ECHR Delivers Verdict on Gërdec Ammunition Depot Explosion Case

By: Firdevs Okatan

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On November 7, 2023, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) reached a decision in the case of Durham and Others v Albania, addressing the adequacy of the investigation into a devastating explosion at the Gërdec weapon decommissioning facility in Albania.

 
March 15, 2008, marked a tragic event at a facility located in Gërdec, Albania, leading to the unfortunate loss of 26 lives and injuries to approximately 300 individuals | Photo Courtesy of Wikipedia.
  

On March 15, 2008, a massive explosion occurred at the Gërdec facility, resulting in 26 fatalities and around 300 injuries. Some of the applicants to the court had family members injured or killed in the explosion, while others were themselves severely injured as they were working at the facility. Investigations revealed numerous safety violations, including the absence of required licenses, inadequate training, and violations of military regulations.

Indictments were filed against 29 individuals, including a former Minister of Defence, but the prosecution against the former minister was discontinued due to parliamentary immunity. Civil claims were lodged by some applicants against the accused, which were separated from the criminal proceedings. The applicants argued that this separation deprived them of participation in the criminal trial, violating the principle of adversarial proceedings.

Ultimately, 24 of the accused were found guilty of various criminal offenses related to the Gërdec incident. However, some sentences were reduced, and the applicants were left without a final conclusion regarding the responsibility of the former Minister of Defence.

The ECHR concluded that the investigation was generally adequate in establishing the circumstances and identifying those responsible for the incident. However, it found a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 of the Convention, as the applicants were denied effective participation in the criminal proceedings.

Regarding the substantive aspect of Article 2, the Court found that applicants who had accepted compensation had renounced further use of national remedies, while those who had not pursued civil claims had not exhausted all available legal avenues.

The Court ordered Albania to pay compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.

For further information, please see:

Albania Daily News – Gërdec case, Strasbourg Court decides in favour of the affected families – 7 Nov. 2023

ECHR – Durdaj and Others v. Albania – 7 Nov.  2023

ECHR – Judgment concerning Albania – 7 Nov. 2023

European Convention on Human Rights – 1950

LawEuro – Case Of Durdaj And Others v. Albania – 63543/09 and 3 others. The application concerns the explosion at the Gërdec facility for dismantling decommissioned and obsolete weapons – 7 Nov. 2023

 

 

 

IACHR Releases Resolution Finding Displaced Triqui Families at Risk of Damage to Their Rights, Requests Action from Mexican Government

By: Alexa Connaughton

Journal of Global Rights and Organizations Associate Articles Editor

SAN JOSE, Costa Rica – The IAHCR has recently released a resolution finding that Triqui families who were displaced from their villages are at “risk of irreparable damage to their rights” and requesting that the state of Mexico take precautionary measures to protect the displaced Triqui families.

 
Venustiana, a teacher, in front of one of the protest banners commemorating one year since the forced displacement. | Photo Courtesy of Pie de Página and Isabel Briseño.
  

In December of 2020 a group of about 100 people, all part of a paramilitary group called MULTI (Triqui Struggle Unification Movement), attacked two Triqui villages, Tierra Blanca and Copala in Oaxaca, a state in southern Mexico. The attack started the morning of December 26th, when the paramilitary group began shooting into houses, killing, injuring, and kidnapping residents. Families were forced to flee in secret, resulting in the displacement of a total of 144 Triqui families. Some families were told to return to their homes, but no protection or preventative measures were offered by the government. Another attack occurred less than a month later. Following the December attack, there have been several instances of violence with little to no intervention by the government.

In 2020, it was estimated that approximately 4,077 indigenous people had been forcibly displaced from their home territories in Mexico. In Oaxaca alone, an estimated five indigenous communities were displaced, comprising 33 percent of the 4,077 total indigenous people. Meanwhile, 35 percent of the Triqui population has been displaced by violence.

