatening Eritrea’s national security. Mr. Gebreab told BBC’s Focus on Africa programme, “If they had succeeded in their plans Eritrea today would no longer exist as an independent sovereign state, or it would have been another Somalia.”
Consistently considered one of the world’s worst human rights offenders, Eritrea has repeatedly denied allegations of human rights abuses and has frequently denounced human rights workers as spies working for foreign intelligence agencies.
By Carolyn Abdenour Impunity Watch Reporter – Africa
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa – Julius Malema, South Africa’s African National Congress (“ANC”) youth leader, accused South Africa’s courts of being racist on Wednesday, 14 September, after they convicted him of hate speech on Monday, 12 September. The court held Malema’s signature song ‘Dubul ibhunu’ roused hatred. Loosely translated, the song means, “Shoot the Boer”.
ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema fights court decision. (Photo Courtesy of BBC)
Judge Collin Lamont categorized the song as hate speech. He banned people from using the song’s word in private or public. However, ANC supporters began singing the song minutes after the ruling, and police did not arrest the singers outside the courtroom.
Afrikaner rights groups led by AfriForum filed a legal complaint to ban Malema from singing the song. AfriForum believes the song incites violence towards the Afrikaners, a white minority ethnic group in South Africa who ruled the country under Apartheid. Although the ANC and Malema stated they plan to appeal the verdict, the BBC reports analysts fear ANC will face difficulties disciplining him as this verdict increases his popularity.
The song discusses Afrikaners and farmers, and it became popular during the anti-apartheid movement. Malema responded to the verdict with “Once again we find ourselves subjected to white minority approval. Apartheid is being brought through the back door.”
Malema argues the song symbolizes the ongoing fight against oppression and injustice. He asserts the word “Boer” refers to the Apartheid system, not Afrikaners. Moreover, Malema emphasizes these songs should be protected by the law. He intends to ask Parliament to protect these liberation songs as a part of the country’s anti-apartheid heritage. Malema said “The judge alone takes the decision to ban the people’s song. It’s an unfair practice which we must not just accept. We must fight it.”
South Africa’s laws and liberal constitution written after Apartheid are interpreted by white judges appointed under Apartheid along with judges of all races appointed after Apartheid. Malema, a black man, feels the government has not changed the judicial system enough after Apartheid.
The ANC is currently conducting disciplinary hearings against Malema for violating the ANC constitution, calling to overthrow the leader of Botswana, and undermining South Africa President Jacob Zuma. The police are also investigating Malema for corrupting government contracts.
Malema believes he is a victim of a witch-hunt due to his opposition against Zuma. However, Malema supported Zuma’s rise to power in 1999.
The court held Malema responsible for singing the song in public. Malema responded that “Even if I wanted, I would not have the capacity (to compose it). I have got limitations. I sing badly, I have got no copyright (on it).”
