Human Rights Commission Investigates Homicides in Mexico

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

U.S. Court of Appeals Denies Relief to Torture Victim

 

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

Canada Plans to Cut Down Refugee Acceptance

By William Miller

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada  Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said that Canada plans to cut the number of people receiving refugee status next year. Specifically, the plan will target those who make their claim for refugee status after entering the country. The plan expects to give refugee status to between nine and twelve thousand people who filed their claim after arriving in Canada. This is less than half of what was expected in 2006.

Kenney, who promised to unveil a plan for reform before Christmas, has long criticized the current refugee system as being inefficient and ripe for abuse. Canada currently spends 29,000 dollars per claimant and had a backlog of 60,000 claims when Kenney made his promise last month.

The process can take up to five years and provides three stages of appeal in federal court. Kenney called this inefficiency “an advertisement for people to come and abuse the system.” He has alleged that the system is commonly abused by what he calls “bogus claimants” who come to the country illegally and receive advice from “phony immigration consultants” on how to cheat the system and gain refugee status.

Kenney has criticized the current plans consideration of those who enter the country illegally, saying “We want to ensure that we don’t end up with a two-tier immigration system, one tier for legal law-abiding immigrants who wait patiently to come to Canada the legal way, and another that incentizes (sic) false refugee claimants to come through the back door.”

The cuts have been met with criticism from those who fear the plan is insensitive to the hardships prospective refugees are looking to escape. Immigration critic Olivia Chow stated: “Beatings, torture, suffering and even deaths will occur and unfortunately many will be turned away. Canada is no longer a land of hope and compassion.”

Canada’s current immigration system accepts a great deal of people seeking refugee status, many of whom enter the country illegally before filing their claim. In 2008, Canada accepted 22,000 refugees many of whom had applied after arriving in Canada. In 2006, tolerance for in-country applications peaked in Canada, with an estimate of between 22,500 and 28,800 applications for refugee status from those already in the country. Just last month, on October 17, Canadian authorities stopped seventy-six Tamil refugees trying to enter the country illegally to escape oppression in Sri Lanka. Those men will be able to apply for refugee status despite concerns that there may be members of the Tamil tigers hiding among them. Tamil tigers are a rebel group currently at war with the government in Sri Lanka.

For more information, please see:

Ottawa Citizen – Immigration Minister Jason Kenney Cuts Refugee Targets for 2010 – 2 November 2009

Ottawa Citizen – Would-be Migrants will Face Tough Scrutiny: Kenney – 20 October 2009

National Post – Refugee System Reforms in Works, Kenny Says – 7 October 2009

Canada Calls for UN Inspectors to Focus on Iran

By William Miller,

Impunity Watch Reporter, North America

OTTAWA, Canada – A Canadian drafted UN resolution released on Thursday, October 29 sharply criticized Iran for their continuing violations of human rights. Canada has proposed such resolutions before but this resolution is the first to criticize UN Special Investigators for their failure investigate Iran’s atrocious human rights violations.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon suggested that this resolution will be the strongest Criticism of Iran’s human rights violations drafted by Canada. Cannon has been historically critical of Iran and led a walkout in protest of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month at the UN Delegation.

Canada has emerged as the leader in attacking Iran’s human rights violations and have drafted all resolutions criticizing such violations since 2003. In that year, an Iranian born photojournalist named Zahara Kazemi was arrested, tortured and killed in Iran. The Canadian resolutions stemming from this incident have been unanimously supported by the UN despite persistent attacks on procedural grounds by Iran.

The current resolution will be the first one to criticize inspectors by asking them to focus more intensely on Iran. Past resolutions drafted by Canada have called for Iranian cooperation but have fallen short of criticizing inspectors. The draft specifically mentions inspectors who focus their investigations in areas of human rights such as extra-judicial executions, torture, free speech suppression, persecution of human rights activists, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances. Iran has issued a standing invitation to such investigators but has consistently ignored attempts by investigators looking to visit the country and has not filled a single request in four years.

UN inspectors are already facing criticism for not focusing their efforts on countries like Iran and instead placing the majority of their attention on developed democracies. Critics say that developed countries already have the systems in place to deal with violations and that countries like Iran, where the inspectors are truly needed, are left unchecked. Inspector Gay MacDougal was mentioned as one of the unnecessary inspectors. MacDougal focuses on minorities and was investigating Canada as the resolution was being finished. So far fifty percent of the countries visited by McDougal have been mature democracies like Canada.

The resolution specifically accuses Iran of “persistent failure to uphold due process of law rights, and violation of rights of detainees, including defendants held without charge or incommunicado, the systematic and arbitrary use of prolonged solitary confinement, and lack of timely access to legal representation.” The resolution also alleges increased discrimination against minorities pointing to the 2008 arrest of Bahai religious leaders who are currently still being held. Other specific examples of human rights abuses mentioned in the resolution include flogging, amputation and stoning.

For more information, please see:

National Post – Of Toronto & Tehran – 30 October 2009

Washington TV – Canada Urges UN Investigators to Focus on Rights abuses in Iran – 30 October 2009

Ottawa Citizen – Canada Unveils UN Resolution Blasting Iran’s Rights Record – 29 October 2009

The Vancouver Sun – Canada Tries to Focus UN Spotlight on Iran’s Human Rights Record – 28 October

Decree Grants Immunity to Fiji Coup Leaders

By Eileen Gould
Impunity Watch Reporter, Oceania

SUVA, Fiji – The leaders of the coup that overtook Fiji’s democratically elected has been given full immunity from prosecution.

According to a report issued on Friday, Fiji’s military leader, Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama, has been given full immunity from prosecution. A decree issued on March 22 gives full immunity to those who participated in the coups of 2000 and 2006.  The current president, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, granted immunity to Bainimarama and the other members of the coup, a coup in 2000 as well as for an attempted mutiny at the Fiji army barracks.

Fiji’s former president Ratu Josefa Iloilo was also granted immunity from prosecution.  Iloilo abrogated the constitution in 2009, after the Court of Appeal said that Bainimarama’s coup was illegal.

Nailatikau’s decree grants immunity from criminal or civil actions to members of the police, military and prison service, as well as all individuals who acted under official orders.

According to the president of Fiji Law Society, Dorsami Naidu, the decree also awards immunity for future actions.

Individuals who have already been convicted of crimes will not be given immunity.  For instance, George Speight, businessman and leader of the 2000 coup, is serving a life sentence.

Mr. Speight and the other members of the coup gave themselves immunity but Bainimarama went back on this deal, and these men were arrested.

It is believed that the decree was issued in response to the decision by a court to award compensation to an individual who was tortured by individuals during the 2000 coup.

Fiji Law Society stated that the decree “basically does away with all actions, or all events that may have occurred, or that may be before a court or a tribunal or any body which would be seeking any form of damages, compensation, or any claim against the present regime.”

The Coalition for Democracy in Fiji states that individuals in power will not allow free elections to take place unless they have been granted full immunity from prosecution.  It allows them to get away with many egregious acts.

For more information please see:
Radio New Zealand News – Fiji leaders’ immunity decree ‘a mockery’ – 10 April 2010

Monsters and Critics – Fiji’s 2006 coup leaders give themselves legal immunity – 09 April 2010

Radio New Zealand International – Law society says Fiji coup leaders think they are above the law – 09 April 2010