Many of the Triqui families who were displaced went to the capital city of Oaxaca, Mexico City, and a nearby village of Yosoyuxi, where they have been living on the streets while they wait to be heard by authorities. Since the displacement in December of 2020, groups such as the MULTI have formed and conducted demonstrations and protests to seek help from the Mexican government for the Triqui families to return to their homes. These efforts have been met with more violence. During one sit in in Mexico City, people were forcibly removed and taken to shelters where they were met with deplorable conditions and no path to return to their homes.

In the course of their investigation, the IACHR heard arguments from the state of Mexico regarding their actions in response to these violent events. Mexico argues that they have given attention to the Triqui conflict as well as provided food, and health and economic support.  After investigating the issue, the IACHR found that there was a serious threat the Triqui families rights. The IACHR requested that Mexico adopt the measures necessary to safeguard the life and integrity of Triqui families, as well as take the security measures necessary to guarantee that the families can return to their communities. Finally, the IACHR requested that Mexico report on investigation of the events in an effort to prevent future attacks.

For further information, please see:

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – Resolución 62/2023 – 27 Oct. 2023

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OAS – CIDH Otorga Medidas Cautelares a Familias Indígenas Triquis Desplazadas en México – 1 Nov. 2023

Latin America Reports – Mexico City Police Break Up Encampment of Displaced Triqui People Near National Palace – 29 April 2022

Pie de Página – Displaced Triquis in Mexico City Demand Safe Return to Their Land – 7 Feb. 2022

Pulse News Mexico – Massive Displacement of Oaxaca’s Triqui Disregarded by Government – 19 April 2022

 

 

 

 

 

                                                           

ICJ Hears Oral Arguments on Whether to Issue Provisional Measures Against Venezuela’s Consultative Referendum Questions

By: Megan Mary Qualters

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The Co-Republic of Guyana (Guyana) is asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue provisional measures against the Bolivian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela) regarding their border conflict and the Agreement that governs it. The ICJ, after establishing its jurisdictional authority in this situation, heard initial oral arguments from each country on Tuesday, November 14th and Wednesday, November 15th, 2023.

 
Photo map of Venezuela and Guyana and the region known as the “Guayana Esequiba.” | Photo courtesy of WLRN Public Radio and Television.
  

Background:

The Arbitral Agreement of 1899 (Agreement) established the boundary line between the “Colony of British Guiana” (Guyana) and the “United States of Venezuela” (Venezuela). However, a strip of land called the “Guayana Esequiba” is highly contested territory between the two countries. The Agreement establishes that the Guayana Esequiba is administered to Guyana, but Venezuela claims that the Guayana Esequiba is its own territory. The dispute originates from the colonial powers; Venezuela declared its independence from Spain in 1811, and Guyana only received independence from the United Kingdom in 1966. Venezuela contends that the Agreement was fraudulently imposed, despite the fact that it did not contest the border upon the Agreement’s inception. The dispute between the countries is before the ICJ upon referral from the Secretary-General acting within the authority of the Geneva Agreement of 1966. The Geneva Agreement established how a peaceful settlement was to be reached between border controversies should countries not reach their own agreement; Venezuela and Guyana are both a party to this agreement.

What’s New:

On October 3rd, 2023, Venezuela’s National Electoral Council published a list of five questions that it plans to use in a public “Consultative Referendum” on December 3rd, 2023. Notably, the first question is “Do you agree to reject, by all means in accordance with the Law, the line fraudulently imposed by the 1899 Paris Arbitral Award, that seeks to strip us of our Guayana Esequiba?” The third question is about ignoring the jurisdiction the ICJ has over this controversy. The fifth question calls for the creation of a Guayana Esequiba State with a plan to present that territory’s citizens with Venezuelan citizenship, and incorporate it into Venezuelan territory. Guyana asserts that these questions reflect Venezuela’s intention to unilaterally and unlawfully seize, annex, and incorporate the Guayana Esequiba. Therefore, Guyana asked the ICJ on October 27th, 2023 to issue provisional measures that would prohibit Venezuela from publishing questions and any other attempt to “seize annex or incorporate” any land that belongs to Guyana. The ICJ agreed to hear oral arguments regarding this issue on November 14th and 15th, 2023.  

What is a Provisional Measure Issued by the ICJ:

A provisional measure is an interim order issued for immediate protection of an individual’s rights under a treaty or convention, if those rights are at “a real imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed, before the Court gives its final decision, of suffering irreparable prejudice absent enactment measures.”

Guyana’s Call for Urgent Action:

In Guyana’s request for provisional measures from the ICJ, Guyana argues that if Venezuela holds the Referendum on December 3rd, it can anticipate being annexed unlawfully. Guyana argues that if annexation happens, it will be irreparably prejudiced in the ICJ proceedings regarding the validity of the Agreement. Furthermore, the Guyana argues that it will be unable to recover even if the ICJ later holds the Agreement to be valid or settles the dispute in a way which grants Guyana any part of the Guayana Esequiba.  Guyana urges that according to Article 41(1) of the Statute of the ICJ, the ICJ must issue provisional measures.

For further information, please see:

United Nations – Agreement to Resolve the Controversy over the Frontier between Venezuela and British Guiana (Geneva Agreement) – May 6 1966

ICJ – Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, (Guyana v. Venezuela) – Accessed November 9, 2023

UN: Political and Peacebuilding Affairs – Boarder Controversy between Guyana and Venezuela – ND

ICJ – Case Concerning Arbitral Award of 3 Oct. 1899, (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Lieber Institute – The ICJ’s Provisional Measures Order: Unprecedented – Mar. 17, 2022

ICJ – Press Releases – Nov. 9, 2023

WLRN – Venezuelans Say Most Of Guyana Is Theirs. Guyanese Call That A ‘Jumbie’ Story – Sept. 14, 2021

ECHR Finds Italy Violated Residents’ Human Rights Over Pollution from the Campania Garbage Crisis

By: Johannah Brown

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

NAPLES, Italy – In the case Locascia and Others v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the applicants. The case, initially filed in 2010 by nineteen residents from the Caserta and Naples provinces, revolves around a state of emergency declared in 1994 over the mismanagement of the waste cycle that lasted for more than a decade. The ruling found that Italy’s handling of the 15-year-long garbage crisis violated the human rights of the residents. The Court determined that Italian authorities had contravened Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which safeguards the right to respect for private life and home. The violations stemmed from their failure to ensure proper waste collection, treatment, and disposal and neglecting to take the necessary precautions to protect the applicants’ human rights.

 
Streets of Naples strewn with uncollected Garbage 2010 | Photo Courtesy of AFP/Roberto Salmone
  

In 1994, Italian authorities appointed a special commissioner to take control of the waste cycle, which had previously been under the unofficial control of organized crime (the Camorra). The Camorra had been profiting from controlling dumps in the region and engaging in the illegal business of transporting waste from the northern industrial areas and dumping it in local sites. Over time, both legal and illegal dumps filled, interrupting service and accumulating garbage in the streets and neighborhoods. The crisis disrupted daily life, impacting mobility, prompting school closures, and affecting local markets, forming the basis for the Article 8 complaints.

The court’s ruling also addressed the environmental effects of a dumping site outside Naples called Lo Uttaro. Three decades of illegal dumping and burning of trash led to severe groundwater contamination, resulting in multiple bans on the use of groundwater in the area and air pollution affecting residents’ health. Despite the site being closed in 2001 and the awareness of environmental hazards, authorities reopened the site in 2007. During this period, several environmental studies, including one by the World Health Organization (WHO), revealed significantly higher cancer mortality rates in the provinces of Naples and Caserta compared to the rest of the Campania region, as well as more frequent signs of congenital malformations. According to the court, Italy has still not fully implemented plans to secure and clean up the site, and there was no clear timeframe to do so.

The recent ruling by the ECHR was based on these studies, as well as various judicial and administrative decisions, including judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). While the court did not pinpoint responsibility for the crisis, it ruled—concerning the inadequate handling of waste collection, treatment, and disposal—that the Italian authorities had violated the applicant’s right to private life and home. Regarding the complaint about the clean-up of Lo Uttaro, the Court ruled that authorities failed to take the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ rights, therefore violating Article 8 of the Convention.

The judgment is a Chamber Judgment and is not final. If the ruling is upheld, Italy must submit a plan outlining the actions they intend to take in response to the ruling.

For further information, please see:

ECHR – Court judgment finds violation of Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights – 19 Oct. 2023

ECHR – Communicated Case – 19 Residents of Italy claiming a violation of Article 2 and Article 8 based on the Campania Garbage Crisis from 1994-2009 – 05 Mar. 2013

EU Law Live – ECtHR finds violation of human rights in Campania Waste Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

ABC News – European Court finds Italy violated human rights over Naples Garbage Crisis – 19 Oct. 2023

Reuters – Mafia involvement in Naples Garbage Crisis – 9 Jan. 2008

 

 

ECHR’s Grand Chamber to Hear Case Against World Athletics Regulations Requiring Hormone Treatment for Female Athletes

By: Garrison Funk

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

STRASBOURG, France – On November 6, 2023, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) accepted the referral of Semenya v. Switzerland, a case challenging the decision of the Swiss Federal Tribunal’s refusal to overturn regulations issued by World Athletics restricting eligibility for women’s athletic competitions.

 
Caster Semenya after winning the woman’s 800m at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in Australia | Photo Courtesy of AP News, Mark Schiefelbein
  

The case, filed by two-time Olympic gold medalist Caster Semenya, challenges the 2018 regulations instituted by World Athletics which limit hormone levels in female athletes for certain athletic events.

Born with differences of sexual development (DSD), Semenya has naturally elevated levels of testosterone. Under the World Athletics regulations, Semenya and all other female athletes with DSD would be required to submit to hormone-suppressing treatment for six months in order to compete in female track events between 400m and the mile.

This is not World Athletics’ first attempt to institute hormonal restrictions on women’s athletics. World Athletics (formerly the International Association of Athletics Federations) first introduced “hyperandrogenism” regulations in 2011, which instituted a ban on any female athlete who’s androgen levels fell within the male range.

These regulations were challenged by Dutee Chand in 2014 after World Athletics deemed her ineligible to compete. The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) partially upheld Chand’s appeal and subsequently suspended the World Athletics regulations.

Following this decision, World Athletics withdrew the regulations. In 2018, it instituted the “Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development” regulations at issue which require any female athlete with DSD to reduce her blood testosterone to below five nmol/L for six months prior to competition and maintain these levels in order to compete.

In compliance with her arbitration clause, Semenya originally filed her case with CAS on June 18, 2018. The CAS found the World Athletics regulations to be discriminatory but held that such discrimination was a necessary, reasonable, and proportionate means of upholding the integrity of female athletics. Semenya’s subsequent appeal to the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT) was dismissed.

Following dismissal by the SFT, Semenya filed the present case against Switzerland in the ECHR, alleging violations of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 for failing to provide sufficient institutional and procedural protections against discrimination and Article 13 for breaching her right to an effective remedy.

The ECHR ruled in Semenya’s favor on July 11, 2023, and the Swiss government subsequently requested the matter be referred to the Grand Chamber for reconsideration. The grant of referral was approved on November 6, 2023.

For further information, please see:

BBC News – Caster Semenya: Double Olympic Champion ‘not ashamed of being different’ – 7 Nov. 2023

CAS – Mokgadi Caster Semenya v. International Association of Athletics Federations – 30 Apr. 2019

CNN – Caster Semenya says she went through ‘hell’ due to testosterone limits imposed on female athletes – 6 Nov. 2023

ECHR – Referral to the Grand Chamber – 6 Nov. 2023

Strasbourg Observers – Caster Semenya v. Switzerland: Eligibility of Intersex Female Athlete in Female Athletic Events – 27 Sept. 2023

World Athletics – IAAF introduces new eligibility regulations for female classification – 26 Apr. 2018

World Athletics – IAAF to introduce eligibility rules for females with hyperandrogenism – 12 Apr. 2